Every Criticism of Israel is Not Anti-Semitism
 

Will someone explain the logic of sacrificing American lives and American tax-payer dollars to liberate the Iraqis while at the same time spending even more American tax-payer dollars to support a nation that is confiscating a people's land and spending 1.5 billion dollars to build a 427 mile wall around those people?

What makes this even more incomprehensible is that many of that nation's citizens had themselves, or members of their family, been rounded up and penned in similar encampments and ghettos within the memory of many adults. That very concept was condemned and the world collectively vowed never to let it begin again. Is this some bizarre corruption of the biblical admonition to "Do unto others"?

If we can put aside the fact that many Americans share the same religion as the state religion of Israel and look at the situation objectively, unemotionally and fairly, it is obvious that no religion would condone this act. That eliminates any aspect of Judaism, and by extension, eliminates labeling the condemnation of constructing this wall as anti-Semitism. This is not a religious issue. This is an extreme violation of human rights and the connection of a shared humanity should transcend a connection of a shared religion.

Israel is wrong. Ariel Sharon is wrong. He would be wrong if he were Christian. He would be wrong if he were Muslim. He is wrong as a Jew. Evil acts are committed by people of every nationality, race and creed. Hitler was a Christian yet no one who condemned Hitler was considered anti-Christian. Saddam is a Muslim yet no one who condemned Saddam was considered anti-Muslim. Sharon should not be allowed to hide his atrocities under a protective blanket of Jewry. Israel must not be exempt from criticism when it commits deplorable acts.

Sharon is endangering America and American lives in two ways. First, while we have armed Israel to the point that it now has the fourth most powerful military in the world, if it were to be attacked by a coalition of Arab and Muslim nations in support of the Palestinians, the United States would be drawn into that conflict in the same way, in support of Israel. Secondly, because we have armed Israel and supported it while it persecuted the Palestinians, we will be targeted for terrorist attacks. The building of this wall is a huge inflammatory issue which could be the straw that ignites another World War. With the number of countries that possess nuclear weapons, including Israel, we cannot afford to allow our ally to further destabilize and antagonize the Middle East with our implied consent.

While Israel certainly deserves sympathy for having to endure attacks by suicide bombers, to wall in 1.2 million Palestinians, confiscating their land, separating farmers from their fields, and restricting movement of the Palestinians to be allowed only with Israeli permission is no way to promote peace and will not ensure the safety of Israelis.

Bush tentatively expressed an opposition to the wall to Sharon, but his macho, John Wayne, "Bring 'em on" stance was noticeably absent. What was visible is what the rest of the world perceives, that the policy of the United States in one of hypocrisy. That image will damage our credibility with any attempt to establish democracy in Iraq or in future dealings where we would need to garner the support of other nations. While we should continue to support Israel, that support should be contingent on Israel's practice of human rights. We cannot allow the weapon of the anti-Semitic label to be used against us to affect our fairness in carrying out our foreign policy. We have to be realistic and recognize that sometimes Israel can be wrong.

To remind us, we may have to adopt another national motto, "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me."

11-6-03