The Detroit News states in its April 17 editorial "Backing Off in the Middle East" that "American policy in the Middle East should be based upon knowing who its friends are and acting accordingly." The next question becomes: Who are our friends?
Do friends blatantly ignore censures by Secretary of State Colin Powell and do exactly what they were told not to do only 10 hours later -- despite receiving more than $4 billion in American taxpayer dollars each year?
Should friends expect the United States to defend against human rights condemnations -- issued by the rest of the world and human rights organizations, like Amnesty International and Israel's own B'tselem?
Do friends embark on policies that are clearly against international law and U.S. foreign policy?
Do friends refuse to extradite an American for killing another American, simply because his religion happens to be the one that is favored in that country?
Do friends offer to sell radar systems to enemy countries that are deemed security threats to our nation?
Do friends expect clemency for someone who spied for them against our nation, though this spy has been categorized as the fourth greatest security threat in U.S. history?
Do friends of the United States have apartheid systems of different laws for different people, depending on race and religion?
Do friends of the United States demolish homes and give names such as "Operation Enjoyable Song" to these actions?
The answer to these questions is an unequivocal and resounding no. So why is Israel considered a friend when it is has committed all of the above actions? And why does The News always imply that Israel is whom we should stand by?
The right to defend one's self is a fundamental right that is hardly Israel's alone to enjoy. Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese also enjoy this right. Unfortunately, it seems that when Israel attacks, others are not allowed to respond without appearing as the victimizers in our media.