Bush, Kerry & Israel

One of the most important US elections in our history will help shape the future of Israel. Each and every individual who is concerned for Israel's peace and security must weigh the record and statements of the two presidential candidates very carefully and seriously.

Gary Fitleberg

OpEds לבן ריק
לבן ריק
צילום: ערוץ 7
Israel's future is in your hands.

Bush? Kerry? Pro or con?

One of the most important US elections in our history will help shape the future of Israel. Each and every individual who is concerned for Israel's peace and security must weigh the record and statements of the two presidential candidates very carefully and seriously.

Bear in mind that George Bush made a campaign promise in his last election that he would move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, which he has failed to do utilizing the excuse and/or exclusion provision he invokes "in the interest of national security" each time the issue comes up.

In his famous speech about the "war on terrorism", Bush decided that Israel needed to create an Arab "Palestinian" state (the second one, as the first already exists: Jordan, formerly Transjordan, according the British Mandate), thereby showing he succumbs to Arab-Islamist oil and terrorism.

Bush and his US State Department (some may quip, "US Hate Israel Department") have clearly demonstrated evidence of bias against Israel in favor of Arab/Islamist corrupt dictatorships, human rights violators, ruthless repressive regimes and tyrannies. One only need cite the alliance with Saudi Arabia, the home of Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and fourteen of nineteen hijackers who toppled the two World Trade Center buildings and left their mark on our Pentagon building, as well as on the conscience of America and Western civilization.

Bush opposed Israel's security fence throughout 2003, threatening Israel's loan guarantees, and then suddenly supported it - coincidentally, at the start of the election year.

The same goes for unilateral separation. Prior to 2004, Bush refused to call Yasser Arafat a terrorist and insisted he remain the negotiating partner. A former political officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington noted ruefully that Bush is the reason Arafat is still around.

Some hailed the president's "promises" to Ariel Sharon in April as a victory, yet Bush all but reneged, including regarding the Arab "Palestinian" alleged "right of return", two weeks later. Just recently, at the UN General Assembly, Bush called for a settlement freeze. Which is the real Bush policy regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict?

A bipartisan Congress, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, also passed the "Arafat Accountability Act", which was signed by President George W. Bush. Yet, Bush has failed to fight Arafat as "Chairman of Terror" in his Fatah-controlled and dominated Palestinian Authority by deceitfully and dishonestly invoking the Act's numerous limiting provisions for "national security".

With the second intifada, many in the State of Israel felt that only strong American involvement would help reach a negotiated end to the misery. As president, George W. Bush hasn't even visited Israel. His policy is an irrelevant mess of contradictions that leaves Israel in despair.

When the election dust settles, Bush will no longer need to buy Jewish votes - so there is no guarantee that actions he eventually does take would favor Israel. And after four years of Bush's leadership, Israel is a more dangerous place, a more hated place and a more hopeless place.

Now let's take a cold, hard, honest look at the challenger, Senator John Kerry.

Kerry is absolutely not better and quite possibly even worse.

Kerry once called "Chairman of Terror" Yasser Arafat a "statesman", believe it or not.

John Kerry has openly stated that he seeks to build a stronger relationship with the United Nations [Against Israel], which is controlled and dominated by the Arab/Islamist nations.

Syria was Chair of the Security Council. Libya was Chair of the Human Rights Committee. The UN has passed over half of its 700-plus resolutions against the only little Jewish State of Israel, but has not rebuked one Arab/Islamist corrupt dictatorship, human rights violator, ruthless repressive regime, state sponsor of terrorism, or tyranny.

Why? Why not? They run the show.

The United Nations is an Arab/Islamist, racist, bankrupt organization, both morally and politically, and can not be an honest "peace broker" in its role as one of the "Road Map" promoters and "Quartet" members. It is an organization that created a world stage for a perpetual political propaganda ploy of the fictional "Palestine" nation and "Palestinian" people, by bringing the internal case of Israel's building a security barrier and separation fence against terrorism before the International Court of Justice (or, Injustice). It is an organization that routinely vents anti-Israel sentiments, and anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist statements in its various committees and subsidiaries.

And if that is not enough of a concern, Kerry seeks an alliance with France "to build a stronger coalition and unity" in a desperate attempt at nation-building. France is one hotbed of anti-Semitism, and about as anti-American and pro-Arab as they come. France consistently creates more hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people than Germany, for example, and is a leading force in the EU, another disreputable member of the "Quartet" attempting to dictate policy to Israel.

It is no wonder why the Muslim community backs and supports Kerry.

US Muslims, who backed President Bush in 2000, overwhelmingly support Sen. John Kerry in 2004, a new poll says. Muslims would back the Democratic senator from Massachusetts by 68 percent to 7 percent, with Ralph Nader picking up 11 percent of the vote, according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. In 2000, Bush garnered 42 percent of Muslim votes to 31 percent for his Democratic challenger, then-Vice-President Al Gore.

That's not all. If you love Israel and have a weak stomach read no further.

Kerry has chosen as his Middle East adviser the former US Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk. This spokesman for Syria is no friend of Israel's. Indyk recently stated that if Israel wants peace with Syria, then it has to give up the Golan Heights. Kerry's alternative choice was pro-Arafat and pro-"Palestinian" former President Jimmy Carter.

Here is a sampling of Indyk's statements, for the record:

"If you do not want peace with Syria, keep the Golan Heights, but do not expect to have peace with Syria and do not expect them to sit quietly and do nothing and not support Hizbullah," said Indyk, who directs the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute.

"Don't expect them to simply accept it, because you wouldn't if you were them," said Indyk.

It doesn't belong to Israel, it belongs to Syria, he added.

But Israel must never, ever give up the Golan. Anyone in their right mind who thinks that we need to give the Golan to Syria, should look at a map. Syria is 71,000 sq. miles in area - about nine times the size of Israel. The Golan Heights is 460 sq. miles - that's all - about 0.6 percent of the size of Syria. That's right, less than 1%. So that's what is preventing peace?

Excuse me while I take a few minutes to laugh... The only reason that Syria wants the Golan is so it can shoot at Israeli civilians, like it did before 1967. If Israel wants peace, Israel needs to keep the Golan. However, we can give Indyk to Syria....

Bush, Kerry. Which one is better? Which is worse?

You choose. You decide. Bush or Kerry. Think twice. Israel's future is in your hands.