Israel must take charge of the peace process.

Ted Belman

I see the “peace process” as a danger to Israel. It empowers the international community to pressure Israel to make concessions to their arch enemy. If only the US had decided to stand by Israel’s right to retain all captured territory after the Six Day War in ‘67, we would be in a whole better place today. But they didn’t. Also the leaders of Israel share some of the blame. After that war, Israel decided, because of demographic considerations, that she didn’t want to keep all of the conquered territories. Forty years later, the majority in Israel recognize “retreat” as a mistake and want to keep all the remaining territories. The left in Israel consider the settlements as the mistake.

I reviewed the US policy over the years and wrote The Conspiracy to Shrink Israel. The US has been totally committed to that policy.

With this understanding, many friends of Israel have complained to me about my support of McCain. Not that they like Obama better but that they believe that no matter who is in office, Republican or Democrat, the policy would remain. I almost agree with them.

So my litmus test, is who is more likely to force Israel to capitulate. I have stated why I fear an Obama presidency and my reasons go way beyond the conviction that he will force Israel to capitulate with the willing support of progressive Jews and his far left base.

What about McCain?

Amir Oren warned two years ago in After Bush, the Green Line

As president, McCain would “micromanage” U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because in his opinion, this is still the source of the ferment in the region: Every time an Arab leader wants to provide a distraction, he argues that the problem is due to Israel, and also in the matter of Iran, “we would not have been so concerned” over its nuclear program had it not threatened Israel with extinction. He is fed up with the evasiveness of the Arab states - and most of all with Egypt, which has not given adequate return for the extensive American aid it has received - with regard to helping to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.

A McCain administration, alongside his close supervision from the White House, would send “the smartest guy I know” to the Middle East. And who is that? “Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker, though I know that you in Israel don’t like Baker.” This is a longing for the administration of the first president Bush, or even for the administration of president Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s. In both of them, general Scowcroft was the national security adviser. McCain will act to bring peace, “but having studied what Clinton did at Camp David, perhaps not in one try, but rather step by step, and I would expect concessions and sacrifices by both sides.” In general, a movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications? McCain nods in the affirmative.

Whoever the next American president is, the overall impression from a conversation with a leading candidate like McCain is that the government of Israel is deluding itself if it believes that “convergence” into “settlement blocs,” as opposed to a nearly total withdrawal from the Green Line, will satisfy the next administration. In 2009, it will be a different show: Neither Bush nor settlement blocs.

McCain’s current position doesn’t contradict this article. When asked about the peace process he said “I would have a hands-on approach. I would be the chief negotiator” and “I don’t think the conflict is a sore. I think it’s a national security challenge. I think it’s important to achieve peace in the Middle East on a broad variety of fronts and I think that if the Israeli-Palestinian issue were decided tomorrow, we would still face the enormous threat of radical Islamic extremism.”

It would be safe to conclude that McCain has a personal commitment to achieve peace and that means pressuring Israel. He is also a member of CFR and recently spoke highly of Scowcroft.

So there can’t be much separating Obama and McCain on the peace process but there is a lot of difference on the handling of Iran and the Iraq war. McCain wants to increase the defense budget and Obama wants to decrease it. There are many other differences but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

In the past I have supported McCain because the Republican base is more pro-Israel. The Christian Zionists number over 50 million in the US and they favour not giving up another inch. Unfortunately McCain recently distanced himself from Pastor Hagee. So how much clout the Evangelicals have remains to be seen.

I have also argued that the US needs a strong Israel to help against the radicals so to my mind she wasn’t really serious about forcing concessions out of Israel. At least that’s Bush’s position. Can’t say the same for Rice and the State Department.

Israel can rely on no one but itself to stop the “peace process”. Peace will only be achieved through strength. The present government is of no help. Perhaps the next one will be prepared to say “no” to the “peace process” and “yes” to peace.

Even if Israel didn’t directly stop the “peace process” but just moved the goal posts it would serve the purpose without as much flack. Israel should refuse to transfer any settlers, should insist on keeping Jerusalem and should insist on controlling the Jordan River border and the skies. The rest can be negotiated.