In an excellent recent article, Mark Hand describes the “New Democrats” as the liberal Democratic counterparts of the neoconservatives who have set the foreign policy for the Bush administration. Hand portrays John Kerry as the “leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats’ radical interventionist program.” The New Democrats don’t begrudge the Bush administration for invading Iraq, he says. “They take issue with the administration’s strategy of refusing to invite key members of the international community to the invasion until it was too late.”
The focal point of this liberal internationalist/interventionist movement, Hand says, is the Democratic Leadership Council and its affiliated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, which have ties to Kerry.
Although Hand illustrates the identical foreign policy views of Kerry and the DLC/PPI advocates of “progressive internationalism,” he completely overlooks the Zionist orientation of the DLC/PPI. It is quite evident that the effect of Kerry’s “progressive internationalism” would advance Israeli interests inasmuch as it would involve an international effort to fight “terrorism” (i.e., the enemies of Israel), eliminate WMD (i.e., strip Israel’s enemies of weapons, leaving Israel with a WMD monopoly in the Middle East), and promote democracy (i.e., force other Middle East countries to undergo social and political change while Israel remains intact with continued control of the occupied territories).
Kerry himself expresses a close identification with the Israel. In a November 2003 article in the Brown (University) Students for Israel publication, “Perspectives: An Israel Review,” Kerry blathers on about the high ideals of the Jewish state and the moral imperative for the US to support it. Americans, says Kerry, “must again reaffirm we are enlisted for the duration — and reaffirm our belief that the cause of Israel must be the cause of America — and the cause of people of conscience everywhere.”
In an address to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in May of this year, Kerry proclaimed his long-time allegiance to Israel. “For the entire 20 years that I have been in the United States Senate, I’m proud that my commitment to a secure Jewish state has been unwavering; not even by one vote or one letter or one resolution has it wavered.” And it is largely true that Kerry has been a strong supporter of Israel’s policies for many years, including its controversial, and illegal, colonization of the West Bank. For example, he strongly attacked the first Bush administration in 1991 when it tried to curb the construction of illegal Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian territory by threatening to withhold a proposed $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel.
Kerry explained to his ADL listeners how his much-touted multilateral approach to foreign policy did not apply to Israel and its interests, since “The multilateral community has always been very difficult with respect to Israel, and we have always stood up against their efforts to isolate Israel.” In short, a Kerry administration would continue the double standard applied to Israel. Israel would not be expected to abide by rules that the US applied to other countries, especially its Arab neighbors. In fact, so far as Kerry is concerned, Israel does not even have to abide by long-established international law.
Regarding the right of the dispossessed Palestinians to return to their homeland in what is now Israel, Kerry assured the ADL that the “’Right of return’ is a nonstarter. We need to get a note of reality into these discussions.” In April 2004, he told moderator Tim Russert on NBC’s noted TV news program “Meet the Press: “If you’re going to have a Jewish state, and that is what we are committed to do and that is what Israel is, you cannot have a right of return that’s open-ended or something. You just can’t do it. It’s always been a nonstarter.”
But the right of refugees to return to their homes and property —not just to a country or homeland — is deeply embedded in customary international law and the most fundamental human rights instruments. If Jewish victims of the Holocaust and their heirs are to be provided restitution for the Nazi expropriation of their gold, precious art, and other assets, equal justice requires similar restitution for the dispossessed Palestinians.
In 1948, the UN specifically addressed the Palestinian situation in Resolution 194, which stated: “The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” The resolution went on to confirm in detail the basic rights of these refugees, which included compensation for the damage or loss of their property from the government responsible. Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949 was predicated on its acceptance and implementation of Resolution 194. Israel, of course, did just the opposite, confiscating the Palestinian refugees’ property and preventing their return.
As pointed out earlier, Kerry has been a long-time supporter of Israel’s colonization of the occupied territories. During the presidential campaign, Kerry has proclaimed that the refusal to officially recognize the permanence of some of Israel’s illegal settlements on the West Bank was “disingenuous.”
“In light of demographic realities, a number of settlement blocs will likely become a part of Israel,” he maintains.
Kerry’s position, obviously, represents a total repudiation of international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel in 1951, prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory. And the Israeli confiscation of private Palestinian property unquestionably violates a number of international human rights laws.
Kerry also supports Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s construction of a “security fence” around the remaining Palestinian-inhabited areas of the West Bank, which is converting them into virtual prison camps. On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice declared that the “fence” was illegal and that it must be removed. Subsequently, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding that Israel comply with the World Court’s decision.
In October 2003, a month after announcing his candidacy, Kerry did tell members of the Arab-American Institute that Israel’s “security fence” was a “barrier to peace.” But in early June 2004, the Kerry campaign released the document, “John Kerry: Strengthening Israel’s Security and Bolstering the US-Israel Special Relationship,” which states: “John Kerry supports the construction of Israel’s security fence to stop terrorists from entering Israel. He believes the security fence is not a matter for the International Court of Justice”
Of course, the World Court did not say that Israel could not provide security for its own citizens by constructing a barrier, but only that it must be built on Israel’s own territory, not on occupied Palestinian land. The wall is not being built on the 1967 border (which is the internationally recognized one), but rather deep inside Palestinian territory. Clearly, the construction of the wall is a ploy to seize land and make living conditions impossible for the Palestinians.
— Stephen J. Sniegoski holds a Ph.D. in American history, specializing in American foreign policy, and is the author of several historical articles.
