Kristof’s Desired MidEast Balance

I must admit that Kristof’s last article, on The Bush and Kerry Tilt, quite confused me: after all the rhetoric, and all is said and done, what exactly is it that he wants? What would be “balanced” to Kristof?
This is an especially relevant question when one takes into mind Kristof’s earlier articles, on the abuses occuring in the Middle East. Does Kristof wish that America become more supportive of the regimes and their barbaric practices? Does he wish that Presidents Bush and Kerry would be more sympathetic to Basher Asad’s Syrian requests, that Israel pull out of the Golan Heights in order to give that tyrannical regieme more people to oppress?
This is especially important to me, since the “balance” meme is rampant amongst leftist circles. America is continually warned that it is no longer an “honest broker,” that it is “loosing its credibility in the Middle East.” But why should that matter? If Palestinians are being treated better by Israel in Israel than they are by their own government in PA administrated territories (see the The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group report), why should the US act any differently?
With Sharon still planning to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza, and Yassir Arafat still doing nothing to stop terrorism, there is no room for “balance” of the type Kristof so desires. If anything, the US needs to be less inclined to appease the tyrannical Arab regimes, and more biased towards democracies.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Comments are closed.