Today News from GAMLA

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

I thought this was interesting considering the current times:

***********************************************************************

GAMLA: NEWS AND VIEWS FROM ISRAEL

***********************************************************************

Volume 5 Issue 43 Jerusalem, Israel

9 Cheshvan, 5764 * * Octember 24, 2004

[Kerry] Sacrificing Israel

**************************

By Charles Krauthammer

The Washington Post Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A25

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53015-2004Oct21.html

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our

alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He

repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he

has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just

how he proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so

thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the

streets of Baghdad.

Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in

pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing

it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea

how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not

explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly

rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of

most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates

America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United

Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in

exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is

obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code

words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what

former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in

"Foreign Policy for a Democratic President," a manifesto written

while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry.

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must

re-engage in . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As

we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our

allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in

return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of

troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq."

So in a "new bargain with our allies" America "re-engages" in the

"peace process" in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and

Iraq.

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what

"peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the

Clinton White House -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat was

invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant

believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away

with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of

terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one

territorial concession after another -- in return for nothing.

Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war

that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the

Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United

States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's

safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they

are pressuring America to do precisely that.

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israeli policy? After

all, isn't Bush the first president ever to commit the United States

to an independent Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also

insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the

corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat.

To reengage in a "peace process" while the violence continues and

while Arafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle East policy.

That policy -- isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right to defend

itself both by attacking the terrorist infrastructure and by building

a defensive fence -- has succeeded in defeating the intifada and

producing an astonishing 84 percent reduction in innocent Israeli

casualties.

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.

[CarolineS]

I agree, Dad Ernie. Kerry will not support Israel as we have in the past. I think he would slowly withdrawal support once he is elected. That's just one reason I will not be voting for him.

Remember, vote early and vote often!!

In Christ,

CarolineS

[Catsmeow]

Well, my hubby and I only get ONE vote but we did send in our absentee ballot several days ago.

Both for Bush.

[AnotherTraveler]

Oddly. Kerry is of Jewish heritage, isn't he?

I also vote for Bush.