The phrase “pro-Israel” appears five times in this Foward article. Yet, interestingly, those described as “pro-Israel” have very little praise for it.
“Staunchly pro-Israel conservatives… say that Jerusalem is hindering America’s global war.” “Top Israeli officials… have been subject to unusually harsh criticism from the pro-Israel right…” Charles Krauthammer, who’s characterized as a “pro-Israel” neoconservative, “wrote a column insisting that Olmert’s ‘unsteady and uncertain leadership’ is threatening the Bush administration’s confidence in Israel as a dependable and strategic ally.”
What exactly does “pro-Israel” mean in this article? It clearly doesn’t mean “supportive of Israeli policy”, although it probably should. I suppose it might refer to well-intentioned criticism, as opposed to criticism which seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish State. But if that’s the case, there’s an obvious double-standard. Well-intentioned left-wing or moderate political writers and pundits who criticize Israeli policy aren’t called “pro-Israel”. Besides the double-standard, a news reporter shouldn’t be responsible for deciphering the intentions of the critics it cites.
I think we can put our politics aside for the moment and recognize this article for the irresponsible journalism that it is. By characterizing the neoconservative position as “pro-Israel” in an article entitled “Conservatives Slam Israeli War Strategy”, the Forward is making a clear political statement. Neoconservatism, says the Foward, is somehow intrinsically pro-Israel. It may be, but I thought I was reading a news article.