"Kerry Lesser of two evils for many Arabs." Aref Assaf, Op-Ed article in the Sunday, July 10, 2004 edition of the Daily Record

Because President Bush has disappointed the vast majority of the Arab and Muslim constituency, some argue that John Kerry, the democratic candidate for President is almost assured of the Arab and Muslim vote this November. While for many, the upcoming presidential elections presents an opportunity to finally remove George W. Bush from office, one still has to ask what we are hoping to replace him with. There are some issues where Kerry offers a clear alternative and, while he may not look great on many of them, he is clearly an improvement over Bush. 

For most Arab Americans, Kerry is a total disappointment when it comes to the question of Israel-Palestine. In a statement released to various Jewish groups last month, Kerry makes it clear that he backs the Bush agenda virtually 100%. In almost every aspect, Kerry backs the moves Bush has made and endorses the most disastrous of Bush's decisions. This includes Bush's promise to Sharon of April 14 that Israel would never have to return to the pre-1967 borders and that it would never have to admit any Palestinian refugees back into Israel. While it may be true that this has been America's view of the eventual outcome for some time, no US administration has ever made it explicit before, and for good reason. These needed to be matters that were negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. These are matters at the very heart of Palestinian nationalism, and they are clearly matters the Palestinians have every right to press in negotiations. But Bush removed them from that realm, and in so doing made the chances of moving away from violence in the region much more remote.

On civil rights, Kerry is favored because of many statements he had made concerning certain aspects of the Patriot Act. Certain sections of the Act are due to expire next year and President Bush has made it a campaign demand that these sunsetted provisions be further extended beyond 2005. Kerry on the other hand, has promised not to support these measures. Our community has been victimized twice, first by the loss of fellow Americans who vanished in the rubble of the September 11 attacks and more so as the entire community became the hostage to a regime based on racial profiling, detention and deportation of thousands. Our support for much needed enforcement of security measures cannot be at the expense of eroding civil liberties. Kerry has been much more forthcoming on civil rights matters.

 Kerry also supports the absurd decision to isolate Yaser Arafat. I too have serious reservations about Arafat’s positions and decisions. However, like it or not, Arafat is the legitimately elected leader of the Palestinians, one who was elected by a much greater percentage of the total population than either Sharon or Bush and whose election had no trace of the scandals that dogged the Israeli and American leaders after their elections. There is no evidence to suggest that the Palestinians no longer give him a mandate to speak for them. What could be more anti-democratic than insisting that another people abandon their duly elected leader at the whim of others? The isolation of Arafat is also counter-productive, as virtually no one believes that there is a single Palestinian leader who is remotely likely to be as conciliatory as Arafat. At least, none the Palestinian people would accept in any significant numbers.

 Kerry also endorses Israel's wall and had opposed the ruling of the International court of Justice which called the barrier illegal and thus must be torn down. This barrier-which is separating Palestinians from each other and from their lands, but not from Israelis; which is already creating enormous hardship and forcing thousands of Palestinians from their homes; and which will only entrench this conflict-- is not a security measure, but an attempt to drive out more Palestinians and establish permanent Israeli control over more of the West Bank. It is the very logic behind Bush's agreeing that there will be no return to the 1967 borders that Sharon is following. After all, Israel only had to build the settlements illegally and leave them there; eventually, the US gave its imprimatur. The wall, which Israel maintains is a "temporary security measure" when it is neither temporary nor built for security, is certainly able to follow the same blueprint. Unquestionably. the security wall is  pregnant with territorial ambitions.

 Doubtless, Kerry's pronounced positions are disheartening and shortsighted. Continuing a one-sided foreign policy will ensures the absence of peace and security in the Middle East and will continue to nurture anti-American sentiments around the world. But we cannot say they are truly unexpected. There is no evidence to suggest that taking an even-handed stance on Israel will gain Kerry significant votes, while it is clear that such a stance would lose him votes. And such will continue to be the case until we, as Americans, come together and create the demand in the political sphere for a change, until we are willing and able to put our votes and our money where our beliefs are.

Arab and Muslim Americans want the Democratic candidate to understand that there is a price for their support, that they expect something return, whether a different emphasis in Middle East policy – for example, a stress on human rights and individual liberties - or a change in tone toward the Arab world. But they are equally concerned about the erosion of their civil rights, about the alliance between the Republican Party and the Christian right. It is rarely recognized that for most devout Muslims, the basic tenants of the Republican Party are close to those found in Islam: opposition to premarital sex, abortion and gay and lesbian marriages, strong family and community ties. Most Americans Muslims would justify their support for a republican candidate on these mutual grounds.

 Granted, campaign promises and actions once elections are over are often quite different. However, a Kerry administration would mean the current crop of neoconservatives and their allies (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al) would be farther away from the center of policymaking power. It may be small improvement, but this administration was so dramatically worse than even the extremely pro-Israeli government Clinton administration, that we might consider it worth our while to at least get them out. Ralph Nadir, an Arab American, has not gained but a small percentage of Arab and Muslim votes and is not considered an alternative.

I have not given up on either Bush or Kerry but like most Americans, I wish I had another electable choice.

 Aref Assaf

Denville, NJ