|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflections of Ken Towery
Bush Mid-east Speech Mr. Bush has now finally set forth what evidently becomes American policy toward the Middle East, so perhaps it is time to look at it seriously. Up to now our policy toward the area has been one of confusion, chaos, and subservience. The Bush speech did nothing to change that unhappy situation. Indeed, if anyone ever had any doubts that Israeli Prime MinisterAriel Sharon was right when he told Foreign Minister Shimon Perez, in a heated Cabinet discussion several months ago, that "We (the Israelis) own America. They know it and we know it", Mr. Bush's speech on the Mideast should put those doubts to rest. (The Sharon comments came, according to reports in the Israeli media--which somehow didn't get reported here in the U.S.-- during a Cabinet argument over the use of American made tanks and aircraft in one of Israel's periodic invasions of the West Bank. Perez argued that the Sharon plan of massive occupation of the Palestinian homeland would not sit well in America. Sharon told Perez, in so many words, not to worry. His comments about "owning America" were made in that context.) Sharon was, of course, right, which is the principal reason we read the Israeli press each day, even before reading the Washington papers (on the web), or any other U.S. newspapers. Long years of experience have taught us that no U.S. President, including Truman and excepting Eisenhower, ever made anything like an independent judgment about matters involving Israel. Words emanating from an American President involving Israel have been, and are now, first vetted through the Israeli lobby in the United States, which of course reflects the views of the Israeli government. Otherwise those words would bear about as much weight as did President Bush's momentary harshness with Sharon over one of Sharon's incursions into the West Bank. (Bush told Sharon to pull his tanks out "now." Sharon, in so many words, told Bush to get lost, that he would pull them out when he got ready.) So Mr. Bush, a reasonably fast learner, changed his dance to fit the tune Mr. Sharon was playing. Mr. Sharon decided, in order to gain more time to prove his contention that Mr. Arafat is unworthy of sitting down at the peace table with Israelis, who, of course, are pure of heart and noble of spirit. After a brief period in which Mr. Bush disagreed with Sharon on the Arafat issue, Mr. Bush caved, and Arafat became an unworthy peace partner. Arafat has to go in order to make Sharon happy. Now Bush is lauded in Israel, where his speech is viewed so favorably that, according to Israeli media reports, it "could have been written" by Ariel Sharon. And that, gentle reader, has been the Israeli objective all along. Nothing pleases the Israeli government more than to be cast as "America's only friend in the Middle East." That characterization, untrue as it is, assures a continuation of American tax dollars to Israel. It also simplifies matters for American politicians. It is the nature of politics that its practitioners must accept the electorate as it exists, and try to work within that electorate to achieve their goals, if they have any. Many Jews vote in American elections, but few Palestinians do. Many media conglomerates in America are owned by Jewish investors, but we know of none owned by Palestinians. So when you wonder, gentle reader, about the way things go, or the reporting on Middle East affairs, just be aware of those simple facts. The Bush "plan" for peace in the Middle East will do nothing for peace. Unless, that is, we can somehow define peace as subservient acquiescence on the part of the weak to the whims of the strong. As far as its stated objective of creating two independent states living side by side in peace is concerned, the Bush plan is nothing but a cop-out to the demands of Sharon and his lobby in the United States. And make no mistake about it, Sharon does have a large and powerful lobby in this country, ranging all the way from Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League to George Will and Bill Safire (columnists for the New York Times and the Washington Post), and to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Their reasons differ markedly, but their objective (increasing the size and power of Israel) is the same. Mr. Bush's "vision" of two states, one Palestinian state of Christians and Muslims, and one Jewish, living peacefully side by side, is shared by most Americans. It is even shared by many in the Middle East. That part of the idea was advanced by Saudi Arabia many months ago, only to get a lukewarm cold shoulder from Bush. But in his Middle East policy speech Bush does not set forth any clearly defined borders for the proposed states, nor even any definite timeline. Rather, it sets forth conditions that are impossible to meet. It gives Sharon the green light to do anything he wants to do. The ultimate size and shape of Israel would be left to "negotiations", with one side sitting atop a massive military force, including nuclear weapons, and the other sitting atop a rag-tag army of suicide bombers. About the only thing definite in Bush's speech was the bit about Arafat having to go, before America would even consider trying to help. Somehow, we had hoped for more from Mr. Bush. The two major groups that will be happy with Bush's proposals are the leaders of terrorist groups and the Israeli government, neither of which want peace in the region, and both of which relish chaos and turmoil. Bush went into office, with the support of many of us, decrying the idea of "nation building", along with the practice of "ethnic cleansing." In the warring Balkan area, we (the U.S.) turned our back on indigenous Christians in favor of Muslims in Kosovo and Albania. Our stated reason for getting involved in the Balkans was our resolute opposition to "ethnic cleansing" on the part of Christians. In the Middle East, he is proving himself to be every bit as decisive as in the immigration mess. After waffling mightily, he has adopted, in Toto, the very positions he abhorred during his campaign to become President. And what, pray tell, is the reason for this change of heart? Since there can be no logical explanation for it in the field of foreign policy, we must look elsewhere&emdash;to the field of domestic politics. Bush went into office knowing that two very important groups (politically) were in wholehearted opposition to his Presidency. Those groups were, of course, the American Jewish community and the black community. The American Jewish community was opposed to him because his name was Bush, and that community remembered his father unfavorably. The elder Bush had earned the ire of the Israeli government (and their lobby in America) during our war with Iraq, when he opposed automatic approval of a $10 Billion grant to Israel, which the Israeli government thought it had coming because that state bowed to the wishes of the U.S. and stayed out of the war. They demanded, in return, a $10 Billion interest-free grant, over and above the billions they receive annually from American taxpayers. In time, they got their $10 Billion, and Bush got (when he ran against Clinton) a measly 10 percent or less of the Jewish vote in the United States. The younger Bush did slightly better when he ran against Gore, but not much. Both the Jewish vote, and the black vote, went overwhelmingly for Gore. A few wealthy (and highly visible) Jews and a few blacks went for Bush. The President has no doubt been lobbied mightily in this matter. He has no doubt been told by his political "gurus" that the Jewish vote is highly volatile, that it can be moved this way or that, politically, based on the single issue of support for Israel. In the world of politics, perhaps Mr. Bush can be forgiven for pandering to this or that voting bloc. A greater good can cause voters to overlook many minor foibles, of which pandering is one. But the cause of peace in the Middle East, a just and lasting peace, is a cause warranting a just approach. Unfortunately, the President's speech laying out his Mid East policy does not meet the test. We hope time proves us wrong.
|
|
 |
|
