Israel

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In his article, "A Higher Standard," Joshua Sharfstein attempted to prove the "obligation" of American Jews to criticize Israel "out of idealism and realism." But instead of justifying open criticism of Israel, he merely showed the confusion of a Jew who "faced the dilemma of whether or not to criticize Israel." His drawing of a false parallel between the general Jewish issue of "Who is a Jew" and the internal Israeli issue of the territories, and his failure to distinguish between gratuitous public criticism and constructive private criticism, lead to an article that contains more rationalization than reasoning.

The flaw in his comparison of the two issues subject to American Jewish criticism is clear. The question of what makes one a Jew has been discussed for ages by Jews of all sects. An authoritative determination by the religious right that would indeed assert the "unworthiness of non-orthodox beliefs" affects most American Jews directly, both by denying the validity of their faith and failing to grant the privileges of automatic entry, residence and citizenship to their converts. The territorial conflict is a matter of internal Israeli politics whose resolution only directly affects citizens of Israel. Certainly all who love Israel want the speediest and best solution. But it is naive to think there is an easy solution, and presumptuous to believe Israelis can not be moral without our help. The solution should be left to those who understand the problem through experience and whose future will be determined by the outcome.

Besides drawing this false parallel, Sharfstein shows a lack of understanding of the argument against criticism. He suggests that those who discourage public criticism of Israeli policy in the territories do so unconditionally and do not "recognize Israel's faults." This is wrong. Though they are reluctant to attack Israel, they do not deny, publicly or privately, that Israel has its shortcomings; they merely choose to criticize constructively to those who have the power to effect change in Israeli policy--to Israeli leaders and voters and Jewish leaders who may be able to influence Israel's decisions--rather than offering criticism which decreases U.S. government support and thus hurts Israel.

He also supposes that open criticism encourages support of Israel by non-Jews, and that failure to illuminate Israel's flaws causes non-Jews to reevaluate their support. How can such an intelligent, educated person show such a basic misunderstanding of the reason for Americans' strong support of Israel? Israel is supported because it is America's loyal ally and the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel gives America technology, military intelligence and a strategic base. Americans support Israel out of self-interest, whether or not American Jews criticize Israel. Calling Israel immoral only serves to relieve the moral consciences of Jews who are embarrassed by Israeli soldiers' excesses. Only constructive criticism to Israeli leaders can truly help Israel resolve its problems.

I cannot deny Sharfstein his idealism. Certainly, I, too, would love if Israel were not under constant attack and could exist in a region of peace and justice and love between enemies. I, too, expect Israel to live up to a higher standard than its Arab neighbors--to not sponsor international terrorism, to not force its children into battle as a propaganda technique, to punish, not reward, the violations of its soldiers. But Sharfstein fails to present a realistic argument in favor of open criticism of internal Israeli policy. His comparison with criticism of a Jewish religious issue is hollow; his assertion that failure to point out Israel's shortcomings actually hurts Israel is wrong. As a Jew who claims loyalty to Israel, he would do well to direct his criticism in a more constructive way.