Soccer Dad

The pro-Israel case for President Bush/against Senator Kerry

In his criticism of Sen Kerry's positions on Israel, "Kerry the Clueless"

It's the ramifications of his foreign policy in general, especially his fixation on the United Nations as the arbiter of international legitimacy, proctor of that "global test."

Save for the U.S. veto in the Security Council, Israel loses every struggle at the U.N. against lopsided majorities. In the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, Muslim states trade their votes to protect aggressors and tyrannies from censure in exchange for libels against the Jewish state. The body's bloated and dishonest bureaucracies are no better, as evidenced most recently by the head of the U.N. Palestine refugee organization, who defended having Hamas militants on his staff.

I've searched to find one time when Kerry — even candidate Kerry — criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring.

Peretz doesn't like Kerry's inclination to rely on the UN for his foreign policy. In "Sacrificing Israel" Charles Krauthammer points out the logical extension of Kerry's hankering for the UN (and EU):

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in "Foreign Policy for a Democratic President," a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry.

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq."

Then Krauthammer spells out what this means:

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another -- in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that.

So what then is President Bush's sin when it comes to Israel:

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israeli policy? After all, isn't Bush the first president ever to commit the United States to an independent Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat.

Krauthammer has it precisely right here. I may not agree 100% with President Bush on the Middle East, but he has taken an untenable situation where nothing was expected of the Palestinians and insisted that they earn their state.
Jonathan Rosenblum, takes a slightly different (or perhaps parallel) view from that Krauthammer:

The West must understand what Israel rediscovered after the Netanya Pesach massacre: the battle must be taken to the enemy: Once the suicide bomber is strapped up and on his way it is too often too late.

Only the transformation of failed Moslem societies offers, in the long run, a means of draining the swamps in which the terrorists breed. Creating examples of free civil societies in Iraq and Afghanistan provides the only means of reducing the threat of Islamic terror. Abud Musab al-Zarqawi has explicitly acknowledged that the emergence of democracy in Iraq would spell his doom. Thus the savagery employed to stop it.

Promoting strongmen, in the name of stability, cannot lead to requisite transformations. The great error of Oslo, for instance, was the failure to recognize that a Palestinian dictatorship would always need Israel as an external enemy to distract the population from their downtrodden state. That is why America has correctly recognized Palestinian democracy as a pre-condition for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Prior to that, a return to the peace process – i.e., further Israeli concessions – is not only pointless but counterproductive.

The candidate who most thoroughly comprehends the nature of the struggle will be the best for the entire free world, not just Israel.

When I first read Rabbi Rosenblum's article, I thought he had explicitly endorsed Bush. I was wrong. But his conclusion (quoted above) leaves no doubt that he sees that President Bush understands that Israel's and America's fights against terror are the same fight. Senator Kerry would rather promote the strongmen in the name of stability.

Anne Bayefsky in "The Principled President" sums this up nicely (sort of a synthesis between Dr. Krauthammer and Rabbi Rosenblum):

The EU and U.N. seek American support for the view that the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is the greatest challenge to international order (as British foreign minister Jack Straw told the Labour party's recent annual conference), and American help in pushing Israel into major concessions while under fire.

President Bush has responded by telling the U.N. and EU members that they've got it backwards. The greatest challenge to international order is the absence of democracy, and the breeding grounds for terrorism that result. Moving forward means — in the words of the president's recent U.N. speech — that "we must take a different approach" from that of tolerating and excusing "oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability.... Commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups."

President Bush's stand has not been without political costs. As he pointed out in the second presidential debate: "You know, I've made some decisions on Israel that are unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat, because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state. And people in Europe didn't like that decision. And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do."

One final note, Peretz found another reason to be skeptical of Senator Kerry's position on the Middle East:

Another thing that bothers me about Kerry is the deus ex machina he has up his sleeve: the appointment of a presidential envoy. It's hard to count how many special emissaries have been dispatched from Washington to the Middle East to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's easy to see is that none of them has gotten to "yes."

In recent years, both former CIA Director George Tenet and former Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, once the chief of the U.S. Central Command, have served in this meaningless position. And who would Kerry designate? He first suggested the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter and James Baker, Bush 41's secretary of state.

Then he found out — why he didn't know this is another matter — that both Carter and Baker are deeply distrusted by the Israelis, and by American Jews. There was no mystery as to why. Carter (well, how does one say this?) is not exactly a friend to the Jewish nation and, besides, his favorite politician in the Middle East was the mass murderer Hafez Assad, the late president of Syria. A huge beneficiary of Saudi business, Baker was adept at pooh-poohing concerns about Israeli security. So we are left with Kerry's other putative designee, Bill Clinton, whose national security staff was so mesmerized by the mirage of a quickie Israel-Palestinian peace at the end of his term that, according to the Sept. 11 commission report, it couldn't be bothered take out Osama bin Laden after the attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole. Clinton succeeded in squeezing Israel into the extravagant Camp David and Taba formulas but failed to get Arafat to go along. At least for Israel, these proposals are now toast.

Why does the idea of a special envoy sound familiar? Could it be this?

As the newly elected President of the United States, you assume the leadership of our nation at a critical time in our history. As American Jews, we call on you to commit our nation to vigorous and persistent engagement in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We ask that within the first hundred days of your administration you appoint an internationally respected envoy at the highest level to signal your intentions to pursue full implementation of the disengagement agreement and a renewal of negotiations leading to a final status accord.

The above is an excerpt from an open letter that Peace Now intends to send to the winner of the presidential election. It would appear that Senator Kerry's views match the dead end ideas of the folks who feel the need to save Israel from itself and believe that settlements are the root of all violence in the Middle East rather than Israel's existence.
These four essays taken together show that if someone supports Israel, the incumbent has earned his/her vote.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at October 22, 2004 4:35 AM