Refugees and Israeli Responsibility

Letter to the IHT from Ambassador Erik Ader, Netherlands (see cv at end)

3rd April 2007

According to Steven Erlanger’s article in the Saturday/Sunday edition of the International Herald Tribune, PM Ehud Olmert stated categorically “… that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugees, whose plight resulted from an attack by Arab nations on the fledgling state”.

On a recent visit to Israel, to see people who found refuge in my parents’ manse in World War II, I wandered into the “Etzel Museum” in a park between Tel Aviv and Jaffa. From a plaque on the wall I quote “On Monday 25 April 1948 during the week of Passover an Etzel Force set out to conquer Jaffa… population 80,000… to remove the danger posed to the city of Tel Aviv and its residents… Etzel mortars, relentlessly bombarding the centre of the town, caused the mass flight of the Arab population”. Twenty tons of ordnance rained down on frightened citizens. This had already been preceded by the attack on mainly Palestinian Haifa, coordinated between the Irgun and Haganah, on 21 April 1948 and other Palestinian population centres.

Another plaque in this museum states “… Beyond the dispute over the number of casualties, it is universally agreed that the Deir Yassin operation was a key point in the War of Independence”. The numbers disputed are those of the casualties, ranging from 110 to 250. The Etzel attackers lost five men, it was a massacre of mainly unarmed civilians. The “key point” the plaque refers to is that “operations” like these were the main cause of the Palestinian exodus. The date was 10 April 1948. On 14th May 1948, the day Israel declared its Independence, 300,000 Palestinians had left the country, according to Israeli historian Benny Morris. All this, therefore, happened before Arab armies invaded the fledgling state to come to the rescue of the beleaguered Palestinians. The larger part of that exodus had been caused by acts of terror and intimidation as described above.

Israel would continue the expulsions, not only after the 14th May 1948 but even after the cessation of hostilities in 1949 and deny the refugees to return to their homes and lands, often within sight across barbed wire. All in all some 750,000 residents of Palestine were thus dispossessed.

I would suggest that all Israelis who suffer from similar bouts of selective amnesia read the publications by their own historians on the subject, like Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti, or contact the courageous Israeli NGO Zochrot.

One does understand that before negotiations tough positions are being taken, but overdoing it is counterproductive. In the longer run it is ruinous: for genuine peace and reconciliation between Israel and Palestine, justice and truth are preconditions.

D.A.V.E. Ader

On my background: I am a recently retired Dutch Ambassador (postings in Oslo, Hanoi and Beirut) and the son of a Dutch reverend who was shot by the Germans for saving hundreds of Jewish compatriots during the occupation in World War II. (Re. Yad Vashem).

Riyadh and chances for peace

Peace Now supporters demonstrated March 28th outside Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's official residence, in support of the Riyadh Summit, at which Saudi King Abdullah and other Arab League leaders reaffirmed the Saudi Initiative originally twice offered to Israel five years ago and ignored twice by Sharon. Calling on Olmert not to be a refusenik of peace, Peace Now urged him to accept the Initiative, offering regional integration to Israel in exchange for a return to the 1967 Green Line, and a full end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories (including a comprehensive, just solution to the long overdue refugee problem). The demonstration was attended by a crowd of some 150 Israelis, brandishing flags of the 22 Arab League member states, incongruously integrated with the Israeli flag and Hebrew posters.

In a similar public statement, Gush Shalom stated:

"In Riyadh,
The assembled leaders
Of the Arab countries
Offered us
Peace with the Palestinians
And the entire Arab world
For generations to come.

In Homesh*
The assembled settlers
Offered us
War with the Palestinians
And the entire Arab world
For generations to come.

We must choose."

And whilst American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initially made encouraging sounds on this shuttle-stop as to establishment of a viable Palestinian state and acceptance of that Saudi peace plan, by the time she met with Olmert the message was sufficiently watered down to be meaningless. Olmert announced in her presence that Israel will meet every fortnight with President Abbas, no doubt echoing two such recent meetings at which no progress was achieved, and promises by Israel as to relaxation of Palestinian freedom of movement remain unkept; in fact, since the first of those meetings a new checkpoint, deep inside the West Bank outside Nablus, has been initiated - presumably to protect Palestinian villagers from other Palestinian villagers, including family members. Such major terminals are reportedly funded by the US out of money earmarked for the Palestinians, cynically, for their "security." Insult to injury. Salt in the wounds.

Then, during the April 1st visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who wrote in the guestbook of Yad Vashem: "Humanity grows out of responsibility for the past"), Olmert edged tenuously closer to something more meaningful, whilst still irresponsible. He spoke of a meeting with "moderate" Arab states and acknowledged "elements" of the Saudi initiative, whilst making progress all but impossible by clinging to preconditions, and declaring that the refugee "problem" was not Israel's responsibility and that Israel would not accept "one single refugee" to return home inside Israel. A week away from commemorating the Deir Yassin massacre, survivors of the Yishuv's policies in 1947-48 of Plan Dalet would greet that dismissal of responsibility with contempt. Whereas an apology, acknowledgement of responsibility, would help to start the vitally required healing - on both sides.

In the absence of meaningful talks, whilst new settlements and expansion of existing ones continue full speed ahead, an unwilling Israeli public is being dragged, willy-nilly, back into unilateralism or Convergence, despite having learned the hard way that unilateralism increases Palestinian and Hizbullah resistance and rocket attacks. And although a majority of the Israeli public accepts the inevitability of the Saudi Initiative's basic outlines, Ehud Olmert presumably fears his 3% popularity rating precludes him from entering into peace negotiations. Only Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's most popular ever prime minister, was a warrior for peace. In the shadow of a Second Lebanon War which may yet cost him his job (as did the first one to Sharon), Olmert seems intent to keep failing while fighting, strengthening resistance (he must know this?), undermining moderates such as the Saudi royal family, Egypt and Jordan while increasing facts on the ground that are such obstacles to peace - especially settlements inside Jerusalem and new infrastructure on E1, so impacting on Palestinian future viability and contiguity. The Israeli press points to the fact that George W. Bush must have given Olmert a green light to ignore Rice's overtures. Just as he, Bush, is intent on continuing the folly of the Iraqi Occupation, in spite of his country's obvious preference to withdraw.

Israel, as Sparta to an American Rome, seems yet again never to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to be normal (or law abiding under international law). Imperialism, colonialism, apartheid and occupation. We don't need another hearing at the International Court of Justice to know these are crimes against humanity and illegal (although it's useful to recall that South Africa went to that forum four times until apartheid fell). That they are deliberately chosen. That alternatives are being rejected. And that the Israeli public is being, yet again, denied an integrated position with its neighbours, with possibly fatal results for the longterm viability and sustainability of Israel. As Ilan Pappe says in his recent book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine": "But the window of opportunity will not stay open forever. The risk of even more devastating conflict and bloodshed has never been so acute."

So where does this leave the Man in the Street, we average Israelis? Praying for early elections and a change of leadership. Since the Winograd Commission findings will soon be made public, this could come sooner than expected. But Israeli lack of hope is reflected in the fact that the alternatives (Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu) are former prime ministers whom Israelis kicked out with much relief not long ago. Men who failed, too, to progress peace. So let's hope the numbed Israeli public won't let the Saudi Initiative disappear again, as it did before. Olmert seems intent on preventing peace -- more radically than even the increasingly pragmatic Hamas. Yes, there's no partner for peace. And that non-partner is us. Israel.

*Homesh: An evacuated West Bank settlement recently reoccupied by settlers, but again evicted by the IDF.

Stop the Clash of Civilizations

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_clash/

Al Gore in Congressional Hearing on Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6ZYXllyaF0

Watch a highlight from yesterday's hearing.

Watch Al Gore's entire opening statement.

By 10:00 AM yesterday, as I took my seat in the hearing room, an incredible 519,414 people had signed our message to Congress demanding immediate action to solve the climate crisis.

All of those boxes chock full of your messages, sitting right next to me as I testified, were a fantastic show of support and one that is already having an impact as our Representatives and Senators begin to debate solutions to the climate crisis. In fact, so many people signed our message in the 24 hours before the hearing, we are still working on printing them. But don't worry, Congress now knows that you have spoken, and I will personally make sure every last message is delivered.

I also wanted to make sure that you had the chance to see the hearing for yourself, so I've posted video highlights on AlGore.com:

http://blog.algore.com

After witnessing your incredible show of activism and enthusiasm, I wanted to give something back to you. As many of you know, Live Earth will take place on July 7. The 24-hour concert marks the beginning of a multi-year campaign to raise awareness about our climate crisis. It will feature more than 100 acts, including the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Snoop Dogg, Foo Fighters and Faith Hill.

Tickets are going to sell out fast, and I wanted to make sure that you have the chance to see the show. That's why we will set aside a special block of tickets and let AlGore.com members purchase the first ones sold. I will let you know more details before these tickets go on sale.

If you would like to learn more about the Live Earth concerts you can visit:
http://liveearth.org

In a few short weeks we have grown into a movement of more than 500,000 strong. To ultimately win, we are going to need to grow bigger - but for now we are off to a great start.

Thank you again for what you made possible today,

Al Gore

TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
March 18, 2007

Democrats are railing at just about everything President Bush does, with one prominent exception: Mr. Bush's crushing embrace of Israel.

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.

Three years ago, Israel's minister of justice spoke publicly of photos of an elderly Palestinian woman beside the ruins of her home, after it had been destroyed by the Israeli army. He said that they reminded him of his own grandmother, who had been dispossessed by the Nazis. Can you imagine an American cabinet secretary ever saying such a thing?

One reason for the void is that American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primaries, Howard Dean said he favored an ''even-handed role'' for the U.S. -- and was blasted for being hostile to Israel. Likewise, Barack Obama has been scolded for daring to say: ''Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.'' In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton has safely refused to show an inch of daylight between herself and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

A second reason may be that American politicians just don't get it. King Abdullah of Jordan spoke to Congress this month and observed: ''The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.'' Though widely criticized, King Abdullah was exactly right: from Morocco to Yemen to Sudan, the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else.

You can argue that Arabs pursue a double standard, focusing on repression by Israelis while ignoring greater human rights violations by fellow Arabs. But the suffering in Palestinian territories, while not remotely at the scale of brutality in Sudan or Iraq, is still tragically real.

B'Tselem, a respected Israeli human rights organization, reports that last year Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians (including one minor) and six Israeli soldiers. In the same period, B'Tselem said, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, triple the number killed in 2005. Of the Palestinians killed in 2006, half were not taking part in hostilities at the time they were killed, and 141 were minors.

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.

The best hope for Israel in the long run isn't a better fence or more weaponry; they can provide a measure of security in the short run but will be of little help if terrorists turn, as they eventually will if the present trajectory continues, to chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Ultimately, security for Israel will emerge only from a peace agreement with Palestinians. We even know what that peace deal will look like: the Geneva accord, reached in 2003 by private Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.

M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum headlined a recent column, ''Pandering Not Required.'' He wisely called on American presidential candidates instead to prove their support for Israel by pledging: ''If I am elected president, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure state for the Palestinians.''

Last summer, after Hezbollah killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others, Prime Minister Olmert invaded Lebanon and thus transformed Hezbollah into a heroic force in much of the Arab world. President Bush would have been a much better friend to Israel if he had tried to rein in Mr. Olmert. So let's be better friends -- and stop biting our tongues.



To the Editor:

I served as American consul in Jerusalem from 1976 to 1980. I endorse the sentiments of Nicholas D. Kristof.

When I left Jerusalem in 1980, I believed that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle would be resolved within a few more years. How wrong I was.

It has now been nearly 40 years since the adoption of Resolution 242 with its famous land-for-peace formula. Wouldn't it be a marvelous thing to revivify 242 on its 40th anniversary for the sake of Israel and the Palestinians and the whole world?

Perhaps the Quartet (the European Union, Russia, the United States and the United Nations) could launch an initiative building again on the universally accepted foundation of 242.

Donald A. Kruse
LaGrange Park, Ill., March 18, 2007

PEACE NOW DEMO TODAY SAYING YES TO SAUDI INITIATIVE

All Hail Israel, AIPAC and Grovelling Politicians

HOMAGE TO FEAR AND FAWNING
Thursday, March 22, 2007

by William A. Cook, a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California, (published on MWC News and crossposted on Ben Heine-Cartoons with the title All Hail Israel).

Like all patriotic Americans, I spend a portion of each weekend browsing through the “official” web sites of the Presidential candidates preparing myself for the 2008 run off between Republicans and Democrats, Republicrats for short. I now aggregate all of them because all pay homage, indeed a groveling obsequiousness, to AIPAC and to the Olmert/Leiberman regime in Israel. Such fawning is born of fear, as former congressmen Paul Findley, Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard can testify, fear that comes with crossing a powerful force, a force that can threaten the candidate’s standing in the polls. Yossi Beilin, former Labor Party Minister under Ehud Barak recognized this force: “They (AIPAC) have the threat of voting out (congressional) representatives. I never liked this leverage. It’s counterproductive.”

Yet it’s clear that the American Congress’ unrestrained support for the Sharon/Olmert regimes over the past six years, coupled to the Bush administration’s total capitulation to Israel’s dominance in Palestine, has created an untenable situation for America in the eyes of the world. America’s bondage to Israel is the overriding issue that can release America from its position as the target for the world’s hatred, yet all candidates but two grovel before AIPAC and the Olmert/Leiberman regime.

Why is bondage to Israel a concern? Because those who attack America, including Bin Laden, have told Americans that it is a concern; because our 9/11 Commission told us in Without Precedent that the dominant reason given to them for actions against America was our absolute and continued support for Israel; because Maershimer and Walt, in their report on AIPAC influence in our congress, presented to America an inventory of evidence that establishes America’s allegiance to Israel and the consequences of such allegiance; because Haaretz, the leading Israeli newspaper, has admonished Israelis and Americans that the perception in the Arab world and in the EU of America’s total commitment to Israel is unwise and will erupt in a blowback against Israel itself; because virtually every nation in the world understands what Americans cannot seem to digest, that support for a country that has systematically persecuted another people without letup for 60 years, has made America a pariah nation subject to the frustration, anger, and outright hatred of those who condemn the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians.

Why continue such unrestrained bondage to Israel? Why indeed. Why shackle America to a nation that has defied UN resolutions year after year (over 160 UNGA and 60 UNSC) since 1948 that calls for it to act humanely to the Palestinians, to return stolen land to the Palestinians, to recognize international law and the right to return of refugees driven from their homes? Why shackle America to a country that defies international law by occupying the land of other nations and peoples? Why shackle America to a nation that refuses to sign a mid-east nuclear non-proliferation agreement, develops its own arsenal of nuclear bombs (estimated at 200-400), then, with all brazen chutzpah, condemns its neighbor for developing such a weapon? Why shackle America to a nation that cries before the world its right to defend itself when it refuses to negotiate with its neighbors the borders of its own state as it occupies land belonging to others, then condemns the Palestinians for refusing to recognize what it has yet to declare publicly, where Israel begins and ends?

Why shackle America to a state that constructs a Wall that imprisons another people, using their land and stealing their water and farm land in the process, a Wall not unlike the Berlin Wall that America found so repulsive, a Wall that has been condemned by the International Court of Justice as inhumane and illegal? Why shackle America to a state that imprisons 10,000 people without charge and tortures many without regard or adherence to international law or the Geneva Conventions? Why shackle America to a state that contains in its government a vowed racist, Avigdor Leiberman, who leads his party and now the state to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population by transfer or slow starvation? Why shackle America to a nation that accepts as normal behavior the assassination of individuals on the say so of the Prime Minister or his subordinates denying them the rights provided by law in a civilized society, the right to be charged, to confront the evidence and/or the accuser, and trial by peers? Why shackle America to a state that determines for itself that the will of the people whom they oppress by occupation cannot democratically elect those who would govern them, deny the right of the government to exist, and then steal the tax funds that belong to that government? Why shackle America to the tax burden required to provide this state with 3 to 5 billion dollars per year for military and infrastructure development when it uses these tax dollars to construct illegal housing for immigrants to that nation, to build apartheid roads over stolen land, and to construct the heinous Wall that entombs the Palestinians?

Why indeed. Yet with only two exceptions, all candidates running for president in 2008 have obsequiously crawled before AIPAC to declare his or her unqualified allegiance to the Israeli state thus negating before they could take office the chance to bring peace to the mid-east. Anyone paying attention for the past twenty years or more understands that Israel alone can bring peace to Palestine, and Israel does not want peace as long as it believes it can continue to create conditions on the ground that confiscate more and more Palestinian land (read Jeff Halper’s “Matrix of Control” or Why Israel won’t Make Peace”). Why, then, should our candidates fall on their knees fawning before AIPAC and Olmert? Consider this observation by the editors of Haaretz:

"The conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article (Mearsheimer and Walt article) is that it will not be immune for eternity. America’s unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel’s mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome. The fact that Israelis view the United States support for and tremendous assistance to Israel as natural causes excess complacence, and it fails to take into account currents in public opinion that run deep and are liable to completely change American policy."

If editors at Haaretz understand that America’s support can be detrimental to its interests, why must our candidates grovel before AIPAC, the far right organization that purports to represent Israel? Why shouldn’t they recognize that other Jewish voices also speak for Israel, especially those now forming that are meant to counteract AIPAC’s influence? (the “Soros Initiative,” and other Jewish organizations that do not agree with AIPAC’s dominance, Israel Policy Forum, Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Tikkun Community, Jewish Voice for Peace).

But grovel they must. Each has to outdo the other. Senator Biden states the Democrats support for Israel “comes from our gut, moves through our heart, and ends up in our head. It’s almost genetic.’ (October 5, 2006). “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a party that calls for its destruction, engages in terrorism and maintains an armed militia. Hamas must choose: bullets or ballots.” (January 2006). Obviously, Biden’s gut response never gets to his head. How can the Palestinians negotiate with Israel when its government does not recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state and calls for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land or imprisons them behind walls? How can Palestinians negotiate with a state that has been terrorizing them for six decades, relentlessly and brutally? How can Palestine negotiate with a state that maintains, not an “armed militia,” but the third to fourth largest military force in the world to occupy a small and undefended people? How can Palestine negotiate with a state that will not allow for a one-state solution that would allow for ballots not bullets?

Not to be outdone, Hillary proclaims at a Hanukkah dinner at Yeshiva University that “Israel is not only our ally; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean … If the people of the Middle East are not sure what democracy means, let them look to Israel.” Look indeed, look at the only people allowed to be citizens in Israel, Jews; it is in its declaration a state for Jews. There are Arabs (Palestinians in fact but can’t be called that in Israel) who have resided in the land granted to Israel by the UN and given Israeli citizenship, roughly 20% of the population, but they are in reality second class citizens and denied many of the rights granted to Jews. The very fact that it is a state for one people contradicts the premise of a democracy.

But Hillary goes on, goes on to negate the validity and the judgment of the International Court of Justice in its condemnation of the Entombment Wall as inhumane and illegal. She takes it upon herself to declare the ICJ as meaningless and its decision, after trial and evidence, null and void. But who is Hillary to determine anything of the sort? Hasn’t the United States signed the document that established the ICJ, and despite the illegal actions of the Bush administration, isn’t the US still legally bound to that document? She, like Bush, will rule without law and order when it comes to Israel.

Senator Dodd, like Biden, relates his support for Israel back through family blood, to his father before him, decades of support. He makes this observation: “For six decades, Israel has passed every day in the knowledge that its enemies are praying and plotting for its death. In the face of such hatred, we might have expected the people of Israel to answer with hate of their own. But they have not.” (AIPAC’s National Summit, 10/06). Unfortunately, the people of Israel, like Americans, are victims of their respective governments that have been all too willing to brandish their hatred and brutality on the Palestinians and Iraqis on behalf of their citizens. Indeed, the good Senator brags about being the co-sponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act, another example of Israel’s willingness to use our Congress to benefit its own interests while it locks out the possibility of working with the Syrians toward some measure of peace in Iraq, a direction, despite Dodd’s efforts, finally underway now.

John Edwards has resorted to endorsing Olmert’s “realignment” plan, a euphemism for more theft. But, as Edwards notes, “Israel is in the unfortunate position of having to act without an agreement.” Why are they without a negotiating partner? Because Olmert will not recognize the legitimate democratically elected government of the people of Palestine. Since he had already determined that Mahmud Abbas was too weak, and that the Palestinians did not recognize the state of Israel, stop the violence, and accept all agreements made by the PLO, positions Israel has not been willing to make to the Palestinians, they were left with no one to work with toward peace. That reality Edwards ignores.

Haaretz quotes Bill Richardson in its November 19th, 2006 on-line edition as saying “The partnership between our two countries has never been stronger. We are fortunate to have each other in the fight against terrorism and in advancing our common cause of a lasting peace in the Middle East.” This reflects the mantra that all extend to AIPAC, negating in its utterance the terror Israel inflicts daily and the almost universal acceptance of Israel as a terrorist state. (see Pew Foundation survey).

Finally, to wrap up the Democrats that have labored hard in the Israeli vineyards, we turn to the one man allegedly untainted by the influence of lobbyists if only because of his limited time in Washington, Barack Obama. Well, it appears that he’s been tainted. Haaretz quotes Obama in its March 3, 2007 on line edition: “My view is that the United States’ special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction.” Shmuel Rosner, the Haaretz correspondent goes on to say that “Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.” AIPAC works fast. The one candidate that might have reason to be objective in light of his family’s experience, grovels before the oppressor, no doubt never having visited the plantation on the other side of the Wall.

Needless to say, all the Republicans are baptized in AIPAC’s largesse – McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback and Hunter. Others like Hagel are testing the waters reluctant to wade in until the pool becomes less crowded. No need to quote these folks, let Haaretz do it for us. “Israeli panel: Giuliani is best presidential candidate for Israel.” That’s the headline. It reports on Israel’s new project, “The Israel Factor: Ranking the Presidential Candidates.” The panel will rank the candidates each month until the 2008 election. Giuliani scored best on the possibility of attacking Iran, followed by Gingrich (undeclared) and McCain.

Two candidates, only two, Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich of Ohio, offer balanced approaches to meaningful settlement of the crisis in Palestine. Gravel proposes that the US sponsor direct negotiations between Israel and all Palestinian factions including Hamas, support a Palestinian state alongside Israel, have the US serve as a guarantor for the demilitarization of Israel’s border with a future Palestinian state, commit itself to raising the economic standards of Palestinians comparable to that which it supplies to Israel, and disavow a nuclear first-strike policy.

Let me conclude this romp through the candidates with Dennis Kucinich’s statement on the issue, a statement issued in September of 2003: “The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom? If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?”

What more can be said? Gravel’s proposals provide an avenue toward peace that respects both Israelis and Palestinians, and Kucinich’s statement, from the least likely candidate to gain credibility with the American public, offers the American voter a route to a moral resolution of a conflict that has brought it, because of its unrestrained support for Israel and its illegal actions as an occupier of Palestinian territory, international censure and denunciation. All other choices lead to a continuation of the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians and the residue that is the consequence of our allegiance to Israel’s brutally aggressive treatment of the Palestinians. How can American voters trump the power of AIPAC and its allies for Israel in determining the future policy of this nation toward Israel if AIPAC has our candidates


William Cook is also author of Tracking Deception: Bush's Mideast Policy. Permission to publish his article was given by MWC News.

http://www.mwcnews.net/

Benjamin Heine-permitted the publishing of his political cartoon, for which I am grateful. Other political cartoons by Benjamin Heine can be viewed at his site,

http://benjaminheine.blogspot.com/