Regions / Middle East & North Africa
Washington's misguided policies toward Iraq but have warped the overall thrust of U.S. foreign and military policy for the past decade.
Even other Persian Gulf countries have moderated their positions toward Saddam in light of his ostentatious and highly popular condemnation of Israel's violent retaliation against the new Palestinian Intifada.
The new administration must look critically at how we define security.
There is little in the above record to suggest a major departure in Middle East policy when Bush takes office in January.
With the likelihood that Texas Governor George W. Bush will become the next president of the United States, there needs to be serious thought as to what kind of foreign policy can be expected over the next four years.
The United States should certainly maintain its commitment to Israelâs legitimate security needs. What needs to be questioned is the Clinton administrationâs support for Israelâs ongoing occupation and its violations of basic human rights.
If there is to be peace in the Middle East, the United States must exercise some "tough love."
There is a widespread assumption that resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is an extremely complex issue, and that the United States has been and is the best hope for peace. The reality, however, is just the opposite.
It is highly unlikely that the upcoming summit between the United States, Israel, and Palestine at Camp David will the kind of positive results that came from the 1978 summit between the United States, Israel, and Egypt.
The problem with Clinton's view of Jerusalem is ultimately not a bias towards Israel, but a direct challenge to the authority of the United Nations and some of the most basic tenets of international law.