Dole Knows Israel Is Not Our Enemy

All these politicians, pundits and foreign-policy experts are babbling about the recent violence in Israel, and one guy gets it right: “The government of Prime Minister Netanyahu deserves the full support of the United States at this moment of crisis.”

And just who was the courageous and perceptive individual who made that statement?

No surprise, really: It was Bob Dole, Republican candidate for president of the United States.

Dole understands that Israel is the best friend the United States has in this hostile world. He understands that Israel’s duly elected leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, has a right to expect America’s unqualified support as he attempts to maintain his country’s integrity and security in the face of Palestinian thuggery.

“Our friend Israel must not be asked to make concessions as a means of restoring order,” Dole said. “Israel has taken great risks for peace, including allowing the arming of 30,000 Palestinian police, who have used their weapons to fire on Israelis.”

Dole understands the importance of the long-standing relationship between Israel and the United States. He understands foreign policy. He understands that peace cannot be achieved by catering to outlaws.

President Clinton apparently understands none of this. Like most liberal Democrats, the president believes in peace at any price. Never mind who’s right or who’s wrong. Never mind the long-term risk created by short-term illusions of peace.

Never mind that such illusions are too often purchased by selling out your friends, not to mention your principles.

So Clinton is pressuring Netanyahu to pursue a policy of appeasement, to compromise his nation’s interests in slavish dedication to a Middle East “peace process” that is outrageously weighted in favor of Israel’s enemies.

The school of thought being promoted by Clinton and the deep-thinkers in the political/ media establishment is that Israel should sacrifice for peace. The Israelis should give up land for peace. They should give up absolute sovereignty over their own territory for peace. They should tie themselves up in knots to keep from offending Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his easily offended legions of violent troublemakers.

The people who think this way never ask the Palestinians to give up anything for peace. The attitude seems to be that Israel, which has done nothing but defend itself against decades of terrorism and military aggression, is somehow responsible for every drop of blood that’s been shed in the Middle East.

That isn’t true and it isn’t fair to suggest it.

That is why a majority of Israel’s voters elected the current prime minister, despite Clinton’s illadvised and inappropriate support for Netanyahu’s opponent, and despite the unwavering opposition of the international media, who consider Netanyahu unacceptably “hard-line” in his determination to protect Israeli interests.

The Israelis decided that it was time to elect a prime minister who was willing to stand up for them, who was willing to tell their enemies that the proud state of Israel would no longer submit to extortion in the name of peace.

Netanyahu’s detractors can’t believe that he won, and they still can’t accept it.

Instead of following Dole’s recommendation and backing Netanyahu to the hilt, the Clinton administration is trying to turn him into a sniveling client of the “peace process,” to which end Clinton summoned Netanyahu and Arafat to Washington for his dog-and-pony show of a summit that the incumbent president obviously hoped would serve to solidify his shaky foreign-policy credentials just five weeks before the election.

Good for Clinton, if the summit eventually produces a “success.” But too bad for Israel, because a success, in the eyes of Clinton and the media, would be one that leads to capitulation on the part of Netanyahu.

Here’s hoping Netanyahu refuses to cave in. Here’s hoping that, come January, we’ll have a president who has the guts and good sense to stand by our friends.