In the April 5 edition of the Tufts Daily, Ariella Charny wrote a response to a column written by Teddy Minch regarding U.S.-Israeli relations. While this article is not meant to be in support of Mr. Minch's article, it is in part a critique of some points made by Ms. Charny in her article and, in part, a brief analysis of some of Israel's foreign and domestic policies.
The first point of criticism is Ms. Charny's following assertion: That "it is not Israel but rather the United States that is tearing the alliance apart in the past few months." Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the United States has done absolutely nothing to worsen relations with Israel; it has only critiqued some of Israel's policies. As is common with many states and individuals, criticism is often misconstrued with outright opposition — a misunderstanding which is not the case with the United States and Israel, because the United States is a staunch ally of Israel and thus has no reason to oppose its interests. The United States continues to invest heavily in the Israeli economy and research and development, it continues to provide Israel with mutually agreeable military contracts and Israel continues to be the consistently largest per capita aid recipient of the United States.
Contrary to Ms. Charny's belief that the United States is tearing up the U.S.-Israeli relationship, the United States continues to wholeheartedly support Israel by its actions. The fact that it disagrees with some of Israel's policies does not mean that the United States is destroying an alliance it values so dearly. Like all other states, though, Israel is bound by the constraints of fallibility and should not take criticism so harshly — even if Israel considers the criticism to be untrue.
America's key points of recent disagreement with Israel can be separated into two categories: the Gaza War and settlement building. The United States opposed the Gaza War for obvious reasons: It is war with a destabilizing potential for the Middle East and it claimed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians while maiming even more than it killed (not to mention damage to infrastructure). While I do not wish to discuss the war itself, the overwhelming consensus in the world media, governments and non-governmental organizations is that Israel mishandled the war mainly due to the mass civilian casualties (estimates of killed at 1,100-1,500). The Israeli government's seemingly defensive posture toward criticism of the war constitutes evidence of a lack of concern for the massive damage it caused as a direct result; whether such is its intention or not, the government of Israel thus sends the message to the world that it is more concerned about its image than the human tragedy it inflicted. The United Nations and many governments and media sources were calling for an investigation for war crimes. Rather than silencing the world's criticism by launching such an investigation, Israel elected to dismiss all allegations lobbed in its direction. Dismissal does not constitute refutation, and thus Israel actively works against its own best diplomatic interests by offering the world an attitude of indifference regarding the Gaza War (not to mention the ideological ammunition it gave to thousands of potentially violent Muslim extremists).
The United States opposes settlement-building on the grounds that it is a violation of international law according to the United Nations. Indeed, the fact that settlement-building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem constitutes a violation of international law is indisputable, according to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 478. Unlike what Ms. Charny asserted in her article, it is not Israel's right to build in East Jerusalem. If Israel wishes to not be bound by such international laws, it ought to withdraw its status as a member state from the United Nations. If not, then it should comply with the laws of an organization it claims to uphold. The United States is completely justified in voicing criticism over Israel's violation of international law and there should be no questions in the minds of Israeli policymakers regarding the reasons for this critique.
While it was initially commendable that Israel initiated a 10-month moratorium on settlement-building, Israel immediately lost sympathy for this move for the following reason: "Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday [Dec. 17, 2009] that Israel's announced 10-month partial moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements was only a tactical move and a temporary one," according to Israel's daily newspaper, Haaretz. "‘It is clear to everyone that in 10 months, we will be building again full force; anyone who understands anything knows this,' he told a meeting in the West Bank settlement town of Ariel." It should be of no surprise to Israel that its 10-month ban was greeted negatively or not even acknowledged.
Whether in its dismissive and defensive attitude towards the investigation of the Gaza War or the renunciation of its obligation to uphold international law regarding settlement building, Israel has displayed an unwillingness to cooperate in the international arena while reacting poorly to international criticism, never mind taking measures to redress or disprove it. It is not just the United States but also Turkey, the United Kingdom, Australia and France who are among many nations in which Israel is losing support as a direct result of its actions and policies.
It does not matter how much Prime Minister Netanyahu says he endorses a two-state solution when Israel's actions clearly reflect the contrary. Many Israelis ask, "What are the Palestinians doing to help the peace process?" when the right question to be asking is, "What can they do?" It complicates matters enough that there isn't unity in the Palestinian platform due to its non-contiguous territory, but in addition, Israel has laid siege on one half of it and controls the majority of the other half. It refuses to recognize a democratically elected Hamas in diplomacy without realizing that talking to one's enemies is how conflicts are overcome. The Palestinian National Authority (PA) is the center of a functioning democracy that is not allowed to effect much change because it is under an illegal occupation in which Israel calls the shots and not the PA.
Many also ask, "Why is Israel held to such a high standard when the other Arab countries behave so poorly?" The answer to this question is one that Ms. Charny answered in her article: "Israel is the only true, stable democracy in the Middle East." The standard for democracies is naturally much higher than the one dictatorships, monarchies and pseudo-democracies are held to. If Israel desires to be recognized as a democracy, it should expect to be treated like one as well.
--
Stephanos Karavas is a freshman who has not yet declared a major. He is the moderator of Dialogue, a forum affiliated with Tufts New Initiative for Middle East Peace.
