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.