The problem with banning the phrase "Israel firster" is that it is a neat summation of an important problem, and when people bar such phrases they are really trying to shut down the discourse. And in fact Zionists themselves have used the term Israel firster when it suited their meaning. Notice how incredibly neutral Senator Leahy's comments are here, as reported (and criticized) by Adam Kredo:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) last Thursday criticized a hotly contested proposal concerning Palestinian refugees for not putting “the United States’ interests first”—a charge that critics said evokes the “Israel firster” slur at the center of the Middle East debate.
While debating an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) that would examine exactly how many Palestinian refugees benefit from U.S. tax dollars, Leahy expressed that the proposal does not put “the United States’ interests first.”
“Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I always look at what is in the United States’ interest first and foremost, and this would hurt the United States’ interests,” Leahy said, emphasizing the words “United States.”
“It may give a momentary advantage to one side or the other after we spend all that money, but it hurts the United States’ interests,” Leahy said.
Then look at this statement by an unnamed American official about briefing Israel about the Baghdad talks on Iranian nukes:
According to the U.S. official, the Israeli government was the first to be updated by them on what happened in Baghdad after the talks were over. "We updated the Israelis in detail before we updated our own government," the official said.
Yes and who comes first?