The unusual coincidence of a Mideast crisis — violence between Israelis and Palestinians and the alleged suicide bombing against the USS Cole — with the presidential campaign means that the Middle East is, for once, dramatically shaping Americans' lives, rather than the reverse.
While President Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak crafted a life-saving cease-fire Tuesday, Al Gore and George W. Bush prepared for the balancing act of the final debate. Tied in the closest presidential race since 1960, both men are forced to court simultaneously Arab-American voters in Michigan and Jewish voters in Florida, two crucial swing states. But short-term vote-gathering will not strengthen long-term foreign policy unless the next president learns from last week's losses and dramatically restructures America's role in the Middle East. A sustainable balance between national and human interests must be struck if we want to be an international leader in the region, rather than a crusading superpower.
Even a cursory look at U.S. involvement in the Middle East reveals at best a .500 batting average (or a solid "F" unless you're thinking Mets, not midterms). Only after four major wars between Israel and various alliances of Arab states was a U.S. president able to build an Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. In Iran, the CIA propped up an unpopular monarch until the Islamic Revolution pushed him (and us) out in 1979. During the 1980s we supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq War, which ended in a draw after hundreds of thousands died. Then we nudged Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and "contained" him with sanctions more costly to human life than his whole arsenal. Most recently, Clinton's work for a lasting agreement between Israelis and Palestinians unraveled into widespread violence.
Now it remains for both presidential contenders and their vice-presidential candidates to tell us how they will chart a more peaceful course. Early evidence is not encouraging.
In the second debate, Bush spoke out against racial profiling and hidden evidence, and shortly afterward won the endorsement of a prominent Michigan Arab-American group. But his main priority seems to be oil — not people. That's why Bush puts the Middle East in our national interests, but not Africa. Foreign policy should ensure home heating — not stop mass killings. The brutal candor of Bush's "oil-first" approach might be illuminating if it wasn't so macabre. Tapping into the fuel reserve gets more attention than the Rwandan genocide. And Dick Cheney's experience only weds reality to the rhetoric. As secretary of defense, Cheney led the U.S. bombing of Baghdad, then allowed Saddam Hussein to crush two domestic revolts. Cheney also helped establish our permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia — a plan with neo-colonial overtones that provoke broad unease in the region today.
Do the Democrats present a better alternative? Not likely, unless Gore dramatically departs from the path of the Clinton-Gore years. In flagrant violation of their own claims to respect Muslims around the world, the administration bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, where the United Nations found no evidence of chemical weapons production. Administration policies have not supported pro-democracy movements in Iraq, and instead deepened the sanctions begun by former President George Bush. And while they diversified many Washington positions, Clinton and Gore stood by while Arab-American leader Salam Al-Marayati was removed from Congress' anti-terrorism commission. Meanwhile, Congress passed the same legislation targeting Arab-Americans that Bush now criticizes to win votes in Detroit.
Democratic running mate Joseph Lieberman may offer the most promise for changing Washington's approach to the Middle East. Partnered with a respected political leader and observant Jew, Gore could assure Americans and the world that the question is not whether America is committed to defending Israel, but rather how best to continue our support for building an enduring democratic Jewish state. Consequently, Lieberman would give Gore an unprecedented domestic anchor for reaching out to all the people affected by conflict in the Middle East.
The recent foreign policy focus between the presidential candidates will only help the United States and the Middle East if we take the recent crisis as an opportunity for rethinking our approach, departing from the hyper-interventionism of the past decade and crafting a regional vision for respectful peace. If only for a moment, distant foreign policies have become mainstream domestic politics. America's attention to the Middle East won't last, but the lessons we take from the past week can. Jason Brownlee is a politics graduate student from Raleigh, N.C. He can be reached at brownlee@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton is more than prestige and aesthetics. The pre-frosh experience must reflect that.
Sasha Malena JohnsonFrom the acceptance letter to Princeton Preview, perhaps Princeton is too removed in the way it treats its pre-frosh and too reliant on visuals and prestige during the period after Ivy Day. Princeton should prioritize efforts to connect with prospective students in written communication and work on making Princeton Preview more socially and intellectually engaging.
From the acceptance letter to Preview Days, perhaps Princeton is too removed in the way it treats its pre-frosh and too reliant on visuals and prestige during the period after Ivy Day. Princeton should prioritize efforts to connect with prospective students in written communication and work on making Preview Days more socially and intellectually engaging.
By erasing Hamas and the Oct. 7 attacks, PIAD’s proposal is unproductive and deeply unsettling
Judah Guggenheim“But the PIAD proposal gives no indication as to how boycotting or divesting from Israel will lead to a better future for Palestinians, because it never addresses what that future will actually look like.”
“But the PIAD proposal gives no indication as to how boycotting or divesting from Israel will lead to a better future for Palestinians, because it never addresses what that future will actually look like.”
Princeton, turn construction efforts to our education
Abigail Rabieh“It’s too easy to leave Princeton without the transcendent liberal arts education that the University extols when the only intellectual guidance comes in the form of general platitudes and an inconstant and inadequate advising system.”
"It’s too easy to leave Princeton without the transcendent liberal arts education that the University extols when the only intellectual guidance comes in the form of general platitudes and an inconstant and inadequate advising system."
