Commentary

Kerry Pledges to Implement Bush’s Middle East Agenda

As the U.S. presidential election draws closer, the Democrats are having a harder time than usual differentiating themselves from the Republicans, U.S. pollsters report.  This is certainly the case with foreign policy, where Democratic nominee John Kerry has proposed an agenda many pundits have dubbed “Bush-lite” – the same policies of pre-emptive military strikes, escalating intervention in so-called rogue states or failed states and occupation.  Kerry, however, promises to do all of these things with more support from American allies around the globe and with the sanction of the United Nations.

On Israel, Kerry has gone to great lengths to state that his policies would go just as far as Bush in negating the right of the Palestinian people to national self-determination than George W.Bush.  He has his brother, a convert to Judaism, campaigning on his behalf to explain Kerry’s heartfelt commitment to Israel and unwavering support of Israeli policy. 

In an article that appeared in the August 27 issue of The Forward, the largest Jewish newspaper in the U.S., Kerry writes that neither America nor Israel are secure while “Israel, the one true democracy in the region, remains the victim of an unrelenting campaign of terror.”  Besides pledging to combat anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment (which he refers to as if they are one and the same), he defends Israel’s construction of a separation wall, one which cuts into the Occupied Territories. He writes:  “I believe that we must stand with Israel, supporting our ally's right to build a security fence and to allow its own Supreme Court -not the International Court of Justice - to address the issue of the route of the fence. The fence has proven its value as an anti-terror measure.” This echoes comments he made in July, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Israel’s construction of the fence through parts of the Occupied Territories was in violation of international law. 

Kerry’s claim that the Israeli Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the West Bank and Gaza is absurd. Under international covenants adopted since the end of the Second World War, including the Geneva Convention, international courts have complete jurisdiction over issues affecting people living under occupation.  In fact, one of the reasons for the establishment of the ICJ in 1946 was to ensure that member states of the United Nations respected international law in their dealings with other states and with people living in colonies or under occupation. 

Since its creation almost 60 years ago, the ICJ has delivered only 79 judgments on disputes ranging from land and maritime boundary disputes and questions of territorial sovereignty to the non-use of force and the non-interference in the internal affairs of states.  The ICJ has also delivered judgments on diplomatic relations, hostage taking, the right of asylum, nationality, guardianship, rights of passage and economic rights. 

In the same article, Kerry also declares there must be new Palestinian leadership in order for there to be peace in the region.  “… new Palestinian leadership is required, as Yasser Arafat has proven himself not to be a partner for peace. As president, I will work with the Palestinian community to empower new, responsible Palestinian leadership committed to a permanent end to terror and the promotion of democracy. I will ensure that allies are united in this effort, not working at cross-purposes by propping up a failed Palestinian power structure.”

This statement is an assertion that the Palestinian people do not have the right to choose their own leadership or their own system of governance. Essentially, his comments represent a negation of Palestinian sovereignty, and are a carbon copy of the current Bush administration’s policies.


Back to Modern Communism