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.