None of the three presidential candidates--Democrats Obama and Clinton as well as Republican McCain--have so far told the voters if and how they would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bring peace to the Middle East.
In his votes and in his campaign literature, Senator Obama has consistently supported Israel as a friend of the United States. Nevertheless, the American Spectator alleged that he has an "Israel problem" and that his campaign co-chairman was "anti-Jewish." Obama critics have also insinuated that he shares former President Carter’s and billionaire George Soros’ criticism of Israel’s harsh fifty-year occupation of the Palestinian territories.
By comparison, nobody of note has taken issue with Hillary Clinton’s policy paper entitled "Standing with Israel against Terrorism.” Most importantly, she promises to support Israel's claim to an "undivided Jerusalem," even though that would constitute a principal change in U.S. policy.
In recognition of the contested status of Jerusalem, the United States and other countries have been keeping their embassies in Tel Aviv. Past presidential candidates promised to change this policy but never kept the promise. Hillary’s position mirrors the unwillingness of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to consider Israeli concessions for peace. Yet, leading Israelis, such as Vice Premier Haim Ramon, have expressed their willingness to relinquish the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
In her paper, Hillary mentions neither the Palestinians nor the two-state solution. On her Senate website, she stresses her leadership in support of “Israel's right to build the fence," even though it runs mostly on West Bank territory and has been widely denounced as a violation of basic Palestinian rights.
Hillary adopted this right-wing position in 1999, after she decided to run for the U.S. Senate in New York. "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel," she wrote in a letter to the president of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. She called it a mistake that during her and her husband’s visit to the West Bank in 1998 she hugged and kissed Suha, Yasser Arafat’s wife, and silently listened to her complaint that the Israeli government had used poison gas against Palestinian women and children.
Because of her apparent change of heart, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette recently called Hillary a “born-again Zionist." Actually, the future of Jerusalem has been an issue in New York’s electoral campaigns ever since Israel conquered East Jerusalem in 1967.
M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum suggested that Hillary’s call for an undivided Jerusalem under Israeli rule was mostly "designed to appeal to money people. The single-issue donors in the Jewish community tend to be far to the right. ... It's not a serious commitment."
John McCain has consistently demanded that the U.S. embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He was one of 76 Senate cosponsors of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 requiring the President to relocate our embassy in Jerusalem. On his recent trip to the Mideast, McCain was quoted as saying that he supported Jerusalem "as the capital of Israel." When in 2006 the Senator was awarded the Henry "Scoop" Jackson Distinguished Service Award by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, he described himself as "pro-American and pro-Israeli" but he failed to say how he would help America and Israel end the conflict with the Palestinians.
None of the three candidates has clearly articulated that we Americans urgently need peace between Israelis and Palestinians if we are to rid the Middle East of terrorism. None of the three has addressed the surge of Israeli settlements despite longstanding U.S. opposition and repeated Israeli avowals to freeze land confiscations and remove illegal outposts in the West Bank.
It was George W. Bush who has repeatedly called for “two states, living side by side in peace and security.” Should his successor not be expected to tell the nation how he or she plans to implement this high-priority project?
In his votes and in his campaign literature, Senator Obama has consistently supported Israel as a friend of the United States. Nevertheless, the American Spectator alleged that he has an "Israel problem" and that his campaign co-chairman was "anti-Jewish." Obama critics have also insinuated that he shares former President Carter’s and billionaire George Soros’ criticism of Israel’s harsh fifty-year occupation of the Palestinian territories.
By comparison, nobody of note has taken issue with Hillary Clinton’s policy paper entitled "Standing with Israel against Terrorism.” Most importantly, she promises to support Israel's claim to an "undivided Jerusalem," even though that would constitute a principal change in U.S. policy.
In recognition of the contested status of Jerusalem, the United States and other countries have been keeping their embassies in Tel Aviv. Past presidential candidates promised to change this policy but never kept the promise. Hillary’s position mirrors the unwillingness of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to consider Israeli concessions for peace. Yet, leading Israelis, such as Vice Premier Haim Ramon, have expressed their willingness to relinquish the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
In her paper, Hillary mentions neither the Palestinians nor the two-state solution. On her Senate website, she stresses her leadership in support of “Israel's right to build the fence," even though it runs mostly on West Bank territory and has been widely denounced as a violation of basic Palestinian rights.
Hillary adopted this right-wing position in 1999, after she decided to run for the U.S. Senate in New York. "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel," she wrote in a letter to the president of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. She called it a mistake that during her and her husband’s visit to the West Bank in 1998 she hugged and kissed Suha, Yasser Arafat’s wife, and silently listened to her complaint that the Israeli government had used poison gas against Palestinian women and children.
Because of her apparent change of heart, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette recently called Hillary a “born-again Zionist." Actually, the future of Jerusalem has been an issue in New York’s electoral campaigns ever since Israel conquered East Jerusalem in 1967.
M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum suggested that Hillary’s call for an undivided Jerusalem under Israeli rule was mostly "designed to appeal to money people. The single-issue donors in the Jewish community tend to be far to the right. ... It's not a serious commitment."
John McCain has consistently demanded that the U.S. embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He was one of 76 Senate cosponsors of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 requiring the President to relocate our embassy in Jerusalem. On his recent trip to the Mideast, McCain was quoted as saying that he supported Jerusalem "as the capital of Israel." When in 2006 the Senator was awarded the Henry "Scoop" Jackson Distinguished Service Award by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, he described himself as "pro-American and pro-Israeli" but he failed to say how he would help America and Israel end the conflict with the Palestinians.
None of the three candidates has clearly articulated that we Americans urgently need peace between Israelis and Palestinians if we are to rid the Middle East of terrorism. None of the three has addressed the surge of Israeli settlements despite longstanding U.S. opposition and repeated Israeli avowals to freeze land confiscations and remove illegal outposts in the West Bank.
It was George W. Bush who has repeatedly called for “two states, living side by side in peace and security.” Should his successor not be expected to tell the nation how he or she plans to implement this high-priority project?