Moral clarity and the call of history

I just listened to a speech by John Kerry and it abruptly changed the direction of this article.

Many want to express their views through the 2004 campaign process. However, the 2004 Presidential elections may provide no real choice in  the direction we are going in foreign policy and the war on terror.

It is questionable whether John Kerry provides a viable alternative to Bush on the issue of the Middle East and the war on terror with his "me to" campaign on major issues in the war on terror. He may not call other countries names and may not overtly (yet) be on the mission to democratize the entire Middle East in the name of God, but, that may be the only difference between he and Bush on solving what many consider an important election issue. Saying he will reach out to other nations may not mean much when his Middle East policy on Israel is the same as that of Bush.

In a key sticking point for many in the war on terrorism, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, both Bush and Kerry take the same position - no right of return and the settlements may remain. It appears that the plan is to democratize the Middle East first and then deal with Palestine who is supported by many, if not most, of the Arab world.

On April 23rd, at a Kerry speech, Kerry pledged consistent unwavering support for Israel, without qualification, on the basis that Israel is our "ally." He took this stance even though the Bush administration had already attempted to retreat a little on the issue of right of return and settlements by saying the issues were still on the table for final negotiations. Kerry failed to extend even this grain of hope to the Palestinians.

Kerry seems to go out of his way to specifically endorse the wall, no right of return and letting settlements remain. Kerry pledges consistent support for Sharon if he is elected and has had closed door sessions with Jewish leaders to sure up their political support.

What happened to the notion of "fairness" and being a "fair broker" for peace in the Middle East. During the Democratic primaries, when Howard Dean suggested the US should be "fair" he was savagely attacked by the media and other candidates. .

In 2002, when Bush demanded that Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin "now," he received such an angry reaction that he never mentioned the matter again.

Now, Kerry also fails to say that he will be "fair" in resolving the situation Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Apparently, the notion of "ally," at least when it comes to Israel, takes precedence over the principal of "fairness" and politics determines the ally.

The Kerry pledge to support Sharon's current policies exacerbates the crisis of hatred in the Middle East and the Arab world. Now they cannot even hope the election of a new President will change the situation. Religious fundamentalists are driving U.S. Middle East policy as we deny that the war is a religious war.

So, even if we speak out on the issues of war and the Middle East, it means nothing in terms of the 2004 election. Kerry and Bush are driven by the same politics on this issue. Americans appear to be in a no win situation when it comes to increasing wars and fostering an environment which creates greater terrorism. It is distressing that no American can oppose Sharon's policies when large numbers of the Israeli population can and do.

After hearing the Kerry speech the last Friday, I now question whether I was right when I wrote "anybody but Bush" a couple of weeks ago. It may be better to have a danger we know than one we don't. We have tough choices ahead.