BUSH AND KERRY: FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES ON ISRAEL

Fundamental Differences On Israel by Michael Oren
On the face of it, the positions of George Bush and John Kerry on the question of Israel - its security, its relations with the Arab world and alliance with the United States - are virtually indistinguishable...

Closer examination, however, reveals fundamental differences in the attitudes toward Israel displayed not only by the two candidates but also by the parties they lead - differences that could gravely impact Israel's future.

Since 1948, American foreign policy toward Israel and its conflict with the Arabs has been remarkably consistent... Well before 1957 American policy was committed to the principle of territory for peace — that is, the understanding that Israel would have to give up a significant amount of land in order to receive security and recognition from the Arabs. American presidents from Truman through Clinton have expressed serious reservations about Israel’s right to retaliate against Arab terror, and have also condemned Israeli reprisals both from the White House and in the United Nations.

President Bush has departed substantively from all these traditional policies. On the question of territory for peace, for example, the president has reversed the order — now the Arabs must first give Israel peace before they can receive any territory, and he has specifically said that Israel will not have to return to the 1967 borders. Bush is also the first president to go on record in support of the continuing Jewish nature of Israel — that is, opposing a mass return of Palestinian refugees — and has stressed his commitment to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s sovereign capital. The administration has repeatedly vetoed UN attempts to condemn Israel’s military actions against Palestinian terrorists, and rarely a week passes when it does not declare that Israel has a right to defend itself.

At the same time, Bush has also become the first president to commit America to the creation of a Palestinian state and to cooperate with the European Union, the UN and Russia — the so-called Quartet — in realizing Palestinian rights. Yet Bush has also stated unequivocally that no progress can be made toward peace without the full cessation of Palestinian terror and the democratization of the Palestinian Authority.

In contrast to President Clinton, who made Yasir Arafat his most frequent foreign visitor at the White House, Bush has never met with the Palestinian leader.

The fact that Israeli forces can today operate freely against terror cells, and Israel can build its security barrier, reducing suicide attacks by more than 90 percent, owes much to George Bush...
If victorious, John Kerry may maintain Bush’s policies toward Israel, particularly in the absence of a viable Palestinian partner in the peace process. Elements within the Democratic Party, however, have been critical of what they call Bush’s failure to help end Palestinian-Israeli violence and to play a more activist role in the peace process. This could lead Kerry to pressure Israel to remove its forces from Palestinian cities or to negotiate with Palestinian officials who cannot truly deliver peace.

Kerry’s equivocations about the wisdom of the Iraq war and its conduct could provide a fillip to the terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction, and potentially expose Israel once again to a military threat from the east. Kerry’s stated intention to act in concert with the United Nations and to consult the international community relating to Middle Eastern security might not bode well for Israel.

...It could be that a re-elected Bush might try to entice the Europeans to support him in Iraq by endorsing their criticism of Israel. Kerry, by contrast, might ignore the ambivalence expressed toward Israel by some of his Democratic colleagues and outdo Bush in his unswerving support for the Jewish state. And, of course, American Jews have many other issues to consider in this election in addition to the candidates’ positions on Israel.

On the basis of past performance, however, there can be no doubt that Bush has been a formidable friend to Israel at a crucial juncture in its history. As Israel continues to face daunting challenges — possible UN sanctions, Palestinian rockets fired at cities and airports, and pressures for a one-state solution — that record should not be ignored.

Michael Oren, senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jersualem, is the author of “Six Days of War: June 1968 and the Making of the Modern Middle East” (Oxford).