Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1992 TAG: 9203040297
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS many still support settlements in the territories for
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
With their policy of politicizing an essentially humanitarian issue, President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker have damaged the chances for a meaningful peace agreement. They have also emboldened hard-line Arab states, who now have further incentive to refuse to give Israel what it wants and needs most: an announcement by Israel's Arab neighbors annulling their still officially declared state of war.
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, which saw Iraqi Scud missiles fall on Israel while many in the Arab world rejoiced over the killing of innocent Israeli civilians, many believed that Israel's standing in the world had been strengthened, particularly by her decision (made under heavy American pressure) not to retaliate against Iraq.
Many also believed that the position of those Arab states still at war with Israel had been weakened to the point that they would be forced to end official hostilities and enter meaningful negotiations.
Why should Arab states feel any incentive to negotiate with Israel when the U.S. government is negotiating for them?
Many administration officials think a change in Israel's government will improve the chances for a peace agreement. They believe that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is standing in the way of a Nobel Peace Prize for Messrs. Bush and Baker. They think that, should the new head of the Labor Party, Yitzhak Rabin, win the June 23 election, prospects for an end to settlement building will markedly improve. They are wrong.
As recently as last week, Rabin told interviewers he favored settlements for security reasons. In an earlier interview, Rabin said the Jordan Valley and Golan Heights are strategically vital to Israel's ability to protect itself against threats from neighboring Arab states and terrorist groups.
Opinion polls in Israel have shown that, among the 50 percent of the population who are not members of Shamir's Likud Party, The administration continues to behave like someone who believes that Elvis Presleyis still alive. Despite all evidence to the contrary, it continues to believe peace could be achieved if only Israel would return land it held following attacks on its territory. Yet, it has no evidence to back up this belief.
Last week, White House Chief of Staff Samuel Skinner agreed with allegations that presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan may be an anti-Semite. It is not a label that should be tossed around lightly. But the same anti-Semitic feelings may be lurking within the Bush Administration.
How else to explain the constant battering of Israel and the courting of the Arab states and their oil fields? How else to explain our friendly acts toward nations like China and Syria, whose human rights records are appalling, and our ill treatment of the Middle East's only democracy?
Aid to Israeli immigrants ought not to be seen as a reward for behavior that is politically correct in the eyes of the United States. It should be viewed as humanitarian assistance.
The United States labored for years to free Soviet Jews from the clutches of their Communist oppressors. Now we seem to want to reinvent the "wandering Jew" by keeping them from their homeland and simultaneously destabilizing the Jewish state, which has never needed our friendship more than it does now. Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB