Kerry's sacrifices for peace

[Gamblor]

Sacrificing Israel in the name of ‘peace’: Redux

By Charles Krauthammer

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in "Foreign Policy for a Democratic President," a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry.

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq."

So in a "new bargain with our allies" America "re-engages" in the "peace process" in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House — a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another — in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that.

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israeli policy? After all, isn't Bush the first president ever to commit the United States to an independent Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat.

To reengage in a "peace process" while the violence continues and while Arafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle East policy. That policy — isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right to defend itself both by attacking the terrorist infrastructure and by building a defensive fence — has succeeded in defeating the intifada and producing an astonishing 84 percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties.

John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community of nations." There is no issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. In July, the U.N. General Assembly declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone.

You want to appease the "international community"? Sacrifice Israel. Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of "peace." Apply relentless pressure on Israel to make concessions to a Palestinian leadership that has proved (at Camp David in 2000) it will never make peace.

[wacki]

Just curious, why is the rest of the world so strongly against Isreal?

[vulturesrow]

I had a feeling this article would be posted here sooner or later. Thought about posting it myself. Definitely brings up some salient points, whether you agree or not. Adios posted a while back on the same issue.

[andyfox]

There is no Bush policy vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians. There's nothing to "undo." Bush feels he should leave Sharon to do what he wants to do. And that is what Bush has done. How this is going to lead to peace is a mystery.

[MMMMMM]

"How this is going to lead to peace is a mystery."

Yes, it's a mystery. Unfortunately it's a mystery how any other approach would actually lead to peace there, too.

Well, at least the Wall has cut down on the bloodshed a lot compared to a year or two ago.

[ACPlayer]

Let me ask the following question:

If it were true (we can debate that separately, so bear with me) that "sacrificing Israel" would make America safer from terrorism, should we consider doing that?

If not why not? Again please consider from American perspective.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

If it were true (we can debate that separately, so bear with me) that "sacrificing Israel" would make America safer from terrorism, should we consider doing that?

If not why not? Again please consider from American perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, because Islamic terrorism is insatiable, and in the long run, is un-appeasable.

Also, in more general terms, appeasement never works--and indeed often has the opposite effect from that which was hoped for.

[Gamblor]

What's even more a mystery, is how suddenly giving in to 4 (and in reality, 40) years of inrelenting murder will lead to peace.

[andyfox]

"Unfortunately it's a mystery how any other approach would actually lead to peace there, too."

Yes, unfortunately, this is sadly probably correct.

[andyfox]

But you're lumping all Islamic terrorism in as one piece. There are undoubtedly local conditions that lead to local events. While the terrorists in the school in Russia may have been Islamic, for example, certainly the Chechnyan situation was the primary reason for the horror.

We shouldn't make the same mistake we did when we were fighting the worldwide Communist conspiracy. To ignore local conditions is to get things wrong.

I know you were referring to "sacrificing" Israel. But all negotiation shouldn't be characterized as appeasement.

[ACPlayer]

You have addressed the wrong point -- if it was possible would it make sense for us to consider "sacrificing Israel".The discussion of whether it is possible is important but not the question at hand.

[MMMMMM]

I'm just trying to say that even were we to sacrifice Israel, it would not in the long run stem the aggressive hatred and terrorism of Islamic fanaticism against the West. And if the question was meant purely hypothetically, then I'm afraid I don't quite see the point in the asking of it.

[The once and future king]

Sounds harsh, but I am uncovinced that if the USA were to spend next week carpet bombing Israil and then hand it over to the Palestinians that terrorist activity and resentment against the west wouldnt drop dramiticaly.

Looking at things with complete dis passion I think doing the above would probably have a greater impact on terrorism than our mis concieved invasion of Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

That would still only be a short-term effect. The Greater Jihadists, who wish to restore the Caliphate, would still be on the march against the West.

[The once and future king]

Yes but they would be grealty marganilised.

[MMMMMM]

They wouldn't care about that. Also, their antipathy towards the West exists independently of the Palestinian issue, although that does adds a bit on the side in its own way.

[lastchance]

They might try to keep on chugging if they're marginalized, but reality is still a bitch, and they're going to have a much harder time without some support, and we can push that edge.

[MMMMMM]

There are so many jihadists being cranked out by Pakistan's madrassas that "being marginalized" probably wouldn't be like what you are thinking of...anti-Western philosophy in the Middle East is already a great deal more entrenched and widespread than, say, the KKK in the USA.

[ACPlayer]

As I recall you used the argument that even if there was a very small chance that Saddam would some day have the ability to rise up and harm Americans we should go ahsead and destroy Iraq now.

I am saying that even if there is a small chance that "sacrificing Israel" would make America safer -- idnt it irresponsible to not consider it?

Asking hypotheticals where you make some assumptions that result in removing one or more variable and testing the results is one fairly standard way of analyzing complex questions. THis is a reasonable hypothetical, specially as there are many who consider middle east peace to be a key to making America safe from terrorism.

[MMMMMM]

Ok, I see the point of your question.

My opinion is that sacrificing Israel might make America safer in the short-term but in more jeopardy in the long-term. Also, I just think it would be a scumbucket thing to do: sacrifice one's friend and ally to a bunch of totalitarian fanatics in order to "buy" a temporary reprieve from their hatred. And again, it is my view that appeasement never truly works and that it ultimately encourages further aggression.

Finally, if we ever need to go to war to protect the world's flow of oil--without which countless persons would die all over the world, and economies would collapse--it just might be that we will need Israel as a regional staging place, strategically speaking.

[ACPlayer]

THis is precisely the debate we should be having and precissely what Kerry is doing. It is politically bold and absolutely necessary for our security.

Most of the reasons you provide for continuing support of Israel's middle east brutality are opinions. There are arguments on both sides. If removing that support or finding a way to also help the Palestinians and other arab countries will make us safer -- WE SHOULD DO IT. We can worry about Israel but dont have to coddle it.

[MMMMMM]

OK, ACPlayer, we are having a reasonale discussion and exploration of ideas now;-)

I will just add that I don't think "making us safer" at any cost is necessarily the right thing to do. Especially when those who are attacking us are WRONG, I don't think their crazy demands or desires should be acceded to (even if it would make us somewhat safer).

I suppose that means I am of the mind that would prefer to tell a crazy aggressive person to go f*ck off rather than trying to mollify him somehow, knowing that any mollification will only be palliative and temporary (i.e., it's not a one-time encounter on a city street somewhere). In a sense that is sort of what I think we should be telling the fanatics and imperialists in the Arab world right now...in as strong a language as may be necessary. In keeping with that concept, I think any attacks upon us should be met with overwhelming force.

My view is to raise the stakes and put the bad aggressive elements all-in at a huge disadvantage where they must cave or go broke, not to seek to reason with or placate the unreasonable and the implacable. All this however is getting away from your original question.

[lastchance]

A major problem with this hyperaggressiveness is that some people are going to go to the other side when they wouldn't otherwise. A 14-15 year old kid living over there might have some family members killed or other stuff like that, and he might become a terrorist because of it. You can cut down as many as possible, but if they keep coming back, it's not going to end.

Of course, there are some diehard terrorists right now, and they should be taken out as soon as possible, but we need to try to make sure we don't make any new terrorists while we're at it.

Well, actually, we can't avoid making new terrorists, but we should keep that to a minimum.

Gotta mix it up. Gotta be aggressive, I agree, but in the long-term, terrorists might keep sprouting up, and even if we win now, we might be in another big situation down the line. I'm not suggesting folding everything, but I am suggesting putting pressure on the terrorists in more ways than one.

In some situations, foreign aid, for example, might be more helpful at stopping terrorism than military action, though these situations may not be common.

You can't go tell a crazy aggressive person to "f*ck off" when you know he has the better hand, and likewise, you can't take some risks that might spring up a whole new sitatuion where we don't want to be in.

[MMMMMM]

Some good points. I would respond to this however:

[ QUOTE ]

You can't go tell a crazy aggressive person to "f*ck off" when you know he has the better hand, and likewise, you can't take some risks that might spring up a whole new sitatuion where we don't want to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're saying here, but they certainly don't have the better hand. They are however stupid enough to attack us. Our biggest mistake has been in not wiping out those responsible. The biggest problem I see that has led to continued attacks on America and American interests, is that we not only didn't thoroughly eliminate the parties responsible; we barely did anything at all for a decade or more while absorbing various attacks. Now Bush is finally taking the fight to the terrorists, but still, I think not enough force is being applied. In Tora Bora for instance not only should we have not relied on the warlords too much; we should have killed those al-Qaeda and Taliban trapped in that valley for the few days. As it turned out a big portion of them managed to escape during "negotiations" and are now involved in new attacks or plots. I'm all for reasoning or negotiating with the reasonable, but some enemies are simply too hostile and dangerous to let live.

[ACPlayer]

Why can we not be tough and aggressive against the terrorists as well as reasonable in the middle east?

Send more troops to Pakistan and Afghanistan but also change our policy in Palestine to force Sharon to sit down and come up with a solution. Tell him to propose solutions to the Palestinian problem and not just ignore that population (other than killing them of course, at which he excels). Recognize that Israel is expansionists in their border goals and is doing more than just protecting itself.

Use some of the humanitarian instinct you seem to have for the Iraqis to help the hapless palestinians. Get them a place to live and build a society.

Even if there is a small chance of success we must do so -- both for humanitarian reasons (which you like) and to make our lives safer in New York, DC and Connecticut. Stop making the mistake that because the Palestinians are being lumped as terrorists they are opposed to America (it is Bin Ladin who is fighting the west, the others are just fighting for dignity in their lives).

[Gamblor]

Most of the reasons you provide for continuing support of Israel's middle east brutality are opinions. There are arguments on both sides. If removing that support or finding a way to also help the Palestinians and other arab countries will make us safer -- WE SHOULD DO IT. We can worry about Israel but dont have to coddle it.

Israel has taken many steps to help the Palestinians as well. While anti-terrorist activity undoubtedly affects civilian populations as well, Israeli-Palestinian collaboration on medical care, tax collection, security, and cultural exchange is beyond comparison between any other warring groups.

Despite my own proclivities against certain aspects of that collaboration (obviously, medical care is an exception), it exists on a scale far beyond anything you can imagine. I, for one, have great issues with Israeli funding of anti-semitic and violent incitement.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can we not be tough and aggressive against the terrorists as well as reasonable in the middle east?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea.


[ QUOTE ]
Send more troops to Pakistan and Afghanistan but also change our policy in Palestine to force Sharon to sit down and come up with a solution. Tell him to propose solutions to the Palestinian problem and not just ignore that population (other than killing them of course, at which he excels). Recognize that Israel is expansionists in their border goals and is doing more than just protecting itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps Israel is expansionist in their goals (although I would argue that if so it is expansionism born of desire to survive in a sea of hostile enemies). On the other hand, the Palestinians are desirous of pushing Israel into the sea, so they are expansionist too in their own way (they just don't have the power to implement it).


[ QUOTE ]
Use some of the humanitarian instinct you seem to have for the Iraqis to help the hapless palestinians. Get them a place to live and build a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent idea. For a state, in addition to the Palestinians getting some of the land they live on and/or some of the 'disputed' land, maybe Jordan could pony up some of the land they effectively stole from the Palestinians decades ago.


[ QUOTE ]
Even if there is a small chance of success we must do so -- both for humanitarian reasons (which you like) and to make our lives safer in New York, DC and Connecticut. Stop making the mistake that because the Palestinians are being lumped as terrorists they are opposed to America (it is Bin Ladin who is fighting the west, the others are just fighting for dignity in their lives).

[/ QUOTE ]

You say the Palestinians want to live with dignity. Well, the Israelis want to live in safety. Forcing Sharon to make concessions, so the Palestinians can live with dignity, is only part of the picture, and is only workable if the Palestinians also allow the Israelis to live without threat of suicide bombing and without constantly worrying that they will be pushed into the sea by fanatic Arab hordes.

It works both ways. The Palestinians cannot forswear violence diplomatically and then go on practicing the opposite in reality, else their agreements are just hollow. Israel cannot afford to let down her guard when surrounded by bigoted states and terrorist organizations which would eagerly seek her destruction if given the chance, and when confronted with Palestinian suicide bombings.

Your idea of forcing concessions from Sharon strikes me as unbalanced unless concessions are forced from Arafat and the Palestinian side as well. The most important concession from the Palestinians of course would be no more suicide bombings, and renunciation of the dream of destroying Israel. In exchange the Palestinians could have their own state. But Arafat is mad, and the Palestinians seem incapable of honoring any such agreements: hence the current stalemate. The Palestinians' fanaticism, obstinacy and incompetency all combine to relegate them to a very unpleasant limbo. It's all very sad and tragic but I guess that's the price paid for being barbarians in the 21st century (not all of them are, but enough of them are that it effectively nixes the group's chances for meaningful terms with Israel. And Arafat and Hamas et al just routinely throw fuel on the fire).

So sure, if someone can figure out a way to extract meaningful security guarantees from the Palestinians, and a way to ensure that they actually meet these guarantees, I say go for it. Until that time, however, there's always the fence.

[ACPlayer]

Well, since Clinton no one is trying. Kerry wants to try. More power to him, if he succeeds we will have genuine security, the current course is all a sham.

[ACPlayer]

I am not suggesting that Israel take any steps to help the palestinians (they should) in this thread.

Here I am suggesting that America use its leverage (though we seem to have none with our "friend") Israel to force them back to a path that includes a true solution for Palestine. Israel continues to show no interest in a solution that includes self determination for Palestine. I am also suggesting that if Israel does not pursue such a path then we consider "sacrificing" it as the support of Israel is not in OUR best interest.

[ACPlayer]

As long as you recognize that our support of the fence is making AMERICA less secure. Whether it make Israel less or more secure is not the issue for US to consider.

But then you probably dont understand this simple fact.

[MMMMMM]

I think that is minimal correlated at most.

[Gamblor]

Well, since Clinton no one is trying.

And according to My Life, Clinton calls Arafat "confused, not wholly in command of the facts", and his inability to accept any sort of peace deal "an error of historic proportions."

[Gamblor]

As long as you recognize that our support of the fence is making AMERICA less secure. Whether it make Israel less or more secure is not the issue for US to consider.

Assuming your point isthat America must do whatever is best for America, with moral implications secondary.

Taking that to its logical conclusion, you are a supporter of American Imperialism and increased access to Iraqi oil was a valid rationale for war.

[MMMMMM]

If Arafat would try maybe we could have a deal. But I doubt it.

Also, I think your apparent willingness to sacrifice your friends and allies to purchase a bit of temporary security is rather telling.

[ACPlayer]

I dont think there is any iota of morality in the Israeli policy. It is one of the most morally courrpt government on the planet.

[The once and future king]

But why are they are friends? In sum What utility does it provide?

Dont be naive. Utility is the reason by which all countries arrive at having friends and allies.

For me the main reason the wests alliance with Israil is a negative utility is that it stops us from truely taking the moral highground. Some actions take by the Israilies are truely evil and we therefore get smeared by association.

[ACPlayer]

First it is not temporaty security but likely to be lasting if we did not continue the one-sided support of Israel at the expense of the lives of millions of palestinians.

Second, in times of war, I want our government to actively pursue all likely avenues to increased security for the nation. A significant policy change, besides being morally correct has a shigh chance of success compard to the misadventure in Iraq.

Properly constructed we can still provide Israel with a place to call home - if they want it.

You were pretty quick to dump France as a friend when its objections did not suit you.

[russian ace]

For some reason the majority of this forum seems to think that Israel needs US help in defending it self. They have however proved numerous times that they are more then than capable of dealing with outside threats on their own. In fact, US had to step in and ask Israel not to go further with their counter attacks. The only thing that will happen if we abandon Israel is further destabilization of the middle east.
Ace

[ACPlayer]

In fact, US had to step in and ask Israel not to go further with their counter attacks.

In the past few years the response from Israel when asked by the US to show restraint has usually been the diplomatic equivalent of "go copulate with yourself".

[russian ace]

In the past Israel would always succumb to US request to seize hostility, and withdraw from the territories they conquered. In return, Israel would be promised peace and security. How many times can you break a promise to someone before they tell you "go copulate with yourself".

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]

For some reason the majority of this forum seems to think that Israel needs US help in defending it self. They have however proved numerous times that they are more then than capable of dealing with outside threats on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of this you are surely mistaken. Without the financial support from the US, the Israeli economy would colapse and within a fairly short time they wouldn't be able to substain the level of their military.

[Gamblor]

It is one of the most morally courrpt government on the planet.

Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, regularly imprison, slaughter, torture, and maim any woman who dares have sex before she is married or any man who dares show a religion outside of Islam.

Israel tries to separate its citizens (who, by the way, are permitted to openly demonstrate against their own government) from those that would have them all dead, who call them descendents of pigs and donkeys, and openly declare that every man, woman, and child is fair game.

Way to single out the Jews. Great job.

[Gamblor]

Without the financial support from the US, the Israeli economy would colapse and within a fairly short time they wouldn't be able to substain the level of their military.

I argue this. I think that the financial support from the US is crippling the Israeli economy. Self-reliant economies are by necessity the most efficient. Give me 5 million diaspora Jews and I could cut the military service down to one year, end my dependency on US military and diplomatic might, and send a message to enemies that I'm here to stay. It's one thing to try to annihilate 5 million. It's another entirely to annihilate 10.

[MMMMMM]

Thaty's right.

ACPlayer, you need to look at what is REALLY immoral and it is Islamic law and totalitarian governments. Israel pales in comparison to all this.

ACPlayer you are on the side of who are probably the biggest bigots in the world.

[ACPlayer]

YOu are still wrong.

I am not on the side of the Palestinian terrorists. I am not on the side of the Saudi and Egypt governements. I am not on the side of Israel.

I do recognize that the problem is mutual, I do recognize that our one-sided support in the conflict is causing us to be (correctly) seen as part of the problem by the Arabs and, more importantly, the terrorists and not part of the solution. Our policies are not helpful. I do recognize that our policies are the source of the hatred that led to 9/11. I do recognize that the Israeli govt is not interested in a Palesitinian solutiom but is interested in settling the entire WB and Gaza - the people there be damned.

You on the other hand are unable to recognize that by making Islam our enemy we are uniting all Islamic people good and bad against us. We are making this a Jihad.

[MMMMMM]

We aren't responsible for their backwards ideology. They can come into the 21st century from the 6th, or keep getting the short end of the stick. It's not up to us to accomodate their bigotry or barbarisms.

Also, Islam has a rich and long history of jihads against all non-Muslims. It's time to tell them that that is unacceptable, and if they persist, to prove it to them.

[ACPlayer]

Give me 5 million diaspora Jews

Now you would need more than the WB and Gaza

[Gamblor]

Why are you not as vocal about the US complicity in the Russians' dealings with Chechnya, the Chinese in Tibet, the Serbs in Croatia, etc. etc?

After all, the US does lots of business with the Russians and Chinese. Your underwear probably has a Made in China tag.

Oh, and another thing; why can't Jews live in Yehuda, Shomron, and Gaza? Are you supportive of Apartheid?

Would you deny them that right? And if those Jews needed Israeli support to defend against Palestinian terrorist attacks, would you deny them that?

Maybe if the PLO Arabs were interested in peace from the get go, this whole mess would have been avoided. But their hatred bred ideologies like Jabotinsky's, who gave us the nationlist Likud party.

[Gamblor]

No, we wouldn't.

27 million Americans live in NYC area, which is about the same size as all of Israel

[ACPlayer]

why can't Jews live in Yehuda, Shomron, and Gaza? Are you supportive of Apartheid?

They can live where ever they want as citizens of the country that the particular town is in. If Gaza was part of a new palestinian country they can live there if they like as citizens of that country and under the laws of that country. Just as you live in Canada under canadian laws. If you happen to be attacked on the streets in Toronto the police dept there takes care of the problem, Apache helicopters from Tel Aviv are not dispatched to desrooy you apartment building and the ones surrounding your building. If you dont like Canada go somewhere else.