Special
 The
Arab American National Museum
Immigrants in NJ
Freezing Charity
Survey:
Arab and Jewish Americans
Human Rights in
the US
|
“I made up my mind”
Aref Assaf, Denville,
I have made up my mind, finally, to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Two issues stand out as the basis of my decision: Civil rights and the
Israel Palestine conflict. I have previously written on the impact of
the Patriot Act on millions of Americans, and why a repeal of certain
sections is necessary to ensure a proper balance between liberty and
security. I intend to focus now on another issue that may seal my choice
of candidates for President..
While neither a Bush nor Kerry administration would challenge the
"special relationship" between the US and Israel, the outcome of this
election will likely make a real difference in the amount of death and
destruction visited on both sides, but especially on Palestinians.
There exists, however, significant differences between presidential
candidates John Kerry and George W. Bush. Predictably, when it comes to
the Middle East, the differences are less noticeable. In contrast to the
2000 election, however, when the direction each candidate might take if
elected was not entirely clear, we can be certain what the policies of
Kerry and Bush will look like.
What Bush might do in another four years would not be different in
substance from his terrible first term, but it would be magnified, with
potentially disastrous results. As for Kerry, his inclination toward a
return to negotiations and a reduction of violence wouldn't bring peace
or justice much closer, but would likely mean some lessening of the
killing and destruction.
As John Kerry began his campaign, he was in a paradoxical position. Most
of America’s Arab voters were quite anti-Bush, and could be counted on
to vote for a Democrat. But the major Arab and Muslim organizations
clearly saw that Bush’s stand on Israel was much more biased than
Kerry’s. While most American Arabs and Muslims make presidential choices
based on priorities other than peace and justice in the Middle East,
these large organizations emphasize Palestine above all, and they,
rather than their rank and file voters, are the players candidates try
to win over. Because of this pressure, Kerry has moved away from earlier
more reasonable positions, such as his criticism of Israel’s wall in the
West Bank although he later modified his position and fell into Israel’s
fold.
But campaign promises and actual policies are not the same. They often
do not even resemble each other much. Statements made by both Kerry and
his running mate John Edwards have raised concerns among observers and
have convinced many that the policies of a Kerry administration will be
little different from a second Bush regime. Of course, no administration
will challenge the “special relationship” between the US and Israel, and
the flow of aid and political support for Israel will remain intact no
matter who wins. This will be true until American citizens come out in
sufficient organized numbers demanding a change. However, within that
framework, there are differences, which, while perhaps not mattering
much in terms of attaining a just peace, do make a big difference in the
level of death and destruction for both sides, but especially for
Palestinians.
Rather than listen to the campaign propaganda, one might do better to
look at the people Kerry has assembled around him. These include Sandy
Berger, Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, all veterans of the Clinton years.
These are, of course, some of the key figures responsible for bringing
about the current state of affairs. Ross in particular played a central
role in propagating the myth of the “Generous Offer”. That is the notion
that at Camp David in 2000, the Palestinians were offered virtually
everything they wanted, but refused this, opting instead for a violent
assault on Israeli citizens. This is far from a fair description of the
events at Camp David, and the charade has caused a great deal of damage.
Israeli and American belief in this myth makes peace much harder to
achieve, and it will surely be reinforced in a Kerry presidency with
Ross involved.
Still, all of these men, while certainly not disposed toward any kind of
even-handedness, did generally favor keeping some kind of control over
what they might see as “the occasional excesses” of the Israeli
government. In addition, they all strongly supported continued
engagement with both the Palestinians and Syria. Their inclinations are
more toward the Labor side of Israeli politics. That view favors a
negotiated settlement and a Palestinian state, albeit a settlement where
Israel retains control over most or all of Jerusalem, some kind of
ongoing Israeli military presence in the West Bank and absolutely no
return of any Palestinian refugees. It is far from the even-handed
approach that is needed; that approach would dictate that Israel ends
its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and that both sides negotiate
in good faith over the outstanding issues.
There is no hope of that in a Kerry administration. Indeed, until we who
oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories marshal the serious
political force we are capable of assembling, there will never be an
administration that will take that approach. But Kerry does favor
working diplomatically, and is quite likely to exercise some restraint
over Israeli actions in the Territories, just as Clinton did. This does
not mean things will be the same. The short-sightedness of the Bush
administration, its near-complete refusal to act to slow Ariel Sharon’s
aggressiveness and the intense violence of the past four years have
changed the playing field greatly since Clinton left office. But the
inclination of a Kerry policy will be toward a return to negotiations
and a reduction of violence. It will not bring peace or justice much
closer, but it is likely to mean some lessening of the killing and
destruction.
Many assume that a second Bush administration will be much like the
first. But some strong differences are likely to emerge.
A second Bush term might be called “Bush Unleashed”. It would mean four
years of “we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.” In his first four years in office,
Bush has fundamentally altered the diplomatic playing field in
Israel/Palestine. He has given Israel a guarantee that they would never
have to return to the borders, as they existed before the 1967 war and
that there would be no return of any Palestinian refugees into Israel.
Crucially, this means that the US has decided this in Israel’s favor
without any discussion with the Palestinians. While it has long been
understood by many that this was America’s outlook, the public
proclamation of these points reverses decades of American policy, which
stated that such sensitive issues need to be dealt with in direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush has endorsed
Sharon’s unilateralism, something America has generally opposed. He has
in fact done more to change the basics of Middle East diplomacy than
anyone since Henry Kissinger’s policy of “stalemate”, which permanently
removed the United States from the international consensus formed around
UN Resolution 242, the basis of “land for peace” reached in the wake of
the 1967 war.
The major likely change would be the appointment of a new Secretary of
State. Many believe that Colin Powell will not be back in that office if
Bush is re-elected. Powell has often looked quite uncomfortable while
spouting the party line, a line he often knew to be absurd or even
dangerous. And it has been clear for some time that Powell and the State
Department have been resigned to a secondary role in policy formation
behind Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department...
Powell, for all of his own hawkishness, has been a voice of comparative
reason amid a cacophony of neoconservative voices. Should the new
Secretary of State be someone who is more closely aligned with the
Rumsfeld/Cheney camp, there would be even greater aggression, not just
in Israel/Palestine but everywhere around the world. The UN would not
even be an afterthought anymore. Nor would any allies but for the few
closest ones that stay in line, as England and Israel have. There can be
little doubt that the close relationship with Sharon would be even
closer in a second term.
There are also some indications that the Pentagon is growing
increasingly uneasy with the neocon program. The FBI’ investigation into
Douglas Feith’s office and into AIPAC was initiated at the behest of the
Pentagon. Feith has even hinted he may not be back for the second term
if there is one. But at this point, Rumsfeld and Cheney are sufficiently
schooled in the neocon program, and are sure to continue to rely on the
neocon clique for guidance, whether they are in office or not. In any
case, it seems overwhelmingly likely that any departing neocons will be
replaced by others from the same school, though perhaps less well-known
ones.
In short, four more years of Bush working hand in hand with Ariel Sharon
could elevate this conflict to levels of violence never thought
imaginable. A Kerry administration might change all that.Aref Assaf
lives in Denville and a member of the Daily Record's Community Advisors
Board
|
|
|
The autumn/winter edition of
Banipal Magazine is dedicated to the
memory of Palestinian poet Mahmoud
Darwish.
Click here for more... 
