By E.D. Parish
This should be obvious. I can’t even fathom what contrary arguments might look like. Yet, in our political climate, the obvious must be defended.
First of all, American politicians should put the interests of the American people first. Sometimes the interests of America align with the interests of foreign nations. In those cases, it makes sense to form mutually beneficial alliances. But even then, alliances should be judged case by case, with clear-eyed realism. No foreign country—Israel included—deserves unconditional and carte blanche support. Foreign policy should be prudent, not sentimental. The guiding star must be the well-being and security of American citizens, not emotional attachment to another nation’s political project.
Second, people have a right to protest the actions of governments; this applies to the actions of one’s own government, and it is all the more true for the actions of foreign governments. There is a mistaken though not absurd argument that societies should discourage open dissent in wartime to maintain national cohesion. But there is no coherent argument that Americans owe political loyalty to a foreign state, or that criticism of a foreign government’s policies is somehow off-limits. The very idea turns patriotism on its head.
Third, anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Criticizing the Israeli state’s treatment of Palestinians—including allegations of occupation, collective punishment, and open discrimination—is not an attack on Jewish people generally. The idea that opposition to a political program is the same as bigotry against a people is intellectually dishonest. By that standard, criticisms of the Holodomor would be hatred of Russians, and opposition to the Iraq War would be hatred of Americans. Clearly, that’s not the case. No ethnic or religious group should be conflated with a government or an ideology.
In fact, some of the most forceful critics of Israeli policy have always been Jewish intellectuals, rabbis, and activists who recognize that Israel’s actions do not represent the Jewish people as a whole. It should not be controversial to distinguish between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a nationalist political ideology.
Fourth, The Israel Lobby in America represents a militaristic, fringe opinion that does not align with the broad interests of the American public. It is one thing to recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. It is another to allow lobbying groups like AIPAC to effectively dictate the limits of acceptable political speech, to push for endless military aid, and to smear critics as bigots. Americans should be able to debate foreign aid, arms sales, and foreign entanglements without fear of professional or social ruin.
Free Speech Libertarians and America First Nationalists alike have every reason to reject attempts to police speech about Israel. If we believe in free debate, we should defend it even when the subject is controversial; if we believe in putting America’s interests first, then we should not be bullied into treating a foreign nation as sacrosanct.
Protest is as American as apple pie. Criticizing foreign governments is a basic political right. Standing up for the interests of our own people is a basic political duty. No special pleading, no emotional blackmail, and no accusations of bigotry should be allowed to change these fundamental truths.