On another Middle East front, the consensus in Washington is a sign of healthy bipartisan agreement, not dangerous group-think. That is in relation to President Bush’s decision last week to support Prime Minister Sharon on two key questions relating to the final status of a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Mr. Bush said the Palestinian Arabs claiming refugee status would have to abandon hope of a right of “return”to Israel. And Mr. Bush said that in an eventual settlement, Israel would not fully retreat to its pre-1967 borders.

Asked about the matter Sunday on NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Kerry said he completely supported Mr. Bush on the two points. That’s an improvement from Mr. Kerry’s comments in October of 2003 to the Arab American Institute, when he said America should act as an “honest broker” between Israel and the Arabs, and warned, “Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long term.” Mr. Kerry’s comments Sunday put him in agreement with Messrs. Bush and Sharon, but at odds with some of the anti-Israel sentiments that have seeped deep into the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

The Center for American Progress, led by former top Clinton administration officials like John Podesta, Morton Halperin, and Rob’t. Boorstin, responded to the Bush-Sharon agreement with an email describing it as “a giant step back,” and warning that the agreement “alienates” American allies in Europe and would be “harmful to security in Iraq.” The Change for America Web site created by the former manager of Governor Dean’s presidential campaign, Jos. Trippi, approvingly cited another Web site that claimed,”The net result of this nasty little backroom deal…the struggle to stabilize a rebellious Iraq is going to become a little harder, and a future in which a large part of a major American city disappears in a nuclear firestorm is going to become a little more likely.”

Even Fareed Zakaria — a Newsweek editor who is a trustee of the Manhattan Institute, is running to become a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, and who is hardly a Democratic regular — was on “Hardball” Sunday complaining that the Bush-Sharon agreement that Mr. Kerry endorses will contribute to “rising anti-Americanism in Iraq and our troops are going to pay the price.” As if there weren’t anti-Americanism in Iraq before the Bush-Sharon deal — just ask the contractors whose scorched and mangled bodies were hanging from the bridge in Fallujah before Mr. Sharon even left Israel for Washington. And as if giving the Middle East the signal that America is going to stand by its friends — i.e., the Israelis — in the war on terror might not actually help quell the unrest in Iraq.

By our lights, Mr. Kerry has a long way to go from where he has been throughout much of his career before he gets to be a trusted leader on foreign policy. But by agreeing with Mr. Bush on this point, Mr. Kerry has taken an important step in the right direction. For Mr. Bush has gotten way ahead of the field in terms of standing by his word, meaning what he says, establishing the principle that America will stand by her friends, and being willing to stick with Israel when it is politically incorrect. The ability to put American and Israeli security and the America-Israel relationship ahead of petty partisan politics is something that will help win both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush the respect of some of their sharpest critics.