A Debate For Israel
Abdulwahab Badrakhan Al-Hayat 2004/10/2
In his debate with John Kerry, the incumbent president, George W. Bush, claimed that he is making a more secured world, and repeated his weak refrain: "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein". However, the world is convinced that it would be better without George W. Bush.
On the day of the debate, and the day after, hundreds of corpses fell between Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, and Lebanon. It does not seem that Bush and his competitor care and most importantly, they do not realize that American policy and its mistakes are directly related to the bloodshed in the killing fields here and there, to keep the U.S. safe and away from danger.
The reasons for the daily programmed death in Iraq and Palestine and even in Pakistan are known in the light of direct or almost direct American occupation. However, in Lebanon, Minister Marwan Hamadeh's assassination attempt reawakened the truth that the country is open to all frivolous hands. For such crimes not only attempt to benefit from the mistakes and gaps of the inside but also want to inflame a fire again. That fire is well known by the U.S., which abused it repeatedly in various practices especially against Palestine, against and with Syria, and always with Israel; however, rarely for Lebanon's sake. Exactly as it did in Afghanistan, as it did with the former regime in Iraq, and as it is doing in Pakistan.
Remarkably, neither candidate mentioned Palestine in a discussion of foreign policy. Is this confirmation that Israel is an "internal issue" that should not be brought up in the international field? Anyway, it was obvious that neither desired to bring up the subject; hence, they were not asked any question about it; as if it is a settled file - or perhaps as if the competitors preferred to ignore it because they reached the extreme in one-upmanship. This was the peak in their irresponsibility; they agree on the Israeli war crimes and there is no need to compete over glorifying it, for Israel's persistence in occupation, killing, and destruction happens under American auspices and even it is an implementation of an American policy.
Regarding Iraq, added to terrorism, as the candidates adopted it in the debate, it is obvious that they were talking to the Americans; nevertheless, did the Americans knew through this confrontation more than what they knew before? Most probably, no. What they knew did not prevent the rise in Bush's popularity; which does not seem to be affected by Kerry's aggressiveness. The latter never exceeded the conditions of respecting the "regime" as a red line, although this might be his last chance to influence public opinion. If yesterday's debate did not make a difference in his campaign, the following debates might not help him much.
Kerry talked about a "serious mistake," meaning Bush's leaving the "war on terror" and going to Iraq. However, Bush answered as if he was saying "this is war on terrorism, stupid" - like "It's the economy stupid" famous after Bill Clinton's debate with George Bush Sr. Nevertheless, the public must automatically sympathize with the criticisms of the Democratic candidate; hence, it is natural for the preliminary polls to show the superiority of the competitor. However, for this to affect voting intentions is another matter.
As for the world outside the U.S., the intra-American discussion about Iraq seemed superficial and less important than expected, perhaps because both men are deeply in agreement; however, they disagree over the method. Neither Bush nor Kerry could address the objections of the international community against the war and its repercussions inside Iraq. The Democratic candidate avoided discussing the post-war and occupation mistakes, although this represents his most remarkable field. However, in his turn, he did not seem concerned about Iraq but about what the U.S. went to in Iraq.
Whether in Congress committees, public discussions, or even in presidential debates, the Americans complying with what should not be said rather than what should be said if "the truth" was the goal. Whether Iraq or terrorism was the subject, the "forbidden" in the debate is the most important and not the "permissible." In this course, it was remarkable for Israel to be mentioned twice when the candidates asserted that war on Iraq and on terror seeks to protect the Hebrew State.
|
