|
|
District 6 hopefuls speak out on U.S. role in Mideast
VICKI CABOT
Contributing Editor
In what seems like an instant replay of the contentious, costly, and sometimes nasty 1996 race in District 6 for the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican incumbent J.D. Hayworth and Democratic challenger Steve Owens are at it again, along with Libertarian Robert Anderson.
The three are competing on the November ballot to represent the district that includes the area East of Northeast Scottsdale and East Mesa to the New Mexico border, and north of the Pima/Pinal county line to the Utah border.
Last time around, Hayworth squeaked ahead of Owens, after a nail-biting recount, to grab the seat in the heavily Republican district. This time, the race is hot and heavy, with both Democratic and Republican pollsters predicting victory.
Themes echo those of the last go-round, with Hayworth calling for less government and more local control and Owens advocating the positive role government can play in people's lives. Anderson believes in allowing free- market forces to prevail. Issues, too, are predictable - education, health care, social security reform, campaign finance reform - as is the unfortunate name-calling and backbiting.
In such a hotly contested race, Jewish News canvassed candidates on issues of particular concern to our readers: foreign aid, the peace process, hate-crimes legislation and school vouchers. Questions were faxed to candidates for their consideration. Anderson responded in a telephone interview; Hayworth and Owens elected to respond in writing. Following are their views.
Question: The United States has worked hard at brokering Middle East peace. This year, President Bill Clinton has exerted pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push the settlement forward. Is this appropriate? How can the United States best aid the process?
Anderson: I don't believe it is appropriate for us to broker peace. Let both sides negotiate themselves, with our encouragement. But we should not broker peace - it puts us at risk of terrorist attack. Peace will come because it will be best for all parties concerned. Both will agree that they don't want their sons and daughters to fight.
Hayworth: The President has blatantly tilted in favor of Yasser Arafat and the PLO and has essentially bullied Israel into making concessions that are not in its best interests. Let's not forget that Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East. The United States should fulfill the role of a neutral arbitrator, but never forget that Israel is one of our most important and strongest allies. The United States cannot even pretend to be a neutral party as long as President Clinton continues to act as a surrogate for Yasser Arafat and other Arab extremists. The security of our friends should never be sacrificed for the transient approval of the international community.
Owens: The United States must not exert pressure on Israel in the peace process. As the sole democracy in the Middle East, Israel deserves the strong, unwavering support of the United States in the peace process. I support participation by the United States in the process guided by the Oslo Accords and the Declaration of Principles. The ultimate goal of the process must be a real peace, including: full normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and all of its neighbors; secure, defensible and open borders; trade; and tourism. The United States must make clear that we are committed to ensuring that Israel's strategic concerns are met and its security protected.
I visited Israel in 1994 and had the great honor of meeting many of Israel's leaders, including the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Prime Minister (then Likud party leader) Benjamin Netanyahu. My visit furthered my dedication to strengthening the bonds between the United States and Israel and making sure that the United States supports Israel in the peace process. That is one reason I strongly believe the United States should show its support for Israel by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which is - and must remain - the undivided capital of Israel.
Should U.S. aid to Israel be continued at current levels - and should aid to countries or entities known to support terrorism be continued? Why or why not? Should countries known to be seeking peace, such as Jordan, be rewarded for their actions with an increase in aid?
Anderson: I do not believe in foreign aid but in actions that promote free and open trade. Giving to some countries and not others opens us up to animosity; we should lead by example, not by the nose.
Hayworth: Yes, aid should continue at current levels. As I said above, Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East. It is in the highest national interest of the United States that we protect, nurture and foster this island of freedom in a region otherwise characterized by a lack of freedom. No, Jordan and other countries should not be pulled into "peace" with the carrot of perpetual handouts from the pocket of the American taxpayer. Peace must come from a genuine meeting of the minds between Israel and her neighbors, otherwise any cessation of hostilities will be but a temporary and ill-founded truce liable to flare up into violence. True peace must come from within, not from without through the lure of foreign aid.
Owens: The United States must maintain its commitment to Israel in the form of foreign aid at current levels (at least). The provision of $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel is one of the United States' most effective foreign policy investments. In addition to the religious, social and cultural ties that bind our two nations, the United States has political and strategic interests that compel our continued support of Israel. Aid to Israel serves the interests of both the United States and Israel by promoting peace and security in an increasingly unstable region. Aid should be discontinued to any countries or entities known to support terrorism, and the United States should support Israel's anti-terrorist efforts and take steps to eliminate support for international terrorist organizations within the United States.
Do you support the joint U.S./Israeli development of the Arrow anti-missile system as a defense against attack by rogue states? Why or why not?
Anderson: I'm in favor of the Arrow missile as long as it is mutually agreeable and beneficial to both parties. I'm not familiar with the amount of the funding, but hope that we are not doing the majority of the funding.
Hayworth: Yes, the Arrow project should continue. We need a missile- defense system for this country, and we should join with other democracies to pool our talents and resources in the development of defensive weapons to protect our precious freedom.
Owens: I strongly support the joint U.S./Israeli development of the Arrow anti-missile system, as well as continued U.S. support for other state-of-the-art defensive weapons systems for Israel. The United States must do all we can to fight terrorism and help Israel fight terrorism and terrorist elements that endanger the Israeli people and threaten their security.
Do you support school vouchers or other forms of government aid to parents who choose to send their children to private or parochial schools? Why or why not?
Anderson: I do support vouchers. There is no free market in education now, no motivation to do better. (With vouchers) schooling would be cheaper and better quality - to get your business, schools would have to provide good teachers and facilities. Vouchers are a stopgap on the way to privatizing education, which is where it belongs. We don't need the government telling people in Show Low or Mesa or Apache Junction how to educate their children. I support the government being out of the business of education.
Hayworth: The federal government should not support any religion specifically, but we shouldn't read that as prohibiting parents from having a choice in the education of their children. The more options there are in education, the better chance we have of producing a competitive and educated citizenry. While I have some concerns that vouchers may come with big-government strings attached, I have voted to allow them in the District of Columbia. I believe that a better way to achieve school choice without many of the concerns about religious schools would be to allow tax-free education savings accounts and education tax credits.
Owens: I oppose vouchers for private or parochial schools. In addition to the constitutional issues vouchers raise, our public schools are facing many challenges, and we must first invest more in public education before we drain precious resources from them to pay for vouchers. We must put more teachers in our schools to reduce class sizes, restore discipline and make our schools safer. We also must provide funding for school construction and repairs to ensure that our children are getting a good education in classrooms and buildings that are in good repair and have the physical infrastructure to promote learning. I strongly support charter schools.
Only 10 states in the nation do not have a hate-crimes law. In light of the recent attack on a gay student in Wyoming, one of those states without such a law, do you believe that there should be national hate crimes legislation?
Anderson: No. These men are guilty of first-degree murder. They should be punished. But can you kill them again because it was a hate crime?
Hayworth: As heinous as hate crimes are, establishing a federal hate-crimes law is clearly not an appropriate role of the federal government. This is a criminal matter that should be left to the states, and since there are only 10 states that do not possess anti-hate crime laws, I have faith that the state governments are quite capable of taking the lead in deciding for themselves what will best serve their communities.
Owens: I would support national hate-crimes legislation. It is clear from the recent hate-motivated murders in Texas and Wyoming that hate crimes are a national problem that must be dealt with severely to ensure that swift, sure and effective punishment is meted out.
|
