Posted on 09/26/2008 5:05:05 AM PDT by SJackson
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has reported that two advisers to John McCainMax Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations and Richard Williamson, the Bush administrations special envoy to Sudantold the Washington Institute for Near East Policy during a retreat last weekend that a McCain administration would be reserved and cautious toward either an Israeli-Palestinian or an Israeli-Syrian peace process. (That formulation takes into account Max Boots subsequent complaint that the JTA report misrepresented what he said.)
At the same event Richard Danzigsecretary of the navy under Bill Clinton and an adviser to Barack Obamasaid Obamas approach would be the opposite in both regards, and that he would likely designate a special envoy to deal with the Palestinian issue.
Boot, for his part, said there were several crises in the world needing more attention than the Israeli-Palestinian sphere and alsoaccording to JTAthat the Bush administrations promotion of a renewed process between these two parties has been a mistake.
As for talks with Syria, Boots own amended version of what he said is: What proponents of a deal with Syria dont mention is the price we would have to paywhich likely would include the return of the Golan Heights and the betrayal of Lebanons democracy movement. And what would we get in return? Some nebulous promise not to support terrorism that Damascus could surreptitiously violate?
He added: Its up to Israel whether it gives up the Golan, but John McCain is not going to betray the lawfully elected government of Lebanon.
Although pre-election statements by advisers to members of a think tank cannot, of course, be taken as the last word, if Boots forecast is accurateprovided McCain gets electedit would be a most welcome development.
It would also be a break from an involvement by the last three administrations, particularly on the Palestinian issue, so heavy that it was sometimesat least in effect if not in intentcontemptuous of Israels status as a sovereign country and particularly when conservative Israeli leaders were in power.
As when, for instance, Secretary of State James Baker of the first Bush administration invited Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid Conference in an offer the conservative, rationally skeptical Shamir couldnt refuse because of Israels dependence on the U.S. The conference, which paired off Israel against various Arab partiesincluding the Palestinians and Syria-Lebanonin a transparent push for Israeli land giveaways, indeed led nowhere but eventually fostered backchannel negotiations that produced the failed and bloody Oslo process.
By 1996 after the first wave of Oslo terror had killed about 200 Israelis, the country elected conservative Binyamin Netanyahu over Osloite Shimon Peres as prime ministerto the dismay of President Clinton whose disdain for Netanyahu was well known. Clinton proceeded to brutally pressure Netanyahu into continuing the process he had been elected to end or seriously slow down, culminating in the Wye Agreement under which Netanyahu was supposed to hand still more land to Yasser Arafat.
In 1999 when there were new elections between Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, Clinton went so far as to dispatch his own spin doctors James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Robert Schrumin a move that would have been unthinkable with an ally like, say, Britain or Australiato help Barak win. It worked, and Barak, whose Palestinian and Lebanese policies precipitated both the Second Intifada and the Second Lebanon War, became what George Will called perhaps the most calamitous leader any democracy has ever had.
But by the time Barak and Clinton had been replaced, respectively, by Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush, the latterdespite his vaunted friendship toward Israelwas decidedly frosty toward Israels need to defend itself against the renewed and even larger-scale terror, prompting Sharons angry Israel will not be Czechoslovakia press conference. Then in 2003 Bush along with the Quartet drew up the road map to peace and forced it on Israel over the grave reservations of Sharon and other Israeli leaders.
Though with a more dovish and pliant Olmert government to deal with, the push for the two-state solution has continued to this day with the U.S. training Palestinian forces to take over West Bank cities despite the opposition of the Israeli defense establishment, pressuring Israelvia the indefatigable Condi Riceto remove West Bank checkpoints, and the like.
Considering that the results of this involvementwith various Israeli governments being pushed along, leading the way, or somewhere in betweenhave encompassed drastically increased terror and empowerment of terror including Hamas, intensified hate-education for a generation of Palestinians, severe Palestinian economic decline, and the demoralization of a once proud and confident Israel, a McCain administration that would finally respect Israels sovereignty, and not destructively try to work wonders in a deeply problematic part of the world, would indeed be a huge improvement.
McCain is sounding better and better!
another reason I won’t miss Bush after he leaves...unless Obama wins
When Obama makes statements like, “Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinians,” and has a history of hosting fund-raising efforts for, donating to, and working with anti-Israel organizations, terrorist groups and leaders, putting anti-Semitic and anti- Israel advisers like McPeak and Malley, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that BHO has already thrown Israel under the bus, while urging the bus driver to back up and do it again.
If this is true, that would help me feel more favorable to McCain. Sadly, if Tzipi ends up replacing Olmerde, I wonder if there will be an Israel left for McCain to support. Tzipi is Olmerde in a skirt and heels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.