Friday, October 22, 2004
Kerry's Foreign Policy: Sacrificing Israel
By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A25
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53015-2004Oct21.html
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.
The allies will appreciate that. Then turn around and say to them: We're
doing our part (against Israel), now you do yours (in Iraq). If Kerry is
elected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one.
|
