archived: 02 - 08 May, 2004 Back Next
JUNKIE EDITOR MICHAEL
CARMICHAEL
(Fair is Fair)
John Kerry is facing a political onslaught not only from the American right, but also its principal ally, the Israeli right.
Two weeks ago, George Bush repudiated thirty-five years of diplomacy by acquiescing to the demands of Likud to permit permanent Israeli settlements (read armed occupation) of the West Bank while granting the token gesture of an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
The sleight of hand was transparent. Ariel Sharon is attempting to remove a mere 7,500 Israeli settlers from Gaza, who were deeply unhappy in the first place, and to install permanently 92,500 Israeli settlers (out of a current total of 250,000) on the West Bank.
This weekend, there will be a referendum on Sharon’s plan in Israel, and the polls suggest that the Israeli public may defeat this blatant land grab for being too generous to the Palestinians. The lack of an effective political opposition in Israel has been a constant thorn in the flesh of the peace process, but there may be another factor at work: many Israelis do not support the extreme policies of Sharon and would support a more balanced approach to the peace process (if there were one).
The political danger of this situation for John Kerry is real. If he acquiesces to the Sharon-Bush policy, he will strengthen the candidacy of Ralph Nader. Additionally, there is a separate threat to his candidacy. If he abandons the historic approach to peace in the middle east, this change in his position will weaken Kerry’s strategy through the de-motivation of three crucial blocs of traditional Democratic support all of whom are sympathetic with the plight of the Palestinians: Arab-Americans, Afro-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.
In his previous statements, John Kerry has supported the rights of the people of Palestine and their leadership as worthy negotiators, and he has opposed the installation of the security fence or Wall which should be regarded as a draconian mechanism for increasing the pressure on the Palestinian public.
In more recent statements, apparently fostered through members of his staff who appear to have direct familial links with the Israeli public (i.e. Footlik), Kerry appears to be modifying his centrist position and moving decisively and precariously to the right – by announcing his unqualified support for the new Sharon-Bush plan for Gaza and the West Bank.
At a fundraising event in Juno Beach, Florida, Kerry proudly proclaimed his record of support for the state of Israel. He stated (paraphrase), “I have a 100% voting record, not a 99% - but a 100% voting record of support for Israel!”
Some reports suggest that Kerry is also being influenced by one of the leading supporters of the right-wing Likud government of Israel in the US Congress, Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Kerry is, thus, clearly in the middle of a flip-flop which could cost him Jewish support as well as discourage support from the Arab-Americans, the Afro-Americans and the Hispanic-Americans. Voters from these three blocs, as well as the majority of the American Jewish vote, are traditionally sympathetic with the Palestinian position on issues like: targeted assassinations; security wall; Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the official repression of Palestinian rights.
The issue of middle-east peace goes right to the heart of this election. When Bush took office he refused to contemplate American involvement in the middle-east peace process. Bush’s policy shift away from the deep engagement of the Clinton administration was rationalized as a repudiation of nation building and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. This crucial shift is now seen as a product of the extremist agendas of the American religious right, George Bush’s most loyal political base. (See George Monbiot’s essay, appended below.)
From our privileged position of hindsight, it is now abundantly clear that Bush’s acquiescence to the political agendas of the Israeli right (Likud) led directly to the strengthening, the motivation and the activation of Al-Qaida in the months between January and September, 2001 that resulted in the trauma of 9/11.
In order to maintain his status as a credible opponent of George Bush, John Kerry should oppose this fundamentalist policy that has been driving the neoconservative agenda of war against Islamic nations that control energy reserves and represent crucial centers of geopolitical power.
In articulating his position vis a vis the middle east, John Kerry should predicate all arguments upon the principle that his opponent, George Bush, is personally responsible for the radical upsurge of Al-Qaida triggered by his shift on the middle-east peace process evident from the first days of his tenure in the Oval Office.
In mapping out a position on where to go from here, John Kerry should applaud the immediate withdrawal of Israelis from the Gaza Strip, and he should not hesitate to support the total withdrawal of all Israelis from the West Bank in full accordance with numerous UN resolutions, historic pledges from the government of Israel and direct negotiations between the parties over the past 35 years. Fair is fair.
In making his case for peace, John Kerry should go further. Kerry must advocate a balanced approach to the peace process. For starters, he should define his position based on firm policies – and ones that are distinct from those of Bush.
(An outline of a balanced approach follows in this paragraph.) John Kerry should define his balanced approach based upon the following principals:
(1) The withdrawal of all Israeli citizens from the Palestinian lands within the pre-1967 borders should commence immediately and be concluded by January 1, 2005.
(2) The Palestinian Authority must be given the responsibility and the resources to prevent acts of terrorism and to be seen to be actively investigating and prosecuting all terrorists operating within its territories.
(3) The Security Wall has failed to make Israel more secure, and it has actually become an obstacle to achieving security for Israel and Palestine. Therefore, the Wall should be removed post haste.
(4) Negotiations between the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority should recommence immediately. Peace negotiations should be mediated by the UN just as the emergent democratic government of Iraq is now (hopefully) being mediated by the UN.
(5) The Israeli policy of targeted assassinations should end immediately, for it has failed to provide security for its citizens, many of whom have died as victims of the proliferating practice of suicide bombing that has been provoked by this failed policy.
(6) There should be a truce between Israel and Palestine enforced by a UN armed force made up primarily of troops from middle-eastern nations.
(7) In principle, Israel has the right to defend itself, and the rights of Palestinians to defend themselves must be respected as well.
This definition of a balanced policy vis a vis the middle-east will inoculate Kerry against the deterioration of his traditional Democratic base. Further, it will protect him from the motivation of the supporters of Ralph Nader who are keen supporters of Palestinian rights.
Unless John Kerry refines – and defines – his position on the middle-east soon, he will be accused of flip-flopping and inconsistency which will trigger a disintegration of trust in his candidacy.
If Kerry fails to respond promptly and thoroughly to the challenge thrown down by Bush and his leading foreign partner, Ariel Sharon, he will doom his candidacy to defeat on election day by being too vague and essentially indistinguishable from his primary opponent, George Bush, on the paramount foreign policy crisis facing the next president, Israel-Palestine
Last Update: 03/23/2006