Bush's domestic politics and the pro-Israeli tilt
April 25, 2002
Politics and the Middle East
How are Americans to understand President Bush's kowtowing to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?
Told to withdraw Israeli forces from the West Bank "without delay," Sharon refused. As Israel reduced the Jenin refugee camp to rubble using U.S.-supplied arms, Bush praised him as a "man of peace." The man of peace now wants to dictate the composition of a U.N. fact-finding mission, approved with U.S. support, into Jenin.
As former President Carter pointed out Sunday, presidents don't just spin their wheels. Presidents have power levers. In the case of Israel, said Carter, the levers are two: We provide $10 million per day in aid to Israel; we supply Israel weapons for defensive purposes only, not for attacks on refugees.
Bush is having a rocky time. He rides high approval ratings because of Sept. 11, but faced with the complexity of Middle East politics, he is at sea. A man of domestic politics, he founders in the world arena, where America has the reputation of being a superpower.
Bush's instinct from the beginning was to pull back from world affairs. Just as he would be the anti-Clinton, he would be the anti-Bush I. Those two presidents were too involved in the world, too busy with alliances, agencies, treaties and all those things that tie a good Texan down.
Bush wanted to "park" the Mideast. Last fall, when the White House finally issued a few tepid words of caution about Israel's bulldozing of Palestinian homes, Sharon accused Bush of Munich-style "appeasement." To this gross insult to a nation that took no part in Munich, the White House tut-tutted, asking Sharon to make friendlier comments, which he did.
This month, however, as Israeli troops invaded the West Bank, Bush said, "stop." Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent to the Middle East to secure a troop withdrawal.
Bush was likely pushed into the Powell trip by his father and Brent Scowcroft, who are said to have his ear. Neither John Ashcroft, the fundamentalist zealot who is attorney general, nor Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed support. Tom DeLay, the rabid House whip, urged fellow born-again Christian Bush to eliminate Yasser Arafat, not talk to him.
It took some moxie for Bush to "unpark" the Middle East, but then he collapsed. There's no way to pretty this up. Sharon told him to take a jump, and he did. Is there a precedent for a presidential mission coming up so empty? Marshall's trip to Moscow in 1947? Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in Paris in 1972? James Baker in Geneva with Tariq Aziz in 1991?
In each of those cases, America reacted decisively. There is a price to be paid for opposing our interests. That's what power politics is all about.
Foreign policy can't be driven by parochial interests. A nation that aspires to leadership must have more to its policy than local politics. In the Middle East, U.S. leadership is accepted because we are viewed as an honest broker. Many administrations have kept it that way. We don't kowtow.
The Bush administration is different. It appears to care more about political support from American Jews than about a fair Mideast peace accord. When Bush I and Baker stopped Israel in 1991 from using U.S. money to build illegal settlements on Arab land, they were attacked by the pro-Israel lobby. Said Baker: "---- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."
Bush II doesn't accept that. He believes in political realignment. He thinks he can win the Hispanic vote, which is 75 percent Democratic. If Hispanics, why not Jews, who voted 4-1 for Democrats in 2000? It's not just that the Jewish vote in a state such as Florida might be crucial in 2004, but that being pro-Israel helps him with conservatives, religious fundamentalists, the South and the media.
U.S. media are strongly pro-Israel. One criticizes Israel at the risk of being called anti-Semitic. New York Times columnist William Safire, who acts as the official media spokesman for Israel, lashes out at the "ridicule of liberal pundits" like Mary McGrory to Mark Shields who dare to criticize Israel. All two of them.
Eric Alterman, who writes for The Nation, recently compiled a list of commentators who write on the Middle East. Sixty-five were listed as supporting Israel, right or wrong. Five were listed as willing to criticize both Israel and the Palestinians. Another five, only one of them writing for the national press, was listed as anti-Israel.
Politicians and the media feed off each other. If a politician dares speak out against Israel, he is pilloried by the Safire 65, and soon has Jews shouting charges of anti-Semitism at him.
A former California member of Congress told me this story: A colleague was running for the Senate. AIPAC, the Jewish lobby, approached him. AIPAC would organize fund-raisers for him in five cities, each with a guaranteed take of $100,000.
AIPAC asked for only one thing in return: If he won, he would commit to vote in favor of the $3.5 billion in aid Israel receives annually from America.
I get my share of anti-Semitic charges. To my accusers, I ask: Why wasn't I anti-Semitic between 1993 and 2001, during the Oslo peace process? With Sharon, Israel will never have peace. You confuse anti-Semitism with anti-Sharonism.
To the latter, I plead guilty. But then, so do many of my Jewish friends.
Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
signonsandiego.com |
