Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 2003, pages 26, 44

Special Report

 

The 2004 Bloc Vote—This Time, Trust and Verify

 

By Richard H. Curtiss

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

This writer predicted in March that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's political guru, would initiate a new charm offensive on behalf of Arab- and Muslim-Americans. Rove knows, after all, that without the solid bloc vote that Arab- and Muslim-Americans instituted four years ago, George W. Bush would have lost against former Vice President Al Gore.

After Bush was safely elected, it looked for a few short months like Muslim- and Arab-Americans were coming into their own following the success of the bloc vote. Then came 9/11, however, and soon after that, Bush seemed to have forgotten who helped elect him. Granted, he sent important signals to make it clear that Americans must not be vengeful, or in any way blame Arab- or Muslim-Americans for the sins of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussain.

Nevertheless, it soon seemed that the president had misplaced his Rolodex for that important constituency. Bush seemed to have other things on his mind for months—literally almost a year went by without any message for the one solid voting bloc that had given him the election.

Now, however, Karl Rove has found the missing Rolodex—and apparently in the nick of time, because Bush now needs the Arab- and Muslim-American vote just as much as he did in 2000. That may sound strange, given the fact that Bush seems solidly in the saddle to win the next election. But, of course, he's not.

The Israelis have discovered that Bush apparently means it when he says it is time to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Zionists keep hoping that Bush doesn't really mean it—and, indeed, maybe he doesn't. There are many reasons to believe that Bush is going to go for the Triple Crown: i.e., crush the Taliban, oust Saddam Hussain and then unlock the Arab-Israeli impasse.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon got the message first, and it scared him silly. He was just about to leave for another triumphal U.S. tour when he apparently got very sobering news from his spies within the Bush administration. The planned tour was abruptly cancelled.

Instead Sharon reverted from being a "man of peace" to his old persona of "the Butcher of Beirut." Based on his inside information that George W. Bush meant it when he said it was time to start the "road map" for peace in the Middle East and would brook no opposition, Sharon warned the far-right members of his government that this was no time for dissension in the ranks. After serious reflection on their part, Sharon was able to avoid a cabinet crisis—but barely.

 

Bush now needs the Arab- and Muslim-American vote just as much as he did in 2000.

There are many reasons why Bush has decided to go ahead and work for Middle East peace, even though he faces reelection in little more than a year. First, Prime Minister Tony Blair needs his help. Bush promised the British leader that, in return for Blair's support on Iraq, Bush would deal with the Palestinian problem—and it appears that Bush plans to keep his promise. A few other allies, such as Spain, Poland and Bulgaria, also would have severe problems should Bush renege on his assurances.

It may be that pushing a solid peace initiative will reunite America's oldest allies as well, although French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have been in the deep freeze. It seems almost certain, therefore, that Bush really means what he says.

If all this is true, solving the Arab-Israeli dispute precisely along the lines that go all the way back to U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 will end the world's single most important conflict. It also will provide the Arab League with the opportunity to do exactly what it has promised to do—that is to recognize Israel diplomatically, something for which every Israeli leader claims to have yearned for many years. So what is holding all this back?

Well, for one thing, the Israelis really want to get rid of all of the Palestinians, lock, stock and barrel. Every time a major upheaval has occurred in the Middle East, Sharon has thought, "this is the moment." Surely, he thought, the opportunity he had sought for years arrived in March. The war on Iraq was launched—but before Sharon could move, it was over, and the Israeli leader saw his chances vanishing. There are still things the Israelis could do to block the road map, however, even if they have to contrive an artificial crisis to do so.

Look out for very rough weather ahead, as Sharon once again tries to influence events negatively. There could be an assassination attempt against Secretary of State Colin Powell, for example—or, conceivably, against George W. Bush himself. While this would be a very dangerous risk for the Israelis, given Sharon's long-term plans he might see this as a last, desperate chance. It certainly wouldn't be the first time an Israeli has completely altered the playing field. Think of Count Folke Bernadotte, an early United Nations peacemaker, or Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Both were on the verge of a major breakthrough, and both were murdered.

Regardless, the Israelis will look for stopgap measures just to buy time. But if Sharon can't stall because Bush won't let him, he soon would arrange a "regime change" of his own—meaning new Israeli elections, and an opportunity to buy more time. Then Israel and its American cronies will go all out to support the Democrats in 2004 and try to prevent Bush's reelection.

 

Approaching 2004 Elections

Meanwhile, what are Americans—and specifically, Muslim- and Arab-Americans—going to do as the election approaches? The first thing is to make sure that every Muslim- and Arab-American is registered to vote. Whether these Americans register as Democrats or Republicans will depend on what House or Senate races they can most favorably influence in their own states. Those states' own citizens can provide the relevant information—but all Americans must vote if they want to have any influence on the next four years.

There are two problems that Muslim- and Arab-Americans must deal with as early as possible. One is to modify the U.S. PATRIOT Act. Billed as an emergency measure in response to the 9/11 crisis, it needs to be drastically reworked because of the constitutional abuses already evident. There certainly are, or were, "terrorists" in the United States, but hopefully most of them were killed in the suicide attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and, presumably, in the Pennsylvania crash of the plane heroic passengers apparently diverted at the cost of their own lives.

Americans must now separate the wheat from the chaff. Presumably there are some real "evil ones," as President Bush would say, being held in Guantanamo Bay and here in the U.S. But there is no reason why other detainees should not either be tried, released or deported—including Sami Al-Arian, a legal resident. The legal limbo in which he is being held is inexcusable and extremely un-American.

In the same vein, the so-called Secret Evidence Act was a scandal even before 9/11, and the use of secret evidence against Muslims only got worse with the enactment of the U.S. PATRIOT Act. Making all due allowances for the emergency situation in which the United States finds itself, it is time to go back to the provisions of the law which already exist. All Americans—and particularly new Americans—should look carefully at what solutions will be offered by both Democrats and Republicans to address these problems.

Before the Muslim Americans came along, there were three other bloc votes, formally or informally. One bloc is the African Americans, another Hispanic Americans, and the third Jewish Americans. Each of these three communities has its own internal dynamics. What is important now is that the Muslim- and Arab-Americans work together, guided by their leaders.

Finally, as happened in 2000, Muslim- and Arab-Americans should pay very close attention to the candidates who are running for office, in order to end up with the two best qualified persons, one Republican and one Democrat. In 2000, it turned out, the Democrats, so fearful of losing their Jewish donors, decided not to even try to put the best face on Gore's nomination. Presumably the Democrats now realize that they lost the 2000 elections as a result, and therefore will try to present an attractive alternative to the Bush candidacy.

In the end, the bloc vote that changed history in 2000 may again take place. If so, the opinions and needs of Muslim- and Arab-Americans never again will be taken for granted. What more can anyone else ask?

Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

< Prev		Next >