Monday, October 25, 2004

Richard Holbrooke, Kerry's Top Security Advisor, Lets the Cat out of the Bag! KERRY WILL "PUT MORE PRESSURE ON ISRAEL, SYRIA, SAUDI ARABIA." Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor Friday night, Holbrooke warned of a possible "Iran-type clerical dictatorship" in Iraq: This would be "very dangerous for Israel, the U.S. and the world." Then Holbrooke segued into an account of how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: "He [Kerry] has said already he would start intense talks with the allies . . . and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all."

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Should Jews Always Vote Democratic?

Patrick O'Brien points out that the Democratic Party will take us for granted and not feel obliged to support Israel: "Soccer Dad" reminds us that the pan-Islamists are unhappy with the pressure the current administration has put on them, and isn't that good for both Israel and the U.S.? Jeff Jacoby remembers that Kerry said nothing about Israel in his convention speech and that it was the current President who first called for Arafat to be deposed: Kory Bardash in Israel shows that even Democratic Jews in Israel like Bush's backbone:

Friday, October 22, 2004

How Will Kerry Woo France, Germany and Russia? Sacrifice Israel "John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community of nations." There is no issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. In July, the U.N. General Assembly declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone. You want to appease the "international community"? Sacrifice Israel. Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of "peace." Apply relentless pressure on Israel to make concessions to a Palestinian leadership that has proved (at Camp David in 2000) it will never make peace. The allies will appreciate that. Then turn around and say to them: We're doing our part (against Israel), now you do yours (in Iraq). If Kerry is elected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one. "

Thursday, October 21, 2004

HA'ARETZ POLL: Only 24% of Israelis Want to See Kerry Win "50 percent said they would like to see George Bush reelected, with only 24 percent for Kerry."

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Kerry: It's worth dying for only if the U.N. says it is

From today's Washington Post article by Helen Dewar and Thomas Ricks, "Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes": Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." http://

Monday, October 18, 2004

Martin Peretz: Kerry has never defended Israel against attacks by the U.N. or Europe "I've searched to find one time when Kerry — even candidate Kerry — criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring."

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Jerusalem Post: Palestinian Authority Supports Kerry Palestinian officials are quietly pinning their hopes on Democratic candidate John Kerry winning the US presidential election. Former US Middle East envoy Denis Ross is likely to be reappointed should Kerry win the American elections, a Palestinian Authority source said. Ross has contacted with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and other Palestinian officials during recent visits to the region. He unofficially briefed the Palestinians on the potential new administration's Middle East plans, the source said. Palestinians expect Kerry's Middle East policy to be closer to that of former US president Bill Clinton.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004


FROM DAVID GOLDMAN, 10.10.2004: -Has George W. Bush's policy of benign neglect towards Israel done more for Israel than Bill Clinton's engagement policy, or has it just helped to create an increasingly hostile global environment for Israel? (This is not to say that Europe and the Islamic World will ever be fair towards Israel, but America just can't keep telling the whole world to screw off and expect others to respect our leadership. In this environment one result has been an unrestrained Euro-Islamic alliance against Israel.) -Didn't Clinton and Barak essentially propose a generous solution to every major issue except Jerusalem, and didn't Arafat's rejection unmask his unwillingness to accept a two state solution? (I understand that the deal was probably too generous, but it clearly demonstated Palestinian intentions and now no one is seriously considering having the two peoples live together. In effect it smoked them out, and the real argument about the security fence on this side of the Atlantic isn't about its existence but its placement.) -Won't the real pressure on Israel come not from Kerry but from Bush's pal, Tony Blair? (I think that Blair sees his support for this stupid diversionary war in Iraq as some sort of quid pro quo for an E.U.-type peace plan. He will lean hard on the U.S. re: Israel. That seems to be what he was saying at the recent Labour Party conference). The bottom line is that we now live in a world where there is a universal global consensus that the American administration is run by crazy cowboys who pose a threat to stability almost as serious as Islamo-fascism. Others like Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac will fill that vaccuum of leadership and the results will be disastrous for Israel. This doesn't mean caving in to the E.U., but it does mean that a change in the White House is needed. MY RESPONSE TO DAVID GOLDMAN: I think we agree fundamentally: we both want Europe to cease its hostility toward Israel (and its anti-Semitism toward European Jews), and we both want Israel to be at peace. I am not sure how more American engagement, in the sense that Papa Bush and Clinton were engaged, would further these goals. Both were failures, and Clinton's attempts failed so badly that while negotiations were falling through, the Palestinians began a war against Israel. Let's look at the situation now, however. The intifada is over and Israel has won. Arafat is no longer on the White House lawn and the front pages of newspapers but instead remains confined to his compound, impotent. Moreover, Bush's consistent criticism of Arafat has brought about a change in the European discussion of the issue. In fact, European politicians have begun to criticize Arafat, too, and to reconsider their financial aid to the Palestinian Authority. See, for example, this article on the ruling German political party's views:,,1272865,00.html Far from being negligent toward Israel, Bush has voiced strong support for Israeli defense efforts, and his willingness to allow Israeli leadership wider freedom in acting against Palestinian terrorism has resulted in Israel's victory over the intifada. I do not mean to suggest that Bush's stance toward Israel is perfect. Sometimes he has stumbled, and there are points on which I flatly disagree. But on the whole, his policy has led to just what you and I desire: the beginning of a change in the position of Western Europe, and greater peace for Israel. Kerry has said he supports Israel, but his calling the wall a barrier to peace and his proposal to send Carter or Baker to the Middle East to negotiate, reveal his instincts on the matter. Whatever he may say at this point to rally Jews to his campaign, he has already shown that he cannot be trusted to give Israel the kind of support that Bush has given, nor to speak out against Israel's ferocious critics, such as those in Europe.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

John Kerry at the Arab-American Institute

"I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the 'Green Line,' cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. "

Monday, October 04, 2004


What is Kerry's true position? Does anyone know? Why former Democratic NYC mayor Ed Koch thinks Kerry will undermine Israel's security: Christopher Hitchens, former writer for The Nation, doubts Kerry's capability for wartime leadership: For a thorough explanation of the practical benefits of a strong U.S. - Israeli alliance, take a good gander at Patrick O'Brien's article: (Don't know who Patrick O'Brien is? Well, take a look at his informative blog:

Friday, October 01, 2004

Why Kerry Will Pressure Israel to Negotiate with Arafat As president, Kerry has told us that he will turn to Bill Clinton for guidance on the Middle East. Kerry is also likely to try to bring U.S. policy in line with the European Union approach (which is highly supportive of Arafat). The American Jewish community should ask itself these questions: Who, as president, is more likely to INSIST that the Palestinians dismantle terrorist organizations and disarm them, Bush or Kerry? What is the best approach for strengthening anti-terrorist forces within Palestinian society, Mr. Bush's policy of giving Arafat the cold shoulder, or the European Union policy, of support for Arafat, and glossing over his involvement in terror? If John Kerry, as president, follows Bill Clinton's strategies, he will be on a collision course with Israeli majority opinion. A policy collision with the Kerry administration will be to the great detriment of Israel, and will constitute a major victory for Islamic terrorism, since Israel is on the front lines in the terrorist war.

SEND CARTER TO ISRAEL? John Kerry at the Council on Foreign Relations:

"In the first days of a Kerry administration, I will appoint a presidential ambassador to the peace process who will report directly to me and the secretary of State, and who will work day to day to move that process forward. There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter, [and] former Secretary of State James Baker..."