A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Bush vs. Kerry: Who's Better For Israel

I've never bought into the idea that George W. Bush is great for Israel and John Kerry would be terrible and find it frustrating when Jewish conservatives act as though Bush's record on Israel and its interests has been perfect, even while attacking Kerry for taking positions on the security fence or a final status agreement that are not really different from Bush's.

I also don't understand why Kerry's support for broad abortion rights is constantly mentioned by Orthodox Republicans as a reason to vote Bush, while Bush's rejection of gun control and funding for stem cell research are supposedly in the interests of Jews. Why any Orthodox Jew in New York would view gun control as adverse to his or her interests is beyond me.

Getting back to Israel, Bush pushed the road map on Israel, demanded a Palestinian state and forced Ariel Sharon to accept one, accepts no settlement growth, strongly criticized the security fence, and his vision of a final status agreement is one in which Israel will keep only a tiny portion (5 percent or less) of Judea and Samaria.

Early in his administration Bush sent Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni and others to meet with Arafat and criticized Israeli military actions. Over the last two years, however, Bush has largely supported Israel's war on terror. He has also vetoed a number of outrageously anti-Israel UN Resolutions, and prevented Israel from being internationally isolated.

In a second term, Bush would likely put more pressure on Israel. Based on that, I felt that while Kerry's positions are far from ideal, in a first term, Kerry's positions on Israel would likely not differ much from Bush's.

There's really no way to know for sure, but Richard Holbrooke has changed my mind. During the Clinton Administration, Holbrooke was US ambassador to the United Nations and Assistant Secretary of State. He was considered to be relatively friendly to Israel. Holbrooke is a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry and a candidate to be Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration.

In a recent New York Times Magazine feature about Kerry, Holbrooke is quoted saying:

"We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor. What we're really talking about is winning the ideological struggle so that people stop turning themselves into suicide bombers."

Just a metaphor? Ideological struggle? Sounds like someone who would respond to a Hamas bombing by calling everyone together for a summit, something Clinton repeatedly did, and Bush at first emulated, before giving Israel some latitude to defend itself.

Worse, Friday night on The O'Reilly Factor, Holbrooke explained how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: Kerry, Holbrooke said, will "reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all."

I'm not naive. Bush has at times pressured Israel too and as stated above, in a second term he will apply at least as much pressure. But for Holbrooke to feature pressure on Israel as the way Kerry will improve the situation in the Middle East is quite disturbing. To Holbrooke and other senior members of the Clinton Administration, pressuring Israel "above all" is the knee jerk reaction and policy approach whenever things are messy in the Middle East. Whether or not Holbrooke is Secretary of State, this thinking must be rejected.

Holbrooke's inclusion of Israel with Syria and Saudi Arabia is also outrageous. Why is Israel being grouped with two dictatorships, one of which supports Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups, and the other which for years supported al Qaeda Wahabi extremists? Bush, of course, is for from perfect on this ground, insisting on treating Saudi Arabia as a close friend and ally, but at least he has ended the love affair between the White House and the Assad family.

I'm quite concerned about Bush in a second term, and find some of his positions to be far from ideal, but have concluded that based on the information available to the public, a Kerry Administration would more likely than not be worse for Israel.
posted on 10/26/2004