ZGRAM - 4/26/2002 - "An amazing opinion piece from an otherwise very liberal mainstream paper"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

April 26, 2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:


Here is today's treat for you from the San Diego Union, once my hometown paper:

[START]

April 25, 2002

Politics and the Middle East

by James Goldsborough

How are Americans to understand President Bush's kowtowing to Israeli 
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?

Told to withdraw Israeli forces from the West Bank "without delay," 
Sharon refused. As Israel reduced the Jenin refugee camp to rubble 
using U.S.-supplied arms, Bush praised him as a "man of peace." The 
man of peace now wants to dictate the composition of a U.N. 
fact-finding mission, approved with U.S. support, into Jenin.

As former President Carter pointed out Sunday, presidents don't just 
spin their wheels. Presidents have power levers. In the case of 
Israel, said Carter, the levers are two: We provide $10 million per 
day in aid to Israel; we supply Israel weapons for defensive purposes 
only, not for attacks on refugees.

Bush is having a rocky time. He rides high approval ratings because 
of Sept. 11, but faced with the complexity of Middle East politics, 
he is at sea. A man of domestic politics, he founders in the world 
arena, where America has the reputation of being a superpower.

Bush's instinct from the beginning was to pull back from world 
affairs. Just as he would be the anti-Clinton, he would be the 
anti-Bush I. Those two presidents were too involved in the world, too 
busy with alliances, agencies, treaties and all those things that tie 
a good Texan down.

Bush wanted to "park" the Mideast. Last fall, when the White House 
finally issued a few tepid words of caution about Israel's bulldozing 
of Palestinian homes, Sharon accused Bush of Munich-style 
"appeasement." To this gross insult to a nation that took no part in 
Munich, the White House tut-tutted, asking Sharon to make friendlier 
comments, which he did.

This month, however, as Israeli troops invaded the West Bank, Bush 
said, "stop." Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent to the Middle 
East to secure a troop withdrawal.

Bush was likely pushed into the Powell trip by his father and Brent 
Scowcroft, who are said to have his ear. Neither John Ashcroft, the 
fundamentalist zealot who is attorney general, nor Defense Secretary 
Donald Rumsfeld expressed support. Tom DeLay, the rabid House whip, 
urged fellow born-again Christian Bush to eliminate Yasser Arafat, 
not talk to him.

It took some moxie for Bush to "unpark" the Middle East, but then he 
collapsed. There's no way to pretty this up. Sharon told him to take 
a jump, and he did. Is there a precedent for a presidential mission 
coming up so empty? Marshall's trip to Moscow in 1947? Kissinger and 
Le Duc Tho in Paris in 1972? James Baker in Geneva with Tariq Aziz in 
1991?

In each of those cases, America reacted decisively. There is a price 
to be paid for opposing our interests. That's what power politics is 
all about.

Foreign policy can't be driven by parochial interests. A nation that 
aspires to leadership must have more to its policy than local 
politics. In the Middle East, U.S. leadership is accepted because we 
are viewed as an honest broker. Many administrations have kept it 
that way. We don't kowtow.

The Bush administration is different. It appears to care more about 
political support from American Jews than about a fair Mideast peace 
accord. When Bush I and Baker stopped Israel in 1991 from using U.S. 
money to build illegal settlements on Arab land, they were attacked 
by the pro-Israel lobby. Said Baker: "---- the Jews, they don't vote 
for us anyway."

Bush II doesn't accept that. He believes in political realignment. He 
thinks he can win the Hispanic vote, which is 75 percent Democratic. 
If Hispanics, why not Jews, who voted 4-1 for Democrats in 2000? It's 
not just that the Jewish vote in a state such as Florida might be 
crucial in 2004, but that being pro-Israel helps him with 
conservatives, religious fundamentalists, the South and the media.

U.S. media are strongly pro-Israel. One criticizes Israel at the risk 
of being called anti-Semitic. New York Times  columnist William 
Safire, who acts as the official media spokesman for Israel, lashes 
out at the "ridicule of liberal pundits" like Mary McGrory to Mark 
Shields who dare to criticize Israel. All two of them.

Eric Alterman, who writes for The Nation,  recently compiled a list 
of commentators who write on the Middle East. Sixty-five were listed 
as supporting Israel, right or wrong. Five were listed as willing to 
criticize both Israel and the Palestinians. Another five, only one of 
them writing for the national press, was listed as anti-Israel.

Politicians and the media feed off each other. If a politician dares 
speak out against Israel, he is pilloried by the Safire 65, and soon 
has Jews shouting charges of anti-Semitism at him.

A former California member of Congress told me this story: A 
colleague was running for the Senate. AIPAC, the Jewish lobby, 
approached him. AIPAC would organize fund-raisers for him in five 
cities, each with a guaranteed take of $100,000.

AIPAC asked for only one thing in return: If he won, he would commit 
to vote in favor of the $3.5 billion in aid Israel receives annually 
from America.

I get my share of anti-Semitic charges. To my accusers, I ask: Why 
wasn't I anti-Semitic between 1993 and 2001, during the Oslo peace 
process? With Sharon, Israel will never have peace. You confuse 
anti-Semitism with anti-Sharonism.

To the latter, I plead guilty. But then, so do many of my Jewish friends.

Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.

[END]

(SOURCE: 
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/opinion/news_1e25golds.html 
)

=====