Clinton or Dole: Who's Best For Middle East Peace? Muslim Pros and Cons for President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole

• Published in: The Washington report on Middle East affairs 1996-09, Vol.XV (3), p.19
• Main Author: Alamoudi, Abdurahman
• Format: Magazinearticle
• Language: English
• Subjects: Campaigns; Clinton, Bill; Dole, Bob; Political campaigns; Politics; Presidents
• ISSN: 8755-4917; 2163-2782

Palestine and Lebanon: The president's stance on Palestine has been far from impartial as a result of the extraordinary influence of the Israel lobby which he has allowed to take root inside his administration. We believe this is most irresponsible of him as a holder of high political office. While I support the peace process, his extreme partiality toward the Israeli side against the Muslim Arabs in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and in the region as a whole gives me deep pause. [Bill Clinton]'s strong support for Israel's brutal pounding of Lebanon earlier this year and his unsympathetic reaction to the resulting tragedy at Qana were despicable. The blind eye he has turned to the Israeli siege against the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza imposed by the closure demonstrates his complete indifference to the fate of our people there and Israel's direct responsibility for their suffering. Clinton's embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his hard-line positions only confirms his earlier motives. Palestine: Candidate [Bob Dole]'s warm embrace of the likes of Netanyahu and Dole's promise to be even friendlier to Netanyahu's Israel than President Clinton has been to the Israel of Shimon Peres is indeed a frightening prospect. Bill Clinton has already been called the most pro-Israeli president in U.S. history, and Dole is now threatening to outdo him. This change was foreshadowed by Dole's strong support for the bill to move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, the eastern half of which still is illegally occupied by Israel. These initial moves should be understood as signs of the future under a Dole presidency. The administration's embrace of Netanyahu and the overt appearance of Netanyahu policy formulations in President Clinton's speeches is disgraceful and immoral to the Muslim community. His statement that he will adjust his larger policy to Netanyahu's is equally so. The peace process means nothing unless its substance and commitments are adhered to in reality, and not only in token form. Clinton's unrelenting support for the Israel of Netanyahu will foreshadow an even more ruthless form of hardship and oppression for the Muslim Arabs and especially the Palestinian people in the years to come.