I am struck by the truly weak pro-Israel case for John Kerry being made on two of the nation's most influential editorial pages. First it was Tom Friedman in the pages of the New York Times, who's effort really borders on the despicable, now there's Richard Cohen in the Washington Post who seeks for a more fair approach but still comes up with both a bland and less-filling effort.

WaPo: Pro-Israel, But Pro-Peace?

Cohen juxtaposes the Clinton-era and Bush-era Israeli-Palestinian body-counts (I've just used my hyphen quota), but then has the sense to back off the association he's just tried to create in the mind of the reader.

So what we're left with is a non-point. There's been a second intifadah. It's not Bush's creation, and if anything, it's a product of Oslo and Taba.

We go on (but still move nowhere):

The isolation of Arafat is both satisfying and a strategy for moving forward. It's a response to the intifadah Arafat launched. A resolution of the P-A conflict is going to require a sea-change in the Palestinian leadership. Object one is scraping off the chief barnacle himself - Yasser Arafat. Whether that happens through natural causes or through the agent of a MOAB on the Muqata is an algebra that I will leave to others with higher math SAT scores than myself to decide. I do know it won't solve all the problems, but it is a necessary step - one the Bush Administration is staying true to. Staying the course is the key, carping because the results won't come fast enough for the American election cycle is not.

Sigh. Under Clinton Oslo fell apart and became a murderous joke. Taba died and Arafat launched his terror war the fruits of which Cohen names above. Anthony Zinni traveled to Israel as the special envoy to show how "engaged" the US was - the fruits of which were a terrorist bombing and dead Israelis on every visit. You could set your watch by it. Peace came no closer.

It's hard to see how Israel would be better off with a demagogic latter-day Saladin fresh off his victory over a paper-tiger America (as we would have appeared with the death or ossification of sanctions and continued miring in the black-hole of no-fly-zone enforcement) like Saddam Hussein still in charge. At least now there's a chance to move forward. At least now the Israelis have in America someone who will support their efforts to defend themselves - unlike John Kerry who first told an Arab audience that the Fence was an obstacle to peace before voting for it in front of a Jewish one. What Israel needs is a consistent friend. What our friends in the Arab World who are out there waiting to be discovered and given a hand is to see an America willing to pay a price and stay in it for the long term - not sell them down the river when the going gets tough.

He returns to the body-count association he tried to create at the beginning of the piece, after already telling us it wasn't Bush's doing. Does he think we forgot already? Silliness. You think the CIA isn't still working with the Israelis? I'm sure many people have worked hard, but what's needed are long-term efforts, not leak-patching.

On the contrary, only George Bush has shown that he's willing to stay the course - a course that's working. So far, the portents for a Kerry Administration, his inability to maintain a steady position aside, are not good.

For related posts, start with my recent fisking of Tom Friedman, my previous fisking of Richard Cohen, and also this one responding to David Ignatius.