Protection of Israel First is America's Best Choice to Keep a Promise Made by the President Elect.

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Dec 30, 2008 at 18:06

Which of any of the readers of this post truly think that the post President Bush scenario in the Middle East has left the region in any better shape than say, the era prior to the beginning of the Bush presidency? Few, if any, will offer that. Instead, as surmised by Dr. Pipes' premise here, there is really only one legacy that can be significantly promoted, that there has yet to be a repeat of September 11, 2001 on American soil. And that, from many perspectives, is the true legacy of the Bush presidency. For the Middle East however, the simmering hatreds of the majority Muslim mindset belies their declarations for peace, because for them peace can only come with the decimation of their blood enemy, Israel. It is stated in their writings, their ideology, and in their incessant attempts to pry Jewish people from the land.

And what of peace, many ask? It has been conceded by the Bush administration that the elusive ‘Road Map to Peace' cannot be concluded prior to the end of the Bush presidency. Prior to the Bush administration, President Carter tried, and it did not last. President Reagan left a different legacy, but President Clinton tried again and had no better results than President Carter. In the end, as we can see in the latest turmoil, there is no peace. At best, it has always been ‘hudna.'

Now, the President Elect Obama, while trying not to interfere with the Bush administration's posturing in the recent outburst at Gaza (probably for the sake of not inheriting something that cannot be handled), must prepare for the inevitability of dealing with the Middle East, ostensibly on his terms, if he can come to some. (It remains to be seen if he can uphold his AIPAC claim to be a friend of Israel).

President Bush has arguably kept the United States at arm's length from such hostilities as seen in the Middle East since September 11, 2001. But can that be expected once President Bush is out of office? As proposed by Dr. Pipes, there are several ways that America is now more exposed than ever before, and with a questionable relationship with the ever changing array of allies, the situation seems more untenable as January 20, 2009 approaches.

America's strongest position, though arguably the most dangerous, is to stand with Israel. Yet, most of the evidences that would lead to such a posture are not there. The democratizing politicisms of the previous administration have left even the more friendly Arab associations wary of the outcome now seen in Iraq. When the final decision to sever the last of the American military operations happens there, no remnant of American style political control will be able to divert the festering subliminal associations already made with Iran. If American interests are still considered needy of protection in the region, there is the conundrum to be solved (assuming that a spectator's seat in row Z, far, far away isn't the best place to be).

It will be this reader's continuing contention that Israel and her associations (with those that hate her and those that claim alliance with her) need to be addressed with the condition that Israel remain, intact and politically solvent, for as long as possible. Since it is the sworn duty of those in Lebanon, Gaza, Iran and some in Syria and other places, that Israel be separated from her land or be eliminated altogether; that premise is sure to fall under the treading hordes of Israel's enemies. Yet, that is what the Obama administration faces; and if the promises of the Holy Bible that governs Israel still holds true like it always does, it would be in the best interests of the next presidency to fall in line with the Biblical promises of Israel's Holy Eternal Sovereign.

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".