Solomonia Archive: The weak pro-Israel case for John Kerry

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

I am struck by the truly weak pro-Israel case for John Kerry being made on two of the nation's most influential editorial pages. First it was Tom Friedman in the pages of the New York Times, who's effort really borders on the despicable, now there's Richard Cohen in the Washington Post who seeks for a more fair approach but still comes up with both a bland and less-filling effort.

WaPo: Pro-Israel, But Pro-Peace?

Cohen juxtaposes the Clinton-era and Bush-era Israeli-Palestinian body-counts (I've just used my hyphen quota), but then has the sense to back off the association he's just tried to create in the mind of the reader.

...Between Sept. 29, 2000, and September 2004 -- four, not eight, years -- 1,026 Israelis were killed by Palestinians. While it is true that those years correspond to the second intifada, which erupted after the collapse of the Clinton-inspired peace talks, they nevertheless speak for themselves. It cannot be argued that Israel is better off because George Bush is in the White House.

I am not maintaining that the higher fatality figures are a direct consequence of Bush's policies. The second intifada was not caused by Bush, and Clinton's critics are right in saying that for too long Washington was much too nice to Yasser Arafat. In fact, Clinton's own Middle East negotiator, Dennis Ross, writes in his book, "The Missing Peace," that "President Bush and those around him were right to believe that we had indulged Arafat too much." ...

So what we're left with is a non-point. There's been a second intifadah. It's not Bush's creation, and if anything, it's a product of Oslo and Taba.

We go on (but still move nowhere):

But the isolation of Arafat, while immensely satisfying, cannot be said to have saved lives -- not Israeli and not Palestinian. In fact, his demonization is characteristically Bush. Arafat is another Saddam Hussein -- vile, evil and all of that. But just as the capture of Hussein has not made Iraq any safer for Americans, so has the isolation of Arafat not ended the intifada. In both Iraq and what can be called Palestine, the problem is not a single man but mass movements.

The isolation of Arafat is both satisfying and a strategy for moving forward. It's a response to the intifadah Arafat launched. A resolution of the P-A conflict is going to require a sea-change in the Palestinian leadership. Object one is scraping off the chief barnacle himself - Yasser Arafat. Whether that happens through natural causes or through the agent of a MOAB on the Muqata is an algebra that I will leave to others with higher math SAT scores than myself to decide. I do know it won't solve all the problems, but it is a necessary step - one the Bush Administration is staying true to. Staying the course is the key, carping because the results won't come fast enough for the American election cycle is not.

Under Clinton, Washington was fully engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

Sigh. Under Clinton Oslo fell apart and became a murderous joke. Taba died and Arafat launched his terror war the fruits of which Cohen names above. Anthony Zinni traveled to Israel as the special envoy to show how "engaged" the US was - the fruits of which were a terrorist bombing and dead Israelis on every visit. You could set your watch by it. Peace came no closer.

Under Bush, Washington has not been -- the tattered road map notwithstanding. What's worse, Bush's insistence on going to war with Iraq -- not to mention his conduct of it -- has not, as the administration long argued, made Israel any safer (Iran is the real threat) and has not collapsed Islamic terrorist organizations. The road to Jerusalem did not go through Baghdad, as we were repeatedly told, but dead-ended there. If, as it now seems likely, Iraq becomes yet another Islamist state, replacing a homicidal pragmatist (Hussein) with a religious fanatic (name to be supplied later), it's hard to see how Israel will be better off.

It's hard to see how Israel would be better off with a demagogic latter-day Saladin fresh off his victory over a paper-tiger America (as we would have appeared with the death or ossification of sanctions and continued miring in the black-hole of no-fly-zone enforcement) like Saddam Hussein still in charge. At least now there's a chance to move forward. At least now the Israelis have in America someone who will support their efforts to defend themselves - unlike John Kerry who first told an Arab audience that the Fence was an obstacle to peace before voting for it in front of a Jewish one. What Israel needs is a consistent friend. What our friends in the Arab World who are out there waiting to be discovered and given a hand is to see an America willing to pay a price and stay in it for the long term - not sell them down the river when the going gets tough.

Maybe a more active Middle East policy on the part of the Bush administration would not have produced any breakthrough, but even something more modest would still have been welcomed. Back when the United States was really actively engaged in the area, the CIA, working with Israeli, Palestinian and other intelligence services, stopped more than one terrorist operation before any damage was done. Those low fatality figures for the Clinton years were not entirely a coincidence. They were the product of hard work.

He returns to the body-count association he tried to create at the beginning of the piece, after already telling us it wasn't Bush's doing. Does he think we forgot already? Silliness. You think the CIA isn't still working with the Israelis? I'm sure many people have worked hard, but what's needed are long-term efforts, not leak-patching.

No doubt George Bush is a true friend of Israel. But so was Bill Clinton and so would be John Kerry. This is an American political reality -- a reflection of sturdy Democratic and Republican positions, plus a national affinity for a fellow democracy. The issue is not who cares more for Israel but who can be effective in reducing the violence and bring about a peaceful solution. So far, that's not been George Bush.

On the contrary, only George Bush has shown that he's willing to stay the course - a course that's working. So far, the portents for a Kerry Administration, his inability to maintain a steady position aside, are not good.

For related posts, start with my recent fisking of Tom Friedman, my previous fisking of Richard Cohen, and also this one responding to David Ignatius.

Posted by Solomon at 2:37 PM on Tuesday, Oct 26, 2004 | Comments (1)
Click to share this post

1 Comment

#1 Alex | October 26, 2004 4:05 PM

It's the same old tap dance- trying to find diferent nuances to an issue that is clear.

For the dems and liberals, it's SSDD.