Moral Equivalence is Good

Nicholas Kristof produced a real stinker in his New York Times op/ed.

George Bush and John Kerry disagree on almost every issue, with one crucial exception: they compete to support a myopic policy that is unjust, that damages our credibility around the world and that severely undermines our efforts in Iraq.

And what might that policy be?

American presidents have always tried to be honest brokers in the Middle East. Truman, Johnson and Reagan were a bit more pro-Israeli, while Eisenhower, Carter and George H. W. Bush were a bit cooler, but all aimed for balance.

President Bush tossed all that out the window as he snuggled up to Mr. Sharon.

We're back to that inane idea of the US as "honest broker", i.e. moral equivalence. Apparently, for Kristof, a democratic country is on the same political and moral level as a terrorist organization and should be treated as such. The US tried even-handedness all throughout the 1990's. The only thing that produced was a 3 1/2 year long terrorists war initiated by the Palestinians.

Our embrace of Mr. Sharon hobbles us in Iraq even more than those photos from Abu Ghraib. Iraqis (in contrast with, say, Kuwaitis) genuinely sympathize with the Palestinians

Really??? Is this the same Iraqis who expelled all the Palestinians living in Baghdad after the end of the war last year?

Kristof then goes on to say:

Particularly in a new age when terrorist attacks could use W.M.D. to kill perhaps thousands at a time, Israel can achieve safety only through a peace agreement with the Palestinians. A model is the unofficial Geneva accord of last October, reached between courageous Israelis and Palestinians — the very people we should be supporting.

Kristof's idea of peace in the Middle East entails Israel giving in on every issue, under US pressure of course. His "analysis", if it can be called that, ignores all of recent history and the lessons we should have learned.