How can the United States most effectively end the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? This is the one major foreign policy question Mr. Bush, Mr.
Kerry, and most congressional candidates shun like the plague. Should
they not rather be eager to assure the world that Americans want to
be evenhanded mediators between Israelis and Arabs?
Instead, Bush and Kerry are forever invoking the same mantra we have
heard for 56 years: That the State of Israel is our best friend, and
its security is of utmost importance to us.
Since the Israelis are our best friends, should we not do everything
in our power to help them gain peace with their neighbors? Israel's
security is no issue at all because America would never stand idly by
if it were seriously threatened.
Why do we then stand idly by while, since 1948, the government of Israel
has been locked in an internecine struggle with its Arab neighbors and
has been unable and unwilling to settle the conflict? All the while,
we Americans have been the main financiers and propagandists for Israel.
So it has become our inescapable moral responsibility to bring about
an end to the destructive conflict and to sit down at the peace table
with all concerned parties--until a settlement is reached.
American diplomats cajoled and pushed the Serbs and their neighbors
into making peace. There is no reason why the Bush administration or
a Kerry administration could not do the same for Israelis and Palestinians.
Senator Kerry, however, is as clueless as President Bush when asked
to show a way toward an early end to Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian
land. Why do both Bush and Kerry do America the disservice of concurring
with Prime Minister Sharon's stalling maneuvers to isolate Yassir Arafat,
the Palestinians' elected leader?
Echoing Sharon, both Bush and Kerry claim that Israel has no negotiating
partner and is therefore justified in "disengaging" from Palestinian
land unilaterally--some time in the indefinite future.
Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry fails to offer any kind of active role for
the United States in bringing peace to the Holy Land. Finding apparently
no alternative to the President's abandoned "road map," Kerry
can think of nothing more than sending "a high-level envoy"
to the region if he became president.
Amazingly, both presidential candidates insist on fighting terrorism
militarily, but fail to recognize the urgent need for policy changes
that would reduce the anti-American hostility upon which terrorists
feed. They do not even recognize how much their backing of Likud's intransigence
aids the terrorists and damages America's good name in the world.
Both candidates are rightly condemning the Palestinian suicide bombings
but lack the moral courage to condemn Likud's reckless campaign of assassinations,
bulldozing of homes, and annexations of Palestinian land for the expansion
of permanent Israeli settlements. Both have persistently ignored Israel's
violations of rulings by the United Nations Security Council and the
International Court of Justice. Neither the President nor the Senator
have recognized the strong Israeli opposition to the Sharon regime,
nor have they been willing to meet with any of the American organizations
opposed to the occupation but in favor of a secure Israel, such as the
Churches for Middle East Peace, the Jewish Voice for Peace, and the
Tikkun Community.
Numerous voices here and around the globe have been suggesting changes
in our Mideast policies that could go a long way toward countering Muslim
and Arab fears, antagonism, and insurgent activities. Yet, neither Bush
nor Kerry offers alternative non-military strategies to contribute to
the pacification of the region.
Why not, for example, end all military aid to both Israelis and Arabs?
Why not insist on a Middle East, including Iran and Israel, free from
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons?
Kerry has been pillorying the Saudis while admitting that the U.S. has
"deep and inescapable energy ties" to the kingdom. He ignores,
however, that his Saudi-bashing will not help improve the much-needed
Saudi cooperation in the fight against al-Qaida.
Mr. Kerry's failure to offer practicable alternatives to the President's
unproductive policies in the Mideast may well drive Bush-opponents to
Ralph Nader, the only candidate suggesting constructive policy changes.