Posted on 09/08/2004 1:09:45 PM PDT by SJackson
The fact of the matter is that John Kerry did not even mention the Middle East in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Given the controversy surrounding some of his pronouncements on the subject, that speech presented Mr. Kerry with a real opportunity to dispel some of the doubts he had fostered among friends of Israel, but he chose not to. His silence served only to increase the sense of unease many of us feel — not only because those doubts remained, but because he apparently did not think it important to address them.
This is in the sharpest contrast to President Bush, who went out of his way to underscore his affinity with the Jewish state — even while the media were buzzing about an alleged “spy” scandal involving Israel. We may never know the full facts of the affair, which has all of the earmarks of polit-
ical dirty tricks. After all, close contacts between AIPAC and American officials are routine and the investigation, although many months old, was leaked just before the Republican National Convention. But what is certain is that President Bush made certain to underscore the special U.S./Israel relationship, just in case anyone was ready to draw the wrong conclusions. His message was unmistakable when he spoke of peace between the Palestinians and "our good friend Israel."
To be sure, Mr. Kerry has, in the past, tried to explain away his very disturbing comments about how he would appoint Jimmy Carter and James Baker as his emissaries to the Middle East and his reference to Israel’s defensive shield as a "barrier to peace." Yet he has never abandoned his chilling moral equivalency" statement, in which he enthused about how he looked forward to serving as an "honest broker" in the Middle East. And he continues with his refrain that President Bush is too "disengaged" in the Middle East and has allowed matters to fester.
Mr. Bush, of course, has declared that preconditions for U.S. help for the Palestinians were real political reform and elimination of the terrorist infrastructure. These conditions have not been met and the Palestinians pointedly say and act as if this is not going to happen. In light of the fact that Israel has done what it had to do to defend itself, what could U.S. "engagement" mean other than pressuring Israel? Nor is Mr. Kerry`s other constant criticism of Mr. Bush — that the president has failed to work more closely with European governments on Middle East issues — exactly reassuring. The European nations are virulently anti-Israel and from where we sit, bringing them into the picture could not possibly be helpful.
In any event, what adds to the sense of unease about Mr. Kerry is that for the first time, the notions of moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and the need for "engagement" was advocated last week in the clearest terms by both The New York Times and the Forward, two publications frequently identified with Mr. Kerry’s views.
Last Thursday, in advance of that evening’s convention speech by President Bush, the Times had this to say in an editorial entitled "Mr. Bush and the Truth About Terror":
If Mr. Bush is going to speak seriously about terrorism tonight, he also needs to talk about Israel. With its fixation on Iraq, the administration has allowed the situation in Israel to turn into a stalemate in which the Sharon government continues to expand its suicidal West Bank settlements while attempting to keep the Palestinians under control with sheer military force. The West Bank is not just a breeding ground for terrorists; it is the perpetual would Arabs use to justify supporting and financing violent extremists.
Iraqis can go to the polls to vote, but the Middle East will still be a hotbed of terrorism if Palestinians cannot grow up with hopes for a decent life in a land over which they have some control. There is no way that the current mess is going to improve without the very aggressive intervention of United States diplomacy.
It was far from inadvertently that the Times spoke about "the situation in Israel" — not the Middle East, but Israel — being stalemated and and that the paper labeled the settlements "suicidal." In the worldview of the Times, It is Israel that must be made to change in order to break the "stalemate," not both sides to the conflict. And Palestinian suicide bombers are merely agents of Israeli policy makers. Sounds obscene, but there it is.
Similarly last week, the Forward editorialized in the same vein:
For years, Israel`s friends in this country have operated on the principle that Israel could not be held responsible for its troubles. They have maintained that whatever Israel`s mistakes, Palestinian hostility could not be blamed on Israeli policies. More recently, they`ve broadened the principle to insist that Arab and Muslim hostility to the United States cannot be blamed on its support for Israel.
Both positions are becoming hard to maintain. Growing numbers of Israelis, up to and including the military chief of staff, are openly acknowledging that Israeli actions can raise and lower the level of Palestinian rage and violence. As for the global terror war, the idea that it is related in part to America`s relationship with Israel is now thoroughly mainstream. You can read it in the report of the 9/11 Commission. Even the Jewish Agency for Israel hinted at it in its recent global policy study.
So for the Forward, as for the Times, the key to peace is for Israel is to display a greater degree of sensitivity in dealing with the rampages of homicidal maniacs so as not to unnecessarily enrage them.
Perhaps it is unfair to tie John Kerry to comments he has not directly made. Those comments, however, seem to be congruous with his past statements and the views of some of his key advisers. If Mr. Kerry disagrees with this sort of thinking, he should challenge it publicly — if only to make it clear where he stands, much as Mr. Bush unhesitatingly does.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Bump
The primary focus of any presidential candidate should be the US. While the Middle East may be important to some Americans, it should certainly not be a litmus test for a president. FWIW, I intend to vote for Bush.
Someone please tell Secretary Powell that Israel is our "good friend". He doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.
<< The primary focus of any presidential candidate should be the US. While the Middle East may be important to some Americans, it should certainly not be a litmus test for a president. FWIW, I intend to vote for Bush. >>
What you say is true insofar as it goes -- BUT:
Though not an automatically popular position in any of FR's 'groupings,' it remains a fact that Israel -- essentially but a forward outpost of the very Judeo-Christian/Human Civilization long vanguarded by our beloved FRaternal Republic -- as clearly represents American Interests as does what goes on in Denver's Capitol Hill or at Dubuque, Iowa's Post Office Square.
Israel is as hesperophobicly and as relentlessly attacked as it is, for as much that it is a FRee and Western Democracy -- and likely more [Lebanon's -- Arabia's come to that-- Christians were long ago massacred and/or driven out] -- as for its Jewishness.
And Israel's defense is as much in our National Interest as is the defense of Hilo and Guam -- or any other part of our "homeland."
Something President Bush knows as well as he knows the back of his hand -- and Socialist International's Effin' Kerry couldn't learn if it was tattooed on his arse by a big dogs teeth.
<< Someone please tell Secretary Powell that Israel is our "good friend". He doesn't seem to have gotten the memo. >>
Secretary Powell was welcomed by, absorbed by and is of the [CP of A-Alger Hiss-descended, self-annointed, self-appointed and self-perpetuating Socialist Internationalist's-owned-operated-and-controlled] Foggy Bottom Brahmanas.
Like every member of that evil gang, Secretary Powell has more friends in Paris, Berlin, Rangoon, Ramalah, Cairo, Khartoum and Moscow than in any Republican President's White House.
Let alone on Boise, Idoho, Kansas City Missouri or in Yerushalayim -- Greater Israel's Eternal Capital!
"Though not an automatically popular position in any of FR's 'groupings,' it remains a fact that Israel -- essentially but a forward outpost of the very Judeo-Christian/Human Civilization long vanguarded by our beloved FRaternal Republic -- as clearly represents American Interests as does what goes on in Denver's Capitol Hill or at Dubuque, Iowa's Post Office Square."
"Israel's defense is as much in our National Interest as is the defense of Hilo and Guam -- or any other part of our "homeland."
This is absolutely scary that you feel this way. If you do, I know you can sign up anytime you want...
I am a Christian American; I feel no bond with Israel (or Palestine, for that matter) at all. A Jewish American is a brother; an Israeli is as much a foreigner as an Arab would be.
<< This is absolutely scary that you feel this way. If you do, I know you can sign up anytime you want ... >>
I do not "feel" "this way" or that way or "feel" any way at all -- what I stated is simple fact.
As for "signing up," [Whatever you "feel" by that] I was "having a look around" in Cairo when the 1973 Yom Kippur War kicked off and stayed there way past when the old warrior, General Ariel Sharon's IDF Engineers bridged the Suez ditch under fire and his Forces crossed into Egypt and began galloping toward Cairo -- and I only much later removed myself -- by way of the world's worst train -- to the relative safety of Khartoum and made my way out of there by air via Saudi Arabia and Beiruit, Lebanon. And at 1735 on June 7 1981 when the IDF took out Saddam's and Jacques Chirac's Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad, Iraq, I was on one of my so far 66 trips into, around and, thank God, out of Iraq -- and watched and [Mainly] listened from four miles away.
Right now I'm sitting around 10,000 miles away from home -- and am still "on the job."
that do yah for "signing up?"
Hope you enjoy the kids' soccer on Saturday and Sunday's pinata in the park.
You're a foreign national; go drag someone else into your turf war.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA.
<< You're a foreign national >>
I am an American -- an AMERICAN-American -- and you -- owned operated and controlled as you are by your own self-loathing, by ignorance and by prejudices you don't even know you have -- wouldn't know what that meant -- and/or what constitutes America's National Interests -- if it and they were tatooed on your bigoted arse with a big dog's teeth!
What a well-considered response; you said absolutely nothing.
<< What a well-considered response. >>
Thank you. It was. It is.
For I am a -- well -- considered-ate American Man.
You -- on the other hand -- said absolutely nothing.
Wow.
This Is Your Life!
Don't hit too hard and be Careful to look out for falling candy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.