Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has come in for more than a little criticism for publicly supporting Israel's military action against the Hamas militants who dominate the Gaza Strip.
Villaraigosa, however, is right on the merits of this question and shouldn't be deterred from speaking out in the future on issues of conscience, which is what this is.
The controversy began when Villaraigosa joined Israel's local consul general and other civic leaders in a public gesture of support for Israel, which entered Gaza last month in an effort to stop Hamas' military wing from launching rockets across the border into the Jewish state. Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel and has Israel's destruction as its ultimate goal, has been shooting rockets across the border for years.
In that context, Villaraigosa's statement actually seems measured, even restrained: "Every country has a right to defend itself against attacks from a foreign enemy. Every nation is obligated to beat back forces dedicated to its destruction. And Israel cannot sit silently while innocent civilians are attacked. ... During this trying time in the Middle East, I hope all people -- regardless of race, religion or creed -- will join me in praying for peace, for an end to hostilities and for a halt to violence on all sides."
Reasonable as those sentiments may seem, they nevertheless offended some pro-Palestinian activists, as well as some representatives of the local Muslim community with whom the mayor subsequently met. "There's no objection to the mayor having his personal views, but as the mayor of one of the most diverse cities in the nation, he has the responsibility to engage in activities that bring all Angelenos together," Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Anaheim-based Council on American-Islamic Relations of California, told The Times' Phil Willon after the meeting. "His role is not to be a cheerleader for one side. ... He ought to be on the side of justice and peace."
Fair enough on that last point, though, since the meeting, critics have continued to insist that Villaraigosa shouldn't have spoken at all -- or if he did, only should have expressed so-called evenhanded sentiments because he's allegedly ill-prepared to comment on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
