President Pushed to Escalate War in Israel and Beyond

WASHINGTON -- The mood in Washington these days is ominous, unlike anything anyone can remember. Although one hesitates to put it in these terms, it is almost a mood of wanting to strike out at perceived enemies anywhere and everywhere across the world. Beneath this pugnacious atmosphere, there is some hope that Secretary of State Colin Powell's upcoming trip to look in on the mayhem in Israel/Palestine may yield some answers. The secretary is the most accomplished leader of what's left of our polished diplomatic and political administration.

But increasingly, the zealots, the radicals and the "crazies" are gathering around George W. Bush -- and finally, analysts who have wanted to ignore this important development are beginning to ask: "Why?"

The Washington Post just attempted courageously and well to answer that question, now dominating foreign policy discussion on every level. "In the current debate, the Christian conservatives have joined forces with neoconservatives, many of them Jewish, to push the administration to apply the same moral clarity to its approach to the Middle East and Arafat as it has to the war on terrorism and Osama bin Laden," political analyst Dan Balz wrote in "Tension in the GOP."

In another fine article in The Wall Street Journal Europe, reporters Robert S. Greenberger and Jeanne Cummings tried to take apart George W.'s perfervid support of Israel at the expense of the United States' other relationships. Particularly, they pointed to the degree to which "W's" views differ from those of his father, who was very tough-minded and realistic about Israel.

In contrast, they show how George W. Bush is "bound to Israel by a strong religious faith molded by his convictions as a born-again Christian." He described his visit to Israel in 1998, one of his few visits abroad in his pre-presidential life, as "an incredible experience." He met with Gen. Ariel Sharon, apparently unaware of the man's shadowy past, and the two hit it off immediately; in fact, that encounter was an experience that has caused him to side without exercising even minimal judgment with Sharon, no matter what he does.

It should not be missed that the president was on that same trip miffed and insulted when Yasser Arafat, with his usual incompetence, refused to meet with the then-Texas governor, who was already a presidential candidate-in-waiting.

One begins to uncover a pattern here: A major clue to the president's thinking on foreign policy is his strong tendency to focus only on what he has himself seen and done. This is also true of his effusive relationship with Mexico, with which he feels comfortable because of his experience as governor of Texas.

Foreign policy by personal comfort level? "Unlike his father's vast diplomatic and government experience, the current president's philosophy toward Israel is based largely on personal experience," The Wall Street Journal Europe article averred, "and his relationships -- and grudges -- now are helping to shape his administration's policies."

But other congeries of people and ideas are also shaping these policies, and with ever greater consequence.

Most of the people now influencing Bush strongly on the road to a seemingly perpetual warfare -- men like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, military adviser Richard Perle and Irving and Bill Kristol -- are either combative neoconservatives, fervent Israeli supporters or Christian conservatives. The majority of them, including their most aggressive spokesmen, have never served in the military.

Yet they don't hesitate to express their views; indeed, their influence has led the president from fighting the immediate war against palpable anti-American terrorism in Afghanistan and al-Qaida cells, to helping Ariel Sharon dissolve Palestinian institutions and structures so he can keep hold of Palestinian lands, to (in the works -- really!) overthrowing governments from Iraq to Syria to Iran to North Korea. (And I know I've missed a few.)

One of this group, the influential conservative editor and author Norman Podhoretz, was quoted in The New York Times, using a euphemism for overthrowing governments: "On tactics, (the president) may be listening to Colin Powell. But he's very clear as to his strategic objectives -- not just to clean up al-Qaida cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world."

One wants to ask breathlessly: Is that all? Why, we could do that before lunch! Why not eradicate evil from the heart of man while we're about it? Why not redirect the winds and change the coming of the tides, and not give up until we stop the ice at the North Pole from melting? Why not make the lame walk and the dead arise from their sepulchers? We are, after all, starting (but only starting, thank you!) with the Holy Land!

Any rational person's non-snide conclusion must be that President Bush is getting himself -- and us -- into choppy, dangerous waters.

Every day, Prime Minister Sharon commits some new horror, all in the name of the America that provides all of his busy bulldozers, tanks and planes. Hardly a day goes by when he doesn't insult President Bush. Yet, despite some recent hesitation, the president still takes Sharon's side more forcefully and goes along with his own advisers, many of whom are also adherents of the extremist-right Likud Party in Israel. That mentality and influence are now contributing to plans to extend the war(s) to enforce all those enticing "regime changes" all over the world.

The president may feel comfortable swimming in the shallows of these policies, but in the end he will find that he clearly knew nothing about rip tides.

Beneath this pugnacious atmosphere, there is some hope that Secretary of State Colin Powell's upcoming trip to look in on the mayhem in Israel/Palestine may yield some answers. The secretary is the most accomplished leader of what's left of our polished diplomatic and political administration.

Bull#1: What do people truly expect Powell or anyone for that matter of doing over there?

Bull#2: Zealots? as opposed to whom? Liberals? Arafat? and this Why! Why are we the way they defined us which we are not? WHAT PSYCHOBABLE!!

"HEy, don't accuse me Georgie", "I'm not the one chosing sides and pushing for war here." THese people are incredible, they need to be caged in a mental institution. They are not ashamed of what they are saying, they keep repeating and imagining things left and right. It is unreal. THey are more demonic than an enraged WWF wrestler smashing a chair on top of his opponent. It is unreal, the IRRATIONAL face of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union is alive and "well".

......is different in what way? No difference at all, both are evil. Now the difference: The "civilized", and some Arab world accept America's characterization of osama, and his gang as terrorists. The world has not yet accepted Israel's contention that arafat, and his gang are terrorists. President GWB IMHO is trying to change that attitude, by doing what he is doing. Israel must get the symphaty of the civilized world if she is to survive, that is the real world. One can not live with idealism alone, it is insufficient in real life.

We have extended our hand in friendship to the Arab nations for decades. We send them billions of dollars in aid every year. We buy their oil. We prop up their regimes. We defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and, by extension, the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain and Oman from Saddam. Our support of Israel does not invalidate the support we've shown them and the goodwill, free money and commerce they've received from us.

This is nonsense. The only aid we send to Arab nations is the several billions we give Egypt as part of the Camp David Accords, i.e., for making peace with Israel. We prop up their regimes to insure our oil supply and to retain leaders who willing to put up with Israel.

Somehow I don't think Pearle, Wolfowitz, Netanyahu, Pipes, et al., care that much about Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We took on Saddam because he threatened Israel. They want us to "finish the job" now.

It was inane enough the first time. No need to repeat it.

Before you bark and insult people like a fascist, you should see that I corrected the first post. THere is nothing inane about demanding irrational people to stop barking and inciting war.

Our support of Israel has brought us the enmity of the 1/4 of the world's population which is Muslim, the contempt of Europe, the condemnation (and hidden glee) of Russia and China. What do we get for that

The satisfaction of being on the side of freedom, self rule and justice. That particular list of folks being against us can and should be interpreted as a badge of honor.

Of course, it's Palestinians on the one hand and Jews on the other--that makes all the difference.

No, it's (mostly) "gunmen"/soldiers on the one side and civilians on the other. Yes there has been some collateral casualties. The difference is one of deliberately targeting civilians and accidently harming them while defending yourself against armed men, who sometimes hide behind, literally, those civilians.

If Israel wanted to just kill Palestinian Arabs, they could have not sent in their soldiers to dig them out house by house, but rather backed off and called in Arty and Air Srikes. Now understand some arty has been used, but AFAIK no air, other than helicopter gunships. They are perfectly capable of building Daisy Cutters and have C-130s available to deliever them, if they just wanted to kill Muslims.

Don't forget that we also provided support to the Afghans trying to kick the Soviets out of their country. We saved Saudi Arabia from Saddam, we bend over backward to observe their restrictive "customs" to the point of violating the rights of servicemen and women, and for this they hate us, spend millions and millions of dollars to support terrorists who then attack us. Fine, but fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I hope we won't be fooled again by this particular (large) subset of the Muslim world.

That particular list of folks being against us can and should be interpreted as a badge of honor.

That particular list of folks is just about everyone except England. What wonderful group of people who are with us did you have in mind? Can you name anyone?

What moderate Arab states are you referring to? Look at Egypt's actions in the past few weeks and months. I'd hardly call them or the Saudis (funders of Al Quadia (sp)) moderate. Who's moderate? Oman, Qatar, Jordan? OK, fair enough...but there are fewer moderate Arab states that many suspect, and the term is quickly becoming an oxymoron.

"...mayhem..."

How can anyone reasonable observant person describe the life and death conflict in Israel and Palestine as mayhem especially when innocent Israeli citizens have been subjected to the vicious attacks by Palestinian suicide murderers? How much can a nation take before it's only recourse is to fight back for it's own survival?

The writer of this article may think he is so smart that he can get into the mind of our President but I'm thinking he was lost on that journey well before putting his pen to paper.

So if I'm such a Jew-hater why am I not a charter member of the Israel First gang? You might want to think about that Maybe some of these goy Israel Firsters just hate Jews.

Okay, let me think about that for a moment. Those who support the Jews hate them, and those who don't support them really support them? So I must be a Jew-hater since I support them. Huh. And to think I never even knew!

"It must be nice to not have to think"

I am humbled to be in the presence of such an intellect. One who can see truths like you've unveiled for me here. Someday I want to be able to be a deep thinker like you. You're my hero.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.