The first is to declare that Israel can do no wrong. Those who hold this view will defend what Israel does at all costs. Even if Israel were to do something (God forbid!) like eject all the Arabs under its control to, say, Jordan, these people would attempt to defend these actions. There is no line that Israel could cross that would make these people cease to support it.
This position is clearly morally reprehensible. It is not acceptable to pledge support for any organization no matter what it does, as this allows the organization in question to essentially commit whatever evils it wishes. Nor is it a rational definition of “pro-Israel.” If I say that I am pro-America, does that mean that I must support its actions when it waterboards detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or when its soldiers torture and sexually abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Or when, closer to home, same-sex couples can be permanently split by deportations authorized under the Defense of Marriage Act? It would be unpatriotic (and undemocratic) to simply stand by while policies that one strongly opposes are enforced. This is not what it means to be pro-Israel.
A second way is simply to support Israel’s right to exist, without any additional caveats attached. Under this definition, one could still oppose any of Israel’s policies, or even call for boycotts and sanctions against Israel — so long as one maintains that Israel has the right to exist. This position does not require that one should view Israel as a “friendly” country or treat it as an ally. This position is absurd. I believe firmly in Iran’s right to exist. But when even French President Nicolas Sarkozy declares that he cannot sit down with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, I cannot help but support the sanctions against Iran. Can I call this position “pro-Iran”? Absolutely not! It is just as absurd as saying that when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, it was still “pro-Iraq,” since it recognized the right of Iraq to exist.
The third position is somewhere in the middle. It recognizes that Israel, just like any country, has severe flaws. However, it realizes that despite these flaws, Israel is a country worth supporting and allying oneself with, given its position as a democratic country in a region that has an abysmal human rights record. Indeed, Israel is the only country in the Middle East and North Africa region with a ranking of “free” given by Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization that measures political rights and civil liberties in every country. The case for support is all the greater given the severe threats that Israel receives, not the least of which is nuclear annihilation by Iran — a threat that many countries find disturbingly plausible. Indeed, Sarkozy has since said that we must make sure Israel knows we are behind it. Just as I have problems with France’s burqa ban and Switzerland’s minaret ban and remain pro-France and pro-Switzerland, so too can I oppose construction of settlements in the West Bank and remain pro-Israel by my overall support for the country. It is this position into which I buy, and this is, in fact, the way most major pro-Israel organizations act on a national level.
When you debate whether or not to challenge American support for Israel, consider this position. While I feel that the pro-Israel community can do more to make clear that they do not support all of Israel’s policies, the fundamental position that Israel should be viewed as an ally still stands despite these flaws. I envision my activities on campus as an extension of this attitude, and I hope that others will see this way as the best way forward.
Through this lens, as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman argued in his August column “Steal This Movie,” we may even be able to effect the changes we would like to see in Israel’s policies. The country is more likely to listen to a friend than an enemy, to constructive rather than destructive criticism. Let us hope that with this in mind, all sides can come together with constructive solutions to bring peace to the volatile region of the Middle East.
Jeffrey Mensch, a math major from New York, N.Y., is president of Tigers for Israel. He can be reached a jmensch@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
