I want to believe in President Bush as a champion of moral principle and clarity, because I think that such clarity is the single most important virtue America and its leader can represent in times like those we face today. Frankly, though, my belief is strained by his failure to unequivocally stand by Israel, whose war against terrorism is one with our own.
Israel has demonstrated its loyalty to America time and again. Its flags flew at half mast on September 12, 2001, in mourning for our loss. Most recently, it gave aid and support to this country in our war in Iraq. Through five decades of loyalty to the United States and to Western values, Israel has earned the right to our unconditional support in return ? just as we would throw our absolute support behind Great Britain if that country were under attack. Shamefully, though, Israel's loyalty has not been fully reciprocated.
Rather than stand behind Israel unconditionally in the relentless war waged by its openly genocidal enemies, the United States has applied pressure on Israel to restrain itself in battle, to compromise with its enemies, to set mass murderers loose, to allow Yasser Arafat to remain free with no accounting for his crimes. The United States has a moral obligation, recognized in a law passed by Congress, to locate our embassy in Israel's capital, as we do in the capitals of all other countries with whom we have diplomatic relations. By such a gesture, we would openly proclaim our commitment to Israel before the entire world. But in a manifestation of perfidy, not loyalty, President Bush continues to flout that law.
Some would say that, nonetheless, America is Israel's best ally and Mr. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House. But the proper measure of America's loyalty is not how it ranks with other countries, for they are not our standard. And the proper measure of the president's commitment to Israel is not how it compares with that of previous American presidents, not a single one of whom ever stood by Israel as a friend stands by a friend. The proper measure is the duty owed. Mr. Bush ought to live up to the moral obligation of the United States to reciprocate Israel's loyalty fully. And he ought to do so regardless of any disapprobation not only from "allies" of convenience, but from true allies like Great Britain.
In an address before a joint session of Congress recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke of the longstanding friendship between his country and our own. Sadly, though, at the core of his speech, filled with passionate references to "liberty" and "freedom" and "courage," was one central agenda ? to argue that Israel, because of its conflicts with the Arab world, is the prime inspiration for terrorism around the globe. His purpose was to suggest that the current "peace plan", which the world has imposed on Israel from without, must therefore be pressed. Notwithstanding his considerable eloquence and his considerable friendship, Mr. Blair is flat wrong.
He is wrong on his facts: Islamic fascism, which has manifested itself throughout the world from Afghanistan to Bali, from Pakistan to the Sudan, from Syria to Iran to Saudi Arabia, would, beyond any doubt, exist just as virulently even if Israel did not. Indeed, hatred of Israel is its product not its cause.
And he is wrong in his ethics when he insinuates that the obligations of America to Israel and to the Arabs of "Palestine" are equal. They are not. As between one's friends and those who have rallied behind one's enemies, one does not properly stand in a posture of impartiality. Only a distorted moral view would counsel such even-handedness. America, rather, is morally obligated to treat Israel and the Palestinian Arabs with a distinctly uneven hand, because loyalty to friends is a virtue, not a vice. America's debt to Mr. Blair does not require disloyalty toward Israel, even at his urging.
Ultimately, our commitment to the well-being of Israel, a democracy among dictatorships and a beacon of freedom in a sea of tyranny, is the best measure of our loyalty to our own values and ideals. That commitment ought to be unequivocal. Anything less is unbefitting the president and unworthy of the United States of America.
Israel has demonstrated its loyalty to America time and again. Its flags flew at half mast on September 12, 2001, in mourning for our loss. Most recently, it gave aid and support to this country in our war in Iraq. Through five decades of loyalty to the United States and to Western values, Israel has earned the right to our unconditional support in return ? just as we would throw our absolute support behind Great Britain if that country were under attack. Shamefully, though, Israel's loyalty has not been fully reciprocated.
Rather than stand behind Israel unconditionally in the relentless war waged by its openly genocidal enemies, the United States has applied pressure on Israel to restrain itself in battle, to compromise with its enemies, to set mass murderers loose, to allow Yasser Arafat to remain free with no accounting for his crimes. The United States has a moral obligation, recognized in a law passed by Congress, to locate our embassy in Israel's capital, as we do in the capitals of all other countries with whom we have diplomatic relations. By such a gesture, we would openly proclaim our commitment to Israel before the entire world. But in a manifestation of perfidy, not loyalty, President Bush continues to flout that law.
Some would say that, nonetheless, America is Israel's best ally and Mr. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House. But the proper measure of America's loyalty is not how it ranks with other countries, for they are not our standard. And the proper measure of the president's commitment to Israel is not how it compares with that of previous American presidents, not a single one of whom ever stood by Israel as a friend stands by a friend. The proper measure is the duty owed. Mr. Bush ought to live up to the moral obligation of the United States to reciprocate Israel's loyalty fully. And he ought to do so regardless of any disapprobation not only from "allies" of convenience, but from true allies like Great Britain.
In an address before a joint session of Congress recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke of the longstanding friendship between his country and our own. Sadly, though, at the core of his speech, filled with passionate references to "liberty" and "freedom" and "courage," was one central agenda ? to argue that Israel, because of its conflicts with the Arab world, is the prime inspiration for terrorism around the globe. His purpose was to suggest that the current "peace plan", which the world has imposed on Israel from without, must therefore be pressed. Notwithstanding his considerable eloquence and his considerable friendship, Mr. Blair is flat wrong.
He is wrong on his facts: Islamic fascism, which has manifested itself throughout the world from Afghanistan to Bali, from Pakistan to the Sudan, from Syria to Iran to Saudi Arabia, would, beyond any doubt, exist just as virulently even if Israel did not. Indeed, hatred of Israel is its product not its cause.
And he is wrong in his ethics when he insinuates that the obligations of America to Israel and to the Arabs of "Palestine" are equal. They are not. As between one's friends and those who have rallied behind one's enemies, one does not properly stand in a posture of impartiality. Only a distorted moral view would counsel such even-handedness. America, rather, is morally obligated to treat Israel and the Palestinian Arabs with a distinctly uneven hand, because loyalty to friends is a virtue, not a vice. America's debt to Mr. Blair does not require disloyalty toward Israel, even at his urging.
Ultimately, our commitment to the well-being of Israel, a democracy among dictatorships and a beacon of freedom in a sea of tyranny, is the best measure of our loyalty to our own values and ideals. That commitment ought to be unequivocal. Anything less is unbefitting the president and unworthy of the United States of America.