Bush May Be The Worst Friend Of Israel of Any President

Submitted by Jim Beer (United States), Jan 15, 2008 at 19:43

When he was in Israel, President Bush said that "the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it."

How low can one set the bar? What are these actions that merit a state? Perhaps the fact that the one Palestinian gift to the world was modern terrorism - airplane hijackings, suicide bombings, use of nails and ball bearings in bombs? What more explicit encouragement could the President of the United States give to terrorists than to characterize their actions as "deserving?"

This guy may yet go down as the worst President Israel has ever had to deal with. At least you knew where Carter stood. With Bush, his rhetoric is continually undermined by his actions. At every turn, Bush has sought to appease Jihadists on the backs of the Israelis. On the heels of 9/11 he became the first Presdient to call for a Palestinian state.

After giving a great Rose Garden speech in 2002, he proceeded to back away from every principle he annunciated in the speech. After stunning the Arab world with the lightening quick overthrow of Saddam, what does he do to press his advantage? Without pausing to take a breath he manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by pressuring Israel, starting at Sharm el Sheikh, and foisting a feckless road map on them. (apparently handing Israel on a platter to Tony Blair was the devil's bargain he made to get Blair to go along on Iraq).

Then he fights a politically correct war in Iraq, worrying more about the "international community's" response more than about winning.By failing to secure Iraq, he emboldened jihadists everywhere. American credibility was damaged and both North Korea and Iran learned quickly that his rhetoric about their nukes was not about to be backed up by any serious action. He either supported or pressured Sharon in giving up Gaza, laying the groundwork for a new terror state. Then he stands by while his Secretary of State insists that Israel entrust its security to Egypt (Philadelphia) corridor.

Finally, after initally suggesting that he will let Israel go after Hezbollah, in the tradition of every American President during an Isareli war, he joins the aforementioned "international community" into accepting a premature cease fire that spares Hezbollah/Iran/Syria the consequences of their aggression, weakens Israel and entrusts Israel's security on the Northern border to the UN. After saying in 2002, that the Palestinians must come up with new leadership untainted by terror, he talks himself into pretending that Mahmoud Abbas, whose organization has killed more Israelis than Hamas, is Martin Luther King incarnate (just ask Secretary Rice).

After withstanding, throughout his administration, that only actions on the ground, not an artificial timetable, will lead or not to a Palestinian state, he, on his own initiative, decides that (apparently by coincidence) that there indeed is a timetable - the end of his term - giving the Palestinians absolutely no incentive to change their behavior. And again, it seems that his Annapolis initiative is yet another example of his willingness to play fast and loose with Israel's security for his pipedream that the Arabs will support the U.S. against Iraq, let alone accept Israel's existence.

I've had it with this guy. After 9/11 he worried out loud that the American people wouldn't have the stamina to win the war, that we would lose our resolve. He's the guy who's lost his resolve. I don't absolve the weaklings that Israel has for leaders, but Bush is ostensibly the leader of the free world. Too bad...I really had high hopes for him - but other than the resolve he's shown with the surge (and I am not confident he will stick with it long enough), he appears to lack the courage of his convictions.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".