Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is visiting the United States this week, has never managed to conceal his natural affinity for Republicans and discomfort with Democrats.

Netanyahu’s ideological sympathies are legitimate. The problem is that by doing so he — and like-minded U.S. conservatives — are flirting with disaster: Undermining the paradigm of bipartisan support for Israel.

Netanyahu demonstrated this Sunday, when he arrived in New Orleans. He asserted that Iran should be threatened with an air strike, implying that sanctions aren’t working. Defense Secretary Robert Gates quickly rebuked him.

POLITICO 44

But the prime minister’s timing was no coincidence. It echoed Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) statement a day earlier and was probably intended to provide Republicans with a key talking point: The Obama administration is not doing enough to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear capability.

Netanyahu is set to meet in Washington with Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday. He would probably prefer to meet with Republicans. Though it is unclear which Republicans he’s most comfortable with: James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, or Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell. In any case former President Bill Clinton can attest to Netanyahu’s political love affair with Newt Gingrich in 1997-98.

Netanyahu’s actions are a distinct break from the last 40 years, when Israel’s strengthening ties with Washington were all a product of bipartisan support — regardless of who was in the White House or who controlled Congress.

Bipartisanship is not a euphemism for conformity of thought. It does not and should not discourage a debate on Middle East policy. It should also not be interpreted as quashing discourse or suppression of criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East and Israel.

However politically expedient some Republicans consider this idea of transforming the GOP into the natural “Pro Israel” party, it is likely to harm Israel, may dent some Democrats in the process and might well tarnish the Republicans, on whose behalf these attempts are made.

From an Israeli perspective, it’s worthwhile to state some basic truisms:

1. Israel’s relations with the United States are a strategic asset without parallel or substitute.

2.The “special relationship” forged in the past few decades is a central pillar of Israel’s national security and deterrence power, and it constitutes Israel’s greatest foreign and defense policy achievement.

3. U.S. military aid and generous access to state-of-the-art military technology and platforms defines Israel’s “qualitative advantage.”

4. Washington’s consistent diplomatic support in international institutions, in the face of hostility and often hypocrisy, shields Israel from pariah status.

Here’s another truism: The above reality was developed and can be sustained only if it is based on bipartisanship.

Yes, that maligned “B” word. The concept seems erased to the point of extinction from the U.S. political lexicon — but the practice still exists when it comes to Israel. Politically, bipartisanship became an “asset within an asset.”

It is what it is: An expression of support for an ally. The friendship of the American people, the commonality of values and shared self-definition of two frontier societies established in defiance of old orders, the similar self-perception of “a shining city on the hill” and the affinity of strategic outlook transcend party lines.