Do you think there will be a modification of American course with regards to Israel if Kerry is elected? I could not fish out much information on this politically sensitive issue, except for Kerry's consistent pro-Israel voting record in Congress. Thanks for any info.
Unlikely. Both parties are pro-Israel. Kerry might criticize Israel more, as Clinton did, but fundamentally, Israel will remain a close ally of the U.S.
That much is obvious. However, I wonder if Kerry agrees with the basic premise of the Bush policy today, or if he would, like Clinton, push parties toward a negotiating table?
There will likely be no change in policy. It's conceivable that Kerry may be a bit more proactive in encouraging negotiations. At the same time, it's conceivable that Bush, freed of re-election constraints, may do the same thing.
These things are difficult to predict. Arab Americans voted heavily for Bush partly because they thought he would be a lot less pro-Israel than Gore (it doesn't get any funnier than that). I suspect Kerry will place greater emphasis on trying to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Because Bush needs to appear anti-peace while under re-election constraints? The United States must play a significant role as a mediator to get results here. Bush first stepped completely away from the process, then created his "road map for peace" which I have had trouble pulling up on Mapquest. For all the people who think that Bush will become more moderate on some issues after the election, or play a more statesman-like role, forget it. He is turning hard to the right at the first opportunity.
How would the US go about mediating? Should it continue to prop up the lying and corrupt Arafat after all that happened at Camp David and afterward? (See the book by Dennis Ross, for example). Negotiate with Hamas is the only other, no less crazy, alternative. Unilateral disengagement is the only way to go at the moment, so well done to Bush. To my knowledge, Kerry supports the policy, but I'm not certain of it.
No, because he may feel that he can't alienate certain Jewish voters. He may have decided to buck the advice of Jim Baker to his father, which was "********** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" (literally). Personally, I think Kerry will still win a large majority of the Jewish vote, but Bush may want to try and capture more than the pathetic 19% he did last time. Or because he may feel that he can't alienate all voters, Jewish or not, by opening himself to critcism of "You are forcing Israel to negotiate with terrorists while you wage war against them?" He may very well stay the course. As I said, it can go either way.
The question was whether he would do more to try to solve the problem. Figuring out to stay out of it, and coming to this conclusion through deliberation, is doing more than he is doing now. Now he is not doing anything because he is ignoring it, not because he thinks it is the way to go. See what I mean? So you might be right that the best US policy is not to get too involved, but that is at least thoughtful. I don't think the current admin has any such policy.
Sure they do, they pat Ariel Sharon on the back and let him do whatever he wants. At least that's all I've seen in the last four years.