Democrats Say Bush and McCain Endanger Israel

View from a booth:

The Democrats are correct. If it were not for George Bush and Condi Rice, et al, Hamas would not have been on the ballot in the 2006 P.A. territorial elections. But Bush, in his role as 21st century Woodrow Wilson, would not have anything other than "democracy", even where at least one of the parties was and remains completely repugnant to the very notions that undergird democracy. Every rocket that falls on Sderot and environs is the result of an idiotic, ideologic foriegn policy that has only within the past few months come back to reality. Israelis cannot afford to be ideologues. They are worried about physical survival, something the Bushes have never had to concern themselves with. Obama and Biden are not going to make Israel do anything that is contrary to its national self interest as THEY define it, not as the US defines it. Israel and Israelis hopefully know best what's good for Israel. Tzipi Livni and Barack Obama will come to a quick understanding on that score.

Randy Shiner


Democrats Say Bush and McCain Endanger Israel

by Gil Ronen

(IsraelNN.com) Several speakers at the Pepsi Center in Denver, where the Democratic convention is being held, argued that Israel's enemies have been emboldened by Republican missteps. JTA reports that the speeches reflect a strategic decision by the Democrats to go on the attack against the Bush administration over Israel, after years of simply insisting both they and the Republicans were equally supportive of the Jewish state.

Alan Solomont, a top fund raiser for John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004 and for Obama's this year, said that four years ago it was the "belief of the Kerry campaign that [Israel] was not a point of differentiation, and therefore the campaign did focus on other issues."

'Hamas and Hizbullah are on the March'
This year was different. One of those who used his speech to deliver the new talking points was Senator Kerry, who said: "George Bush, with John McCain at his side, promised to spread freedom, but delivered the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. They misread the threat and misled the country. Instead of freedom, it’s Hamas, Hizbullah, the Taliban and dictators everywhere that are on the march."

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh claimed: "Under George Bush, the Middle East has become more troubled. That hurts America and endangers our ally, Israel, which has been forced to confront a resurgent Hamas, an emboldened Hizbullah and an Iran determined to get nuclear weapons. That is not the change we need."

Florida Representative Robert Wexler said: "We entered into an unnecessary war and remain bogged down in Iraq as Afghanistan backslides and the architects of Sept. 11 remain free. On Bush and McCain’s watch, we have witnessed the growing influence of a belligerent Iran that has destabilized the Middle East and threatens our ally, Israel."

During his speech, Wexler – who boasts of being the first Jewish congressman to back Obama's presidential bid – described the nominee as a staunch supporter of Israel.

Obama 'Stands with Israel' - and Supports Two-State Solution
"In his heart, in his gut, Barack Obama stands with Israel," Wexler said, adding that the candidate "understands the threats Israel faces from Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran. And as President, Barack Obama will strongly support Israel’s right and capability to defend itself, and finally make progress toward the goal of a two-state solution that preserves Israel’s security as a Jewish state."

President Bill Clinton and Obama's running mate, Joseph Biden, did not directly reference Hamas and Hizbullah but focused on the harm done by what they described as the Bush administration's failure to utilize diplomacy.

Clinton argued that America's "position in the world has been weakened by," among other things, "a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Center and Eastern Europe."

Biden Blasts Bush
As for Biden, he pointed to Iran as a hot spot where the United States has failed diplomatically.

"Should we trust John McCain’s judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about? Or Barack Obama, who said we must talk and make it clear to Iran that its conduct must change," Biden said. "Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran, because that’s the best way to advance our security. Again, John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right."

RJC fires back
Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), fired back on Thursday, noting that Bush had "redefined" the U.S. relationship with the "Palestinians," marginalized Yasser Arafat and supported Israel's construction of the Judea and Samaria security fence. In addition, he said, Bush had been described as the most pro-Israel president by two Israeli prime ministers.

"I don't know how an appeasement policy being advocated by Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden makes Israel any more safe and secure," Brooks said.

Brooks criticized as "absolutely ludicrous" the Democrats' argument describing the war in Iraq as a disaster that threatened Israel's security. "At the end of the day, we took out one of the most despotic dictators and destabilizing regimes in Iraq that was paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers sent to kill Israeli civilians," he explained.

Republicans, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani earlier this week, have been painting Obama as naïve and undependable when it comes to safeguarding Israel. And, in recent days, they have also attempted to challenge Biden's pro-Israel bona fides. The Republican Jewish Coalition issued a statement Wednesday citing a 1982 clash that Biden had with Israel's then-prime minister, Menachem Begin, in which the Delaware senator criticized Israeli expansion of settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and reportedly raised the possibility of cutting U.S. aid to Israel over the issue. In addition, the RJC cited several pro-Israel congressional letters and resolution that Biden did not sign on to.

Biden, who has worked closely with Israel and Jewish groups on many issues, was praised by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee upon being tapped by Obama.

"The Right Place to Fight Terrorism... Is the [Terrorists'] Sanctuaries... in Pakistan"

"The Right Place to Fight Terrorism... Is the [Terrorists'] Sanctuaries... in Pakistan"


To view this clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1813.htm.

Hamid Karzai: "The problem of terrorism, as it is affecting Afghanistan, is not entirely an Afghan problem. As a matter of fact, a greater part of this problem is a regional problem, and a greater part of this problem is unfortunately coming to us from Pakistan. So the Americans, the international coalition - when they say they are continuing to work in Afghanistan, and yet the security is not there, they are right, because they have not gone to the right place to fight terrorism."

Interviewer: "Which is?"

Hamid Karzai: "Which is the sanctuaries that the terrorists have in Pakistan."

Interviewer: "But Pakistan, actually, recently... I have noticed that there is a very strong declaration from the Afghan government against Pakistan. You have accused the Pakistani government of being behind your attempted assassination, the last one, and the most dangerous thing is that you have threatened that you would go behind the borders just to find Al-Qaeda, and Taliban as well, which means you will go to Pakistan. Right now, Mr. President, if you don't have the power to secure the situation in Afghanistan, do you think you have the power to go behind the border?"

Hamid Karzai: "When I said that Afghanistan would go in self defense beyond the Durand Line, [it] was in response to a statement that came from terrorist networks from Pakistan, from someone called Baitullah Mahsoud - you must have heard of him, and from someone called [Maulana] Fazlullah. They declared that they would cross the border and come into Afghanistan, to kill Afghans and the international troops. Now, for me, the president of a sovereign country - when there is a threat issued to me beyond my borders by someone, what is my responsibility?"

"When the Afghan People Decide to Defend Themselves, They Always Win"

Interviewer: "That's right, but the question is: Do you have the power? Can you do it?"

Hamid Karzai: "The power is the power of the government, of the institutions of the government, and of the people. Afghanistan is known in history - and Afghanistan has proven that in history - that when the Afghan people decide to defend themselves, they always win - as we have always won.
[...]
"Why did the international community come to Afghanistan after 9/11?"

Interviewer: "Why?"

Hamid Karzai: "Because they were threatened. The Twin Towers were blown up. A lot of innocent lives were lost. It was a great tragedy for all of us, not only for Americans, but for the whole world. Muslims died, Christians died. Every other nationality died. They felt that the source of that problem was in Afghanistan, so they all came here, first of all, to free themselves of the threats of terrorism, and in the process, to help Afghanistan to regain its independence and to rebuild. And the Afghan people joined hands with them in order to get liberated from the oppression of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Because of that, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan in less than a month and a half.

"But then, why are we still fighting terrorists? If the Afghan people are friendly and want the rest of the world to help them, then what is the problem in Afghanistan? Who is fighting the Afghan government and the international community? If the war is in Afghanistan, and if we are not winning this war, that means there is something wrong in Afghanistan, and then, in that case, it becomes an internal matter for the Afghan people.

"Therefore, we would not need the pressure of the international community in Afghanistan for our internal problems. Then, the Taliban is an internal problem of Afghanistan, and I should sit down with Mullah Omar, find him somewhere, talk to him, and resolve it.

"But if the problem has tentacles, roots, beyond the borders of Afghanistan, if the international community, the international press, and the governments say that there are sanctuaries beyond our borders, in another country, namely, in Pakistan, if the tribal territories of Pakistan are sanctuaries to terrorists, to training grounds, to suicide bombers and their training, which some officials of the government of Pakistan admit and talk about...

"In that case, it is needed, for the security of Afghanistan, for the security of Pakistan, and for the success of the international community, to wage the struggle against terrorism in the right place - that is, the sanctuaries of terrorists beyond the Afghan borders, in Pakistan.
[...]

"This war against terrorism will never be won by bombing Afghan villages. The war of terrorism is not in the Afghan villages."

Interviewer: "Is it in Pakistan?"

Hamid Karzai: "It is in the sanctuaries of terrorists."

Interviewer: "Right now, Mr. President, you are saying that the coalition forces did not do what they should do in Pakistan, while the Western media in general are actually saying: 'No, Mr. Karzai does not do the job well in Afghanistan.' So who do you think we actually should..."

"If [The International Community Says That] Karzai is Not Doing the Job Well In Afghanistan, Then [It] Is Saying That It is an Afghan Problem - [And] In That Case, [It] Has No Business in Afghanistan"

Hamid Karzai: "If Karzai is not doing the job well in Afghanistan, then the international community is saying that it is an Afghan problem. In that case, the international community has no business in Afghanistan, and they'd better leave - if it is an internal Afghan problem."

Interviewer: "But you think it is not an internal, but an international problem..."

Hamid Karzai: "It is an international problem, in which Afghanistan has been suffering the most, and unless the international community focuses in the right place... Afghanistan too is a sovereign country. If they can go with their planes and bomb Afghan villages in pursuit of terrorism, they should do the same in any other sovereign country.
[...]

"I've been trying to find the Taliban and talk to them for the past six years. This is an extremely important question. In Pakistan, the government of Pakistan can find Baitullah Mahsoud and talk to him. They can find Mullah Fazlullah and talk to him. They can find Mangal Bagh and talk to him. They can find Mullah Fazlullah and talk to him, and Mullah Omar of Pakistan, and talk to him. But where do I find the Taliban leaders to talk to them? How can I find Mullah Omar? Where is he?"

Interviewer: "Where is he, do you think?"

Hamid Karzai: "That is the question."

Interviewer: "I am asking you as the President of Afghanistan."

Hamid Karzai: "That is the question. If I know where he is, I will go and talk to him."

Interviewer: "Where do you expect him to be right now?"

Hamid Karzai: "He is not in Afghanistan."

Interviewer: "How are you so sure... You have mentioned before, Mr. President, that even Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan."

Hamid Karzai: "He is not. Surely."

Interviewer: "What is your proof?"

Hamid Karzai: "I am sure if he were here, I would have found him."

Foreign Policy's Best Hope

Foreign Policy's Best Hope

By David S. Broder
Thursday, June 19, 2008; A19



Judging by the rhetoric coming out of the Obama and McCain campaigns this week, the United States is fated to endure another four years of bitter foreign policy partisanship, whoever wins this election. The rival nominees clashed on the proper approach to the war on terrorism; the way to handle the world's major trouble spots, including Iraq; and the approach America should take on everyone from Raúl Castro to the Iranian mullahs.

If there is any hope of reconstructing what this country and the world desperately need -- an American national security policy that commands broad support across party lines -- the impetus will have to come from elsewhere.

Last week, I visited the likeliest source. I spent two hours in separate but parallel interviews with the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden of Delaware, and the ranking Republican on that panel, Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Despite all the static in the political atmosphere, Biden and Lugar left me believing that there is hope of overcoming the divisive legacy of the past six years -- in large part because of the work these two have done together to prepare the way.

They are not unique. There are deep friendships and cordial working relationships on a few other Senate committees, including Armed Services, where Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican John Warner of Virginia enjoy a similar bond.

But in the years since the troublemaking Jesse Helms of North Carolina retired and Lugar and Biden have passed the chairmanship back and forth, they have established a code of comfortable collaboration that has pervaded the entire panel.

Both these men are dead-serious students of international affairs. They travel the world and read and consult widely. There is a deep mutual respect; I lost count of the number of times Biden quoted Lugar, and vice versa, during our conversations.

As foreign policy specialists know, Biden and Lugar have conducted scores of hearings exploring the trouble spots in the world with officials from this administration and its predecessors, along with academic experts without regard to ideology.

Their emphasis has been on future policy choices, and both men said that as views have been exchanged and policies tested, the area of agreement within the committee has grown -- and the differences have narrowed.

Increasingly, Biden said, he and Lugar have begun to focus on some of the structural problems that impede America from achieving its goals in the world. "We need a new national security act," he said, one that equips the United States with a diplomatic and civil administration capacity as ready to move into Iraq-type conflicts as the military is to cope with hostile forces. "Lugar had it right five years ago," Biden said. "We needed to send 600 mayors to Iraq to get that country functioning again."

Lugar also sees the need for a recasting of foreign policy. Energy issues will increasingly foment international conflicts, he said, and therefore need to become an important part of the State Department structure and agenda. Last year, well before the current spike in oil prices, Lugar proposed that kind of shift.

It is not certain that Biden and Lugar will remain in their posts when the new president takes office. Biden is a plausible choice for vice president or secretary of state under Barack Obama. Lugar could serve as secretary of state for either John McCain or Obama, a man Lugar recruited for membership on Foreign Relations and a vocal admirer of his.

But if they stay where they are, they could be the best friends the new president has on Capitol Hill. Both Lugar and Biden have run for the presidency themselves, and both are genuinely ready to work with a new president after feeling more than frustrated by their dealings with the Bush White House. If that new president wants a genuine partnership on an American foreign policy, he would have to look no farther than these two.

davidbroder@washpost.com