Evenhanded, Not!
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Email]](http://www.eyeranian.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
The leadership of Democratic Party, along with some of its prominent members like Joe Lieberman, recently jumped all over Howard Dean for suggesting that the best way to achieve peace in the middle-east is an “evenhanded” approach by U.S. to the conflict between Israel and occupied Palestine. By their harsh criticism, they once again demonstrated how this is the only topic that is officially off the table and anyone ever daring to suggest otherwise, is an unpatriotic madman that should not be taken seriously. I was about to write more about this in detail before reading James Goldsborough’s latest article on the same topic. Since he has (one again) managed to describe a different point of view so eloquently and precisely, I’ll just post his piece. Click below to read it.
Source
An evenhanded Middle East policy
JAMES O. GOLDSBOROUGH
September 22, 2003
Gov. Howard Dean was immediately attacked by some fellow Democrats for his comments on the Middle East the other day. Sen. Joseph Lieberman and 34 House Democrats took on the party’s presidential front-runner.
Dean’s comment was that America should try to be “evenhanded” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that “it’s not our place to take sides.”
Evenhandedness is too much for Lieberman. Dean’s comments, he said, “break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republican and Democrat, and members of Congress of both parties have supported our relationship with Israel based on shared values and common strategic interests.”
The letter from 34 House Democrats (some of whom support Dean’s rivals) said, “This is not a time to be sending mixed messages.”
It would be nice to have a U.S. election in which Israel is not a central issue. Nevertheless, to attack someone who seeks to be “evenhanded” in the Middle East conflict is wretchedly bad judgment. Lieberman’s comment raises the question of whether America could still fulfill its vocation as an honest and effective peace broker if it followed his unbalanced advice.
The Bush administration provides the example. It has been unbalanced in favor of Israel since it took office, and where are we today? Ten years after the White House handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, three years after Arafat and Ehud Barak met at Camp David ? both meetings presided over by President Clinton ? Israelis and Palestinians are at a dead end. Lieberman and Bush’s unbalanced policy is a train wreck.
Dean may backtrack toward Lieberman’s unbalanced policy as the campaign rolls on, but it will be the triumph of politics over reason. History shows that until America was ready to take a balanced stand in the Middle East, nothing was accomplished, and that when Bush reverted to unbalanced policy, everything that had been accomplished was destroyed.
Lieberman oversimplifies with his so-called “50-year record.” Over that period, there have been large differences among U.S. administrations on Middle East policy. More recently, however, at least since the Bush I administration, we find remarkable policy consistency based precisely on Dean’s idea of evenhandedness.
It is the Bush II administration that has deviated from evenhandedness and allowed the Middle East to sink back into conflict and hopelessness.
The basis of U.S. policy for every administration since 1967 has been U.N. Resolution 242, passed after the June 1967, war, calling for an Arab-Israeli settlement based on land for peace. Resolution 242 is evenhanded.
Bush I and Clinton pressed hard to have the resolution accepted by both Arabs and Jews. Understanding that Israel’s expansion of settlements on Arab land made peace impossible, Bush I vigorously opposed settlements, leading Israel to change leaders and bring Rabin to power. Rabin understood that to get a deal with the Palestinians, Israel had to be fair, and thus the Oslo peace process was born.
The peace process stagnated after Rabin was murdered by a Jewish fanatic, bringing Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposed Oslo, to power. Nudged by Clinton’s “evenhandedness,” Netanyahu grudgingly accepted Oslo, but it was too late for him.
The Oslo results were so spectacular for both sides that Netanyahu was routed in elections by Ehud Barak, a strong peace supporter. Two years ago, I examined data from the Israeli Foreign Ministry showing that in the 18 months between Barak’s defeat of Netanyahu in May 1999, and November 2000 ? the period that encompassed the Camp David peace talks ? there were no suicide bombings in Israel.
The lesson is clear: Progress for 12 years ? until Bush II ? depended on America taking an evenhanded approach. Bush II’s simultaneous embracing of Ariel Sharon and rejection of Yasser Arafat returned the region to its bloody historical impasse.
Lieberman may see himself as the Democrats’ righteous spokesman for Israel, imposing his litmus test of pro-Israel fidelity on Dean and the other candidates. The record shows, however, that Lieberman’s approach is bankrupt. Progress comes when America acts as an honest broker. Dean must not give in on this point, which is both principled and pragmatic.
Bush was seduced by Sharon’s argument after Sept. 11 that crushing the Palestinians had no moral difference from Bush’s crushing al-Qaeda.
This faulty amalgamation gave Sharon carte blanche to scuttle Oslo, expand Israeli settlements and re-occupy Palestinian lands, which unleashed more Palestinian attacks. Attacks on Israel, which had dropped to zero for a year and a half during Israel’s withdrawal from Palestinian lands, rose again sharply.
Sharon and Bush feed off each other’s blind belligerence. Just as Bush gave Sharon carte blanche after al-Qaeda’s attack on America, Sharon now justifies his policy of Palestinian assassinations ? with Arafat high on the list ? by Bush’s war in Iraq. If Bush can invade Iraq and kill Iraqi leaders, goes his argument, Israel can invade and kill Palestinian leaders.
Dean has it right. Evenhandedness is the way forward.
Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
