AFTER the horrors of Sept. 11, it was comforting to hear expressions of support from around the world. But many of us worried that this sympathy would lead to free rein that would let us do things we would regret. This did not happen. Our allies, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, cautioned us to limit our campaign.
Israel now is in a situation where a spike in terrorism has brought the need for self-defense. Like the American situation, however, this does not give them the right to unlimited action. America's status as an Israeli ally should not prevent us from criticizing policies we find excessive.
In the beginning of its "war on terrorism," the United States found itself with new allies wanting to get on the side of the victors. Of those allies, only Britain and Israel stood unquestionably behind every policy alternative we considered. Yet this does not make other allies less steadfast, or less supportive of our ultimate objective, which was bringing terrorists to justice.
|
Even with the concern of our allies, we weren't perfect. There still is a controversy about the prisoners held in Cuba and our conflation of the Taliban and al Qaida. Yet it was largely the pressure of our allies that caused us to attempt to get al Qaida out by diplomatic means -- expulsion by the Taliban -- for almost a month before we went to war. And after the Taliban was defeated, our allies held us responsible for peacekeeping despite our distaste for nation-building. Whatever any of us consider to be a just solution to the question of the Palestinians' future, it is indisputable that Israelis have a right to be shocked and angered by the seemingly endless wave of suicide bombings, and afraid for the future of their country. But conceding Israel's need to defend itself does not mean giving up the right to tell Israel when we think it has gone too far.
America was one of the first countries to recognize Israel, and Israel is our largest recipient of foreign aid. Over the objections of other countries, we have provided Israel with weapons since the 1967 war. As a result, we are a side target of other countries' anger against Israel.
This is not to argue that we should cut off the relationship with Israel. We have reasons to keep a relationship with Israel that go beyond the Jewish lobby. But the money and energy we have put into this relationship entitles the United States to speak up when it thinks that the campaign against terrorists has degenerated from security into senseless destruction. It is quite possible to support the existence of Israel and its right to self-defense without supporting the specific policies it uses against terrorists.
Indeed, it is the duty of the United States to speak up when it disagrees with Israel's policies. Israel needs to hear a voice of sanity. Friendship is not always about telling a friend what they want to hear. It also means telling them difficult things for their own good. Although Sharon's approval ratings are up, Israel is deeply divided over what to do. Israelis who oppose Sharon are not disloyal: They simply believe that Israel's tactics are harmful in the long run.
If Israel can handle internal dissension it also should be able to handle its allies' criticisms. What is more, most Israelis care about what the United States thinks. Our opinion is important to them, which suggests that most will not question our friendship just because we don't always agree.
Some Americans think it's hypocritical for us to criticize Israel during our own "war on terror." They would argue that because we sought revenge we can't stop anybody else.
But this argument has problems. First, it assumes that everyone in America was of one mind on Sept. 12 and still is, which simply isn't true. Second, the charge of hypocrisy only holds if the United States had opposed Israeli objectives and not just the latest tactics.
In reality, the United States has seen most of Israel's moves to this point as self-defense, and only has raised firm objections within the past two weeks. And at the same time that our government insisted on Israeli withdrawal, it affirmed its support for the Israeli objective.
If you look at the text of President Bush's speech on April 5, you will not find a plea to listen to terrorists, as the columnist Mitch Albom suggests we have done ("Terrorism and Hypocrisy in the Middle East," Detroit Free Press, April 14). What you will find is the expressed opinion that Israel's most recent offensive cannot get rid of all terrorism and ultimately will hurt chances of a settlement.
Friendship with Israel does not deprive the United States of the right or relieve it of the duty to criticize Israeli policies. Standing by and letting allies destroy themselves is not friendship, it's cowardice.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at emanagan@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | YesterdaySaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 4 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
