Kristof is Right . . . But his Argument Must be Placed in the Right Hands

Nicholas Kristof wrote a very insightful column in the today's New York Times. In it, he calls for a more open debate, a conversation, amongst the current presidential candidates and within US politics in general, regarding the US role in mediating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

For those of you who did not read the column, or don't have access to it, Kristof states the following:

• "There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself."
• "Within Israel, you hear vitriolic debates in politics and the news media about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Yet no major American candidate is willing today to be half as critical of hard-line Israeli government policies as, say, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper."
• American politicians have learned to "muzzle themselves" in criticizing Israel, for fear of backlash from Jewish voters, donors and other pro-Israel groups.
• "American politicians just don’t get it", with the "it" being that in the Arab and Muslim world, "the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else."
• "For more than half a century, the U.S. was an honest broker in the Middle East. Presidents Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were warmer to Israel and Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush a bit cooler, but all sought a balance. George W. Bush has abandoned that tradition of balance."
• "Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country’s long-term security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing another generation of terrorists in Lebanon. The Israeli right’s aggressive approach has only hurt Israeli security, just as President Bush’s invasion of Iraq ended up harming U.S. interests."

I agree with many of his points, and actually found it quite refreshing to read this. I say this as a devoted Zionist, a long time AIPAC supporter and a staunch defender of Israel's security. I belive that there can be no crack in the US support for Israel, and there can be no sacrifice of Israeli security. Nor should Kristof's points empower the Holocaust deniers, Israel haters or other conspiracy theorists out there in there desire to destroy Israel.

Rather Kristof's points should hopefully alter the manner in which the administration gauges the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Kristof is correct in his assessment that he current administration is inept in its handling of the situation. Many Israel supporters point out President Bush's strident support for Israel, his backing in the Lebanon War, and his refusal to deal with Hamas, among many actions, as reasons why Bush could be hailed as the best president ever for Israel. I applaud Bush for these actions.

But this support for Israel would be most strategic if alongside it the administration would have made efforts to bring the parties to the table, to solve the crisis. The US is the only remaining power who may have a some chance of doing so. I know Hamas is no partner, and the Iraq War has diverted much needed resources, but the Bush administration has failed miserably in trying to find peace between the Israelis and Palestinians - its absence led in part to Hamas' election, catching Bush and Condi Rice by surprise. It has supported Israel, but it has not found a way to support the peace process. It is great that Bush backs Israel now, but what we need is a region that can support itself in the future.

It's Good for Sushi . . . and Energy Independance

As many of you likely know, the dependence of Western nations (including Israel) on the oil found under the Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim nations provides a contradictory spin on the political and diplomatic situation. (The West pays Muslim states for their oil, the money from which goes to fund terrorist and anti-Israel and US activity).

Once the West, and Israel and the US in particular, can break free of this cycle, the dynamics in the region will dramatically change. Reliance on two faced nations like Saudi Arabia may no longer be as strong. Nations like Iran, currently flush with oil money, will have to think twice about thumbing their nose to the US and calling for the destruction for Israel and pay more attention to their balance sheets.

An Israeli firm may be bringing us closer to this day of energy independence, using seaweed. As reported in Haaretz today, the Israeli firm Seambiotic Ltd. apparently has created technology to produce commercial quantities of fuel from seaweed.

Seambiotic's technology allows the industrial cultivation of seaweed through the use of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Instead of allowing the polluting gas to escape into the atmosphere and perpetuate global warming, the gas passes through a filtration process and enters a pool, where it feeds microscopic seaweed. The seaweed is used to produce fuel. It is apparently possible to produce a liter of fuel for every five kilograms of seaweed.

I am not only proud of an Israeli company coming up with this groundbreaking technology, but it can also mean that the West can break free from the reigns of the Muslim nations, and also contribute to the fighting global warming.

King Abdullah, You Almost Got it Right . . .

Yesterday, King Abdullah II of Jordan addressed a joint session of Congress saying that the United States must take the lead in creating conditions for a permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Abdullah said that history has shown no progress in Middle East peacemaking is possible without American leadership.

"We look to you to play a historic role," he said, adding that results are needed "not in one year or five years but this year."

I agree that the Bush administration's leadership in solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue has been lacking and that a sincere, lasting American effort will result in progress and ultimately peace.

But the king missed the mark when he tied essentially all of the Middle East's problems to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. As Representative Steve Israel, a Long Island Democrat, said in a statement, “While he appropriately asked for a resumption of the peace process in the Middle East, he was very imbalanced in identifying the obstacles to that peace process. I expected to hear a speech about Iraq; instead, I was troubled to hear the suggestion that the fact that Sunni and Shia are murdering each other is somehow the fault of the Israelis.”

Your Majesty, once again, the solution to the Middle East's (and the whole world's) problems are not contingent on Israel acquiescing to Hamas. The Arab world cannot continue to blame everything on Israel. I agree that the US needs to inject itself into the Peace Process (I'd go even further and say that Israel needs to assist the Palestinian moderates even more). But please, King, do not come to America and blame the whole region's ills on Israel.