I've become increasingly frustrated with President Bush. I'm less concerned about Iraq than I am federal spending. I don't think Bush has found a problem that he thinks spending more money can't fix. So I'm casting about for alternatives for the next election. I'm pretty sure Kerry will be the Democratic nominee. I'd thought I'd examine his views. Everything I'm using in this article comes straight from his website. I'm specifically looking at his views on Israel since that's one of the areas I pay the most attention to.
One of his first statements is that “America’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s independence and survival must never waver.” I'm certainly in favor of that. Let's see what details he provides. He further says
Forging a stable and lasting peace in the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state. It is also an essential part of winning the war on terror. Ignoring or downplaying the conflict, as the Bush Administration did for far too long, is a dangerous game.
I disagree with a number of points here. Forging a peace in the Middle East only affects us because of oil. No one seems to be arguing that a “stable and lasting peace” in Africa is vital to our national security. The oil affects us in two ways. First, we need it for our economy to function. If our economy fails we really won't be much of a country. Second, oil gives those countries the ability to purchase arms or provide them to terrorists. Oil gives them an economic lever they wouldn't have otherwise. Forging a last peace isn't the approach the Palestinians have chosen to get their state. Instead they've used terrorism.
I'm not sure why giving the Palestinians a state will help us win the war on terrorist. Who will run this state? Hamas? Hizbollah? Fatah? Why won't a Palestinian state just become another sponsor of terrorism? Will the militant Islamists stop hating America because the Palestinians get a state? A democratic, capitalistic Palestinian state might actually do some good. I don't really think that's the kind of state we'll get.
Clinton was very active in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. He did everything he could to force an agreement. Israel made their most generous offer. The Palestinians rejected it and continued their suicide bombing. Bush told the Palestinians they would have no support until they abandoned violence. Hamas continues to operate in the West Bank and Gaza unimpeded by the Palestinian Authority. I think Bush was right to drop pressure on Israel until the Palestinians give up terrorism. Sometimes doing nothing at all is the best approach.
This statement also completely ignores the wall being built by Israel. This is one of the biggest developments in this struggle in many years. It has the ability to create a reality on the ground that it will be very hard to overturn with a treaty. It may also finally bring the Palestinians to the neogtiating table in earnest.
So overall I'm not very impressed. But I didn't see anyting here that caused me to shy from him. The U.S. can send all the high level delegates they want. I really don't think that will make a difference. I'll start poking around his economic thoughts in a future post. As long as the Republicans control Congress I'm considering voting Democratic just to create a little gridlock.