![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Kerry for Israel
Sep. 7th, 2004 01:48 pmConventional wisdom would have it that George W. Bush is Good for Israel, and that Republicans are better for Israel than Democrats. While in terms of things like uncritical support and funding, there may be some truth to that, a view to the big picture demonstrates, that in terms of moral capital, Israel fares better under Democrats than Republicans.
Consider: Carter forged a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. Under Reagan we had Lebanon and the role Israel played in Iran/Contra. Under Clinton, Israel was brought to the brink of a peace treaty with the PA, and moral capital was high when it was Arafat who turned his back on it. Under Bush we have seen increasing brutality from Sharon's IDF and a corresponding uptick in hostile acts against Jews in the Diaspora.
The reason for this disparity, I think, has to do with what Israel means to each party. To the Democrats, it is a Jewish State, a safe haven for a people who have spent a couple of millenia being crapped on and deserve a respite. To Republicans it is a strategic ally, a projection of western values into an oil rich region.
The effect of 9/11 cannot be overlooked either. Since the attacks, Bush has been ever more reaching and grasping, and one cannot help but notice eerie echoes of Bush's policies in Sharon's responses to Israel's terror problem. The thought seems to be "if America can get away with that, so can we." The problem with this reasoning is that if the world decides to hate Americans, there are few vulnerable pockets of Americans out there compared with the number of Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora. Any of those communities can be attacked without the level of focus, concentration, planning, or capital that it took to execute 9/11. Sharon's most dangerous policy is the destruction of the homes of suicide bombers. This was standard operating procedure under the British Mandate, and it worked so well for the Brits that they fled the scene as soon as there was a western-style Jewish State upon which they could wipe the booger that is Palestine. It wasn't effective then and it's not effective now.
Sharon is doing one thing right: The security fence that Israel is constructed has proven itself to be very effective at thwarting suicide bombers. The recent attacks in Israel demonstrate quite clearly the difference in safety between areas protected by the fence and areas that are not protected by it. It is a pity that Palestinians are being inconvenienced by this, but when convenience is weighed in the balance with death, it is convenience that must yield. Kerry has demonstrated his support for the fence, roundly chastising the International Court for its ruling condemning it.
Both because of the record of Democrats in helping Israel put its best foot forward on the world stage, and because Kerry would be a better role model for the Israeli Prime Minister than Bush, I believe Kerry would be the better choice for Israel and for world Jewry. The current model of Bush and Sharon as two blood-drunk bullies goading each other on to new heights of violence in the name of security must be broken. It only aids the terrorists.
Consider: Carter forged a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. Under Reagan we had Lebanon and the role Israel played in Iran/Contra. Under Clinton, Israel was brought to the brink of a peace treaty with the PA, and moral capital was high when it was Arafat who turned his back on it. Under Bush we have seen increasing brutality from Sharon's IDF and a corresponding uptick in hostile acts against Jews in the Diaspora.
The reason for this disparity, I think, has to do with what Israel means to each party. To the Democrats, it is a Jewish State, a safe haven for a people who have spent a couple of millenia being crapped on and deserve a respite. To Republicans it is a strategic ally, a projection of western values into an oil rich region.
The effect of 9/11 cannot be overlooked either. Since the attacks, Bush has been ever more reaching and grasping, and one cannot help but notice eerie echoes of Bush's policies in Sharon's responses to Israel's terror problem. The thought seems to be "if America can get away with that, so can we." The problem with this reasoning is that if the world decides to hate Americans, there are few vulnerable pockets of Americans out there compared with the number of Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora. Any of those communities can be attacked without the level of focus, concentration, planning, or capital that it took to execute 9/11. Sharon's most dangerous policy is the destruction of the homes of suicide bombers. This was standard operating procedure under the British Mandate, and it worked so well for the Brits that they fled the scene as soon as there was a western-style Jewish State upon which they could wipe the booger that is Palestine. It wasn't effective then and it's not effective now.
Sharon is doing one thing right: The security fence that Israel is constructed has proven itself to be very effective at thwarting suicide bombers. The recent attacks in Israel demonstrate quite clearly the difference in safety between areas protected by the fence and areas that are not protected by it. It is a pity that Palestinians are being inconvenienced by this, but when convenience is weighed in the balance with death, it is convenience that must yield. Kerry has demonstrated his support for the fence, roundly chastising the International Court for its ruling condemning it.
Both because of the record of Democrats in helping Israel put its best foot forward on the world stage, and because Kerry would be a better role model for the Israeli Prime Minister than Bush, I believe Kerry would be the better choice for Israel and for world Jewry. The current model of Bush and Sharon as two blood-drunk bullies goading each other on to new heights of violence in the name of security must be broken. It only aids the terrorists.
