On Israel and Palestine, Senator Edwards Offers Only Half the Story

by Peter Ryan

This year I will be voting for John Kerry-but with a heavy heart. Bush's policies in the Middle East have been nothing short of disastrous but Senator Kerry, and his trusty sidekick John Edwards, have demonstrated time and again that their policies-particularly their policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict-will simply offer "more of the same." At least, their rhetoric is identical-the best we can hope for is that Kerry and Edwards don't really mean what they say, essentially that they are playing politics rather than constructing their actual foreign policy agenda. In other words, we can only hope that Kerry's bark is worse than his bite. Because his "bark" will mean no peace for Israelis or Palestinians.

Recently, continuing the trend of echoing the Bush administration's Middle East policies nearly word-by-word, John Edwards expressed his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, voicing his personal sympathy for Israeli victims of terror and calling Sharon's Gaza pullout plan "historic."

It is perfectly appropriate, within the context of a Vice Presidential debate, to express sympathy with Israelis who have been slain in recent years during a barrage of suicide attacks. The life of every human being is precious and the targeting of civilians in terrorist attacks is simply unforgivable. But John Edwards did not merely express his sorrow over the loss of innocent Israeli lives, he willfully and forcefully ignored the plight of the Palestinian people-in fact he didn't even mention the "Palestinians" by name, despite the fact that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces over the past couple of years (in a rough estimate, about three times as many).

Nor did he mention the Palestinian land being confiscated or the Palestinian homes purposefully demolished by the Israeli military. He did not mention the two American peacemakers who were beaten within an inch of their lives last week by Israeli settlers. The reason for the attack? The American peacemakers were escorting a group of Palestinian children to school. He did not mention the Palestinians and Israelis who are standing together in the name of peace and justice and opposing both the occupation and the cycle of violence. Instead, he told the world that Israel "has no partner in peace."

In the final analysis, Senator Edwards got it half right. It was proper and just to express sympathy and solidarity with Israeli victims of terror, but it was abhorrent to ignore the plight of the Palestinians and the real violence that is being committed against them through the continued occupation of their lands.

Will John Edwards shed no tears for the children who have been shot by Israeli soldiers? Will he shed no tears for the Palestinian family of ten living under a single roof whose home was then demolished by an Israeli bulldozer? Are American and Israeli lives the only ones with inherent value or is it true that every human life is precious and of incalculable worth? One fact bears repeating: far, far more innocent Palestinians have been killed by Israel's occupation forces than Israelis who have been killed in terrorist attacks-yes, innocent Palestinians killed by Israelis. Aside from deaths caused by Israel's military, Palestinians have also been frequently killed or harassed by Israeli settlers, the more radical of whom hope to be able to claim more land by intimidating their Palestinian neighbors. These crimes, if they are ever prosecuted, usually result in weak punishments for the Israeli settlers, communicating the message that a crime against a Palestinian is really not a crime at all.

The truth is, neither Israelis nor Palestinians need our sympathy and they certainly have no need of our rhetoric. What they need is a solution to the conflict: a resolution that is fair and just and that will lead to a decrease in both Israeli and Palestinian violence. Fortunately, very real solutions exist to this conflict, should politicians be brave enough to pursue them: if Israel were to begin withdrawing settlements from the West Bank, violence from both sides, though it would not disappear, would significantly decline. If the U.S. were to bring the Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table, violence would decrease in direct proportion to how hopeful civilians on both sides were about their chances to achieve a genuine peace. This process requires leadership and strength-from Palestinians, Israelis and Americans. In the debate last Tuesday, Edwards, by ignoring many of the central issues facing the region, clearly demonstrated that he did not have the courage or will to truly pursue peace in the Middle East.

Before I go any further, let's review Edward's statement in its entirety. On Tuesday night (October 5th, 2004) during the Vice Presidential debates between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, the moderator asked the following question:

"Senator Edwards, as we wrap up the foreign policy part of this, I do want to talk to you about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, a senior member of Islamic Jihad was killed in Gaza. There have been suicide bombings, targeted assassinations, mortar attacks, all of this continuing at a time when the United States seems absent in the peace-making process. What would your administration do? First of all, do you agree that the United States is absent? Maybe you don't. But what would your administration do to try to resolve that conflict?"

Here is Senator Edwards' response:

"Well, first of all, I do agree that we've been largely absent, not entirely absent, but largely absent from the peace-making process over the last four years. And let me just say a couple of preliminary things and then talk about where we are now. First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves.

I mean, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel. We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.

What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists? They have not only the right to the obligation to defend themselves.

Now, we know that the prime minister has made a decision, an historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It's important for America to participate in helping with that process.

Now, if Gaza's being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself. They don't have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace."

(Text From FDCH E-Media, Inc.)

Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza may be historic, but it is not a gesture towards peace. Pragmatic Israeli hawks have always wanted to remove themselves from Gaza, seeing it, in essence as a deathtrap. If Sharon can replace Israeli soldiers in Gaza with Egyptian ones, that will certainly be seen as a political victory, especially if he can use Gaza's semi-autonomy to further destabilize the Palestinian Authority. But it is not a gesture towards peace; Sharon has made it clear that he will allow Israeli settlements to expand. In the end, even with the pullout, Palestinian control over Palestinian land will be diminished, not increased, by the Sharon government. And it seems increasingly unlikely that Sharon will even be able to remove any settlements from Gaza, the pressure on him politically from hard-line settlers has become so great that his coalition is teetering on collapse. The "Gaza withdrawal" will most likely become a "historic" failure.

The idea that Yasser Arafat is not a "partner in peace" misrepresents the very nature of peace partners. I am not a big fan of Arafat. I'd prefer to see the Palestinian leadership emerge out of genuine and regular Palestinian elections. Many Palestinians are working at this very moment to ensure that this possibility will one day be realized. I am also not a big fan of Sharon, the man who was held personally responsible by his own government for the massacres at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps during the war in Lebanon. But peace is not usually made between really nice and likeable people-peace is made between bitter enemies, who are finally too exhausted by war and conflict to carry on a futile struggle but who, instead, choose to serve their own best interests through a negotiated settlement. Not liking Arafat-or disagreeing with him on key issues-is no reason to exclude him from peace talks, any more than Sharon should be excluded. He is, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be, the "only game in town."

George W. Bush has ignored the peace process entirely. In a recent speech, Madeline Albright admonished the Bush administration's lack of effort on behalf of Israelis and Palestinians by saying: "The road map hasn't even been taken out of the glove compartment," referring to the U.S. administration's "roadmap for peace" which has been ignored by both parties and serves merely to mask Bush's complete inability to reignite the process of negotiations. Meanwhile, Bush has endorsed every policy of the Sharon government as the U.S. has continued to shuffle billions to Israel every year in foreign aid (making no demands for even minor concessions in return). In essence we are telling Israel: "Yes, take as much money as you want to do whatever you want no matter how many Palestinians are hurt in the process and no matter how counterproductive it is too Israel's interests in the long term."

But will the Kerry camp be any better? It seems unlikely, especially in light of the fact that Edwards seems unable to recognize the simple reality that Palestinians, like Israelis, are human beings. Their lives are valuable and they too deserve to live in peace and security. Just as he believes that Israel has the "right to defend itself" so too many Palestinians argue that they have a right to defend their country from military occupation, land confiscation, house demolition and the slaughter of innocent civilians. Both countries view the "self defense" of their opponents as an attack on their own security and national interests. The only solution is a negotiated settlement.

Our choices this election year are limited. The Kerry camp can't be worse than the Bush administration but they will most likely offer no tangible improvements. In the end, it will be Israelis and Palestinians who suffer for Bush and Kerry's failures. And when I cast my ballot this November, carefully selecting the hoped-for "lesser of two evils," I will leave the booth with a gnawing sense of dread at the pit of my stomach. After all, their failures are my failure-are all of our failures. As long as the U.S. is unable to return to the process of a negotiated settlement, Israelis and Palestinians will suffer.

Through the years as the situation worsens and worsens we will know the horrible and unavoidable truth: we have only ourselves to blame.

--------------------------------

This article is a Middle East Window exclusive. It cannot be republished without the prior written consent of the editor. For information about republication rights, please contact: peter@middleeastfellowship.org