Nader: US should disengage from Israel

Jun. 22, 2004 12:47 | Updated Jun. 22, 2004 13:04
Nader: US should disengage from Israel
By MENACHEM PRITZKER


No diplomatic plan can be acceptable unless it allows for the right of return for Palestinian refugees and a full Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders, a spokesman for US Presidential candidate Ralph Nader told the Jerusalem Post.

Nader, an independent presidential candidate, also disagrees with Israel's construction of the security fence, its targeted killings of terrorist leaders, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, his spokesman said.

"Too often the United States walks lockstep with the Israelis; it needs to think for itself," Nader's spokesman added.

On Saturday, Nader called on the Bush Administration to stop backing Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians. In a statement to the Emirate al-Khalij newspaper, Nader said that Israeli officials "control" the White House, and coerce American leaders to supply them with billions of dollars in arms and support.

US election experts believe that the 70-year-old Nader will only play a "spoilers" role in the election. In the 2000 US Presidential election, Nader is thought to have 'spoiled' Democratic candidate Al Gore's chances of winning the presidency.

Pat Buchanan: Let me start off with foreign policy?-Iraq and the Middle East. You have seen the polls indicating widespread contempt for the United States abroad. Why do they hate us?

Ralph Nader: First of all, we have been supporting despots, dictators, and oligarchs in all those states for a variety of purposes. We supported Saddam Hussein. He was our anti-Communist dictator until 1990. It's also cultural; they see corporate culture as abandoning the restraints on personal behavior dictated by their religion and culture. Our corporate pornography and anything-goes values are profoundly offensive to them.

The other thing is that we are supporting the Israeli military regime with billions of dollars and ignoring both the Israeli peace movement, which is very substantial, and the Palestinian peace movement. They see a nuclear-armed Israel that could wipe out the Middle East in a weekend if it wanted to.

They think that we are on their backs, in their house, undermining their desire to overthrow their own tyrants.

PB: Then you would say it is not only Bush who is at fault, but Clinton and Bush and Reagan, all the way back?

RN: The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. Until '91, any dictator who was anti-Communist was our ally.

PB: You used the term "congressional puppets." Did John Kerry show himself to be a congressional puppet when he voted to give the president a blank check to go to war?

RN: They're almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer comes to Washington, the puppets prance.

PB: Why do both sets of puppets, support the Sharon/Likud policies in the Middle East rather than the peace movement candidates and leaders in Israel?

RN: That is a good question because the peace movement is broad indeed. They just put 120,000 people in a square in Tel Aviv. They are composed of former government ministers, existing and former members of the Knesset, former generals, former combat veterans, former heads of internal security, people from all backgrounds. It is not any fringe movement.

The answer to your question is that instead of focusing on how to bring a peaceful settlement, both parties concede their independent judgment to the pro-Israeli lobbies in this country because they perceive them as determining the margin in some state elections and as sources of funding. They don't appear to agree with Tom Friedman, who wrote that memorable phrase, "Ariel Sharon has Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office."

Virtually no member of Congress can say that, and so we come to this paradoxical conclusion that there is far more freedom in Israel to discuss this than there is in the United States, which is providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.