Again, I do support the central theme of his argument. Palestine was absent from the recent presidential and vice presidential debates, which were devoid of insistence that there needs to be engagement of Israeli and Palestinian leadership in the next eight years.

This election is about forming solutions to the many problems facing this country and the world. The time has come to make a choice that is not merely pro-Israel, but pro-peace — to make steps to bring this infamous conflict to an end.

The Bush administration has not demonstrated that “engagement” or “dialogue” are in its vocabulary. There are even those who say the Republican Party has always been there for Israel and knows what’s best for Israel.

But you know what is best for Israel? Peace.

With all hope, and his track supports this prospect, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would follow the parameters of former President Bill Clinton in engaging Israeli and Palestinian leaders toward a solution — not merely to save face with voters and not in the last year of his term.

It’s time a president brought both sides back to the table and led both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to mutual recognition. We don’t need a new leader. We need leadership.

It’s time we had a president who was pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, pro-dignity, pro-security and pro-peace.

Daniel Kuhn

international relations senior