Pandering To Israel -
Kerry's Albatross
Kerry And The Albatross

By Terrell E. Arnold
In the midst of racking up an unchallengeable lead in the race to be the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Kerry is reported by the New York Times to have told Jewish leaders in an early March meeting in New York that he would continue the close ties to Israel that have often dominated policies of the Bush administration. Kerry also volunteered to this group that the 24-foot concrete barrier the Israeli leadership is building around the Palestinians is a "fence, not a wall". Given his success in the primaries it is not at all clear why he felt the need to pander to this group, but he may have taken to heart the assertion of some political pundits that no candidate for President of the United States, Democrat or Republican, can get the job without Jewish financial support. Given their media, communications, financial and other corporate power that may even be true.
Since World War II the United States has extended financial and political support to Israel regardless of that country's conduct. Despite systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from their ancestral homes, destruction of their villages, confiscation of their property, and more than fifty years of mistreatment of the Palestinian people, the United States has never wavered in its support. Without exception the United States has vetoed any UN effort to call the Israelis to account for their behavior, and the United States has refused even to take part in virtually universal international criticism of the abominable wall. The consequences have been a slow erosion of US influence in the region and the loss of any moral authority, a condition that Bush neo-conservative advisers appear to have persuaded him can be corrected only by asserting military power over the region.
What Kerry did in New York, thoughtfully or not, was tie the presidency he may win to the failing war-making strategy Bush has attempted in Iraq and the lop-sided road map Bush has contrived for Palestine. Those were problems Kerry likely would face in his potential presidency as they appeared in March. As a political maneuver, his commitment to Jewish leadership obviously looked promising to Kerry. Oddly enough, aligning with Israel may pull the votes of a number of conservative Christian Bush supporters over to the Kerry team. That could certainly occur because Kerry states more sensible positions on economic policies than Bush, and Kerry certainly has the better head for such matters.
On Wednesday, however, in a Washington meeting with Ariel Sharon, Bush conceded that the Israelis could keep their major settlements in the West Bank, and he said the Palestinians would have no right of return to homes and properties from which, over a period of more than fifty years, they have been expelled by the Israelis. Bush had neither authority nor ownership rights to make those concessions, and therefore the action may lack legal meaning, but in reality Bush turned the Israeli ribbon Kerry may have thought he was wearing into a dead albatross, an ancient symbol of bad luck.
Obviously without intending to do so, with his commitment to Israel Kerry has preset for himself a failed Middle East strategy. No matter how the exit from Iraq turns out, a strict pro-Israeli policy will assure failure to find a solution for Palestine. In one morning of politicking in New York Kerry will have sacrificed the good will and possible foreign policy support of a billion Muslims for the good of a Zionist cause that an increasing number of Jews do not support.
Moreover, this week Osama bin Laden made a flat out Israeli support choice potentially even more costly. In a peace message to European and other leaders, as reported in Middle East media, bin Laden promised that al Qaida would not repeat the Madrid bombings or attacks in their countries if European leaders "halt actions against any country that commits itself to refraining from attacking Muslims or intervening in their affairs". This may be an obvious bid to deepen the rift between European leaders and the Bush administration, as the Bush concessions to Sharon are already doing, but it also makes clear that Palestine remains a major al Qaida issue.
Between them Bush and bin Laden have given Kerry an awkward choice. He can back away from his commitment to Jewish leaders and face their anger as well as the charge of being soft on terrorism that will surely come from Republicans. Or he can stick to his commitment and face insoluble foreign policy choices if he is elected. His minimum damage control solution appears to be a quick and unequivocal distancing of himself and the Democratic Party from the Bush concessions to Sharon. If he does not do at least that much he will carry the albatross to the polls. But even more damaging, his failure to disavow the Bush concessions will make it clear to the American people that their foreign policy and terrorism risk prospects are bleak no matter who wins in 2004.
The writer is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US Department of State. He welcomes comments at



This Site Served by TheHostPros