Sacrificing Israel
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Charles Krauthammer
washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A25
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.
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a