Posted on 12/27/2007 1:37:55 PM PST by SJackson
If George W. Bush were running for president today on his current Mideast policy, he probably would lose the votes of many who have praised him as Israel's best friend ever in the Oval Office.
In 2000, right-of-center pro-Israel voters were attracted by his vow to quickly move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and his determination not to following the footsteps of his father and Bill Clinton into the Mideast peace process swamp. They were delighted when he snubbed Yasser Arafat.
He's come a long way since then, and so have those admirers. The trouble is, they've gone in different directions.
Bush is making his first presidential trip to Israel in a few weeks to follow up on his efforts begun last month at Annapolis to revive peace negotiations intended to establish a Palestinian state before he leaves office in 13 months.
The Christian Zionists who are a significant part of his political base on the Christian right, on the other hand, are more determined than ever to block Palestinian statehood. Along with Orthodox Jewish groups, these evangelicals are better organized and more assertive than they were eight years ago, and even more vehemently opposed to the administration policies that led the recent edition of The Economist to profile Bush as "Mr. Palestine."
They counter Bush's cautious optimism about peace with hysterical warnings about the betrayal of Israel. They don't even trust the secular Palestinians who Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are calling sincere and willing peace partners.
So where can they turn? Not to the Democrats, who are trying to support Bush's new approach without talking about it very much. The Democrats worry that Annapolis was just another photo op; they want Bush to take the peace process seriously and give it the presidential attention it needs.
Democrats don't want to get too close to Bush any more than the Republican presidential hopefuls do lest his unpopularity and reputation for incompetence rub off on them.
Democrats are also fearful that if they start talking about peace, the hawks and hard-liners will begin smearing them as anti-Israel. The Republican Jewish Coalition has spent millions in recent years on its campaign to destroy the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus and turn Israel into a partisan wedge issue, tying all Democrats to Jimmy Carter and other critics of Israel.
And, of course, the Democrats will retaliate by trying to paint Republicans as a bunch of bigoted know-nothings, and tie them to Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and their ilk.
Among Republican presidential hopefuls, there is considerable disdain for the centerpiece of the Bush administration's Mideast policy -- the road map for peace. And that's understandable in light of their avid courtship of the party's powerful social and religious conservative bloc, as well as contributions from pro-Israel hard-liners.
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, writing in Foreign Affairs magazine, said that "too much emphasis has been placed" on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which would "assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism."
That's much the same charge that candidate Bush leveled against the Clinton administration eight years ago.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain and former Sen. Fred Thompson were all critical of Bush convening the Annapolis conference, suggesting that the Palestinians aren't ready for peace.
So all you're likely to hear about the Middle East -- unless something dramatic happens -- is a plethora of pap and pandering from both sides of the divide.
Candidates in both parties will talk about how much they love Israel, hate terrorists, despise Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and don't think much of Jimmy Carter. But don't expect much illumination about what these aspiring leaders of the free world would do about Middle East foreign policy.
The only exceptions come from opposite ends of the political spectrum: Republican Ron Paul on the right and Democrat Dennis Kucinich on the left, neither of whom would be counted among Israel's top 425 friends in the House of Representatives.
Republican candidates seem to be avoiding any embrace of Bush's Middle Eastern policies for fear of running afoul of their party's hard-liners. And for their part, Democrats aren't anxious to say much of anything nice right now about Bush and his administration.
But all should be praying he succeeds because, as the Economist profile said, "only by exercising uncharacteristically bold leadership can Bush fulfill his ambition of being the father of Palestinian statehood and set the two foes firmly on the road to peace."
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
In brief, Republican candidates won't support GWB because he's handled the issue like a Democrat, and understandably Democrats won't give him credit for handling it the way they would.
The Mr. Palestine thread.
You might be interested in the accolades and applause given Pres. Bush in this discussion.
It runs about an hour and 1/2, but it’s excellent and well worth the time.
American Foreign Policy in the Middle East - Dangerous Times in a Dangerous Neighborhood
Moderator: Michael Medved
Panelists: John Podhoretz, Dennis Prager and Mona Charen
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/83
Come on over here and explain why Ron Paul, who will allow Israel to fight for a free Israeli nation is a nutcase and Bush who wants a divided Israel/Palestinian state is your hero.
ping
All the people in the discussion you post are Bush sycophants and in the case of Israel v. Palestine, Bush is wrong.
Islamists shouldn't be expected to act like the (comparatively rational) Soviets.
How can Bush have such good foreign policy against the terrorists, yet switch to appeasement just for Palestine?
Most of the candidates are of the same old Arabist/western European guard, too. ...ethnicities and oil instead of right.
“his vow to quickly move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem”
Still waiting on his fulfilling that promise. It slip his mind when he was sending millions of taxpayer dollars to the Fatah nutjobs?
How about answering why Bush is still the hero when wants a divided Israel/Palestinian state and not a free Israeli nation.
I think what you are saying is, “Ron Paul is a nut for being completely unconcerned with nuclear proliferation in the Middle Eastern Islamic world, and for thinking that the Israeli’s should have to fight there own wars.”
Good point. At least the Soviets weren’t entirely alien, nor entirely insane.
To whom? Not to me. I disagree with his naive view that rewarding the "Palestinians" with a state in Israel's backyard despite the former's unwillingness to abide by even the most elementary conditions of his so-called "roadmap to peace" will yield peace in the region.
But as I mentioned in the above post I heartily disagree with Ron Paul's prescription for the region as well. Allowing nuke proliferation in the Islamic world isn't just a concern to Israel, it's a huge national security concern for us as well. RP's "hands off" approach to those maniacs would spell big trouble. ...and even surpasses Bush in the naive dept.
Stopping Iran from getting nukes isn't "fighting Israel's war," it's fighting our own war.
I don’t quite know what to make of the last sentence in the posted article re “... all should be praying [Bush] succeeds.” That’s because a Pali state and Israeli-Palestinian “peace” are incompatible with each other, barring the appearance of a Ghandi-type Palestinian leader, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. Anyone representing Fatah or Hamas is certainly not a reasonable nor reliable “peace partner.”
Do you really think Iran is going to attack the US? That would be instant suicide and they know it. They aren’t equipped like Russia or China, you know.
Anyone thinking there will be a Israeli-Palestinian “peace” as long as there is an Israel is a total nutjob.
What's with this gratuitous slap at Ann Coulter by lumping her with Pat Buchanan?
I think it's fair to say that Coulter is a Christian Zionist and Buchanan most definitely is not.
But do I think Iran is likely to attack us directly? Probably not. However, you're neglecting to consider another possibility -- Iran using the various terrorist orgs it sponsors to do its dirty work. They could smuggle a nuke into one of our harbors. ...or across out porous borders (no thanks to Bush).
Nukes floating around the Islamic world is a completely unacceptable state of affairs to all rational people. It's dangerous enough that Pakistan has a nuke arsenal. ...and that alone could come back to haunt us. Toss Iran and the rest of the big Islamic players in to the nuclear mix and the situation becomes exponentially more hairy.
Yep, I caught that too. Then again liberals (like Bloomfield) lumping all variety of conservatives together is nothing new. The author probably agrees with Buchanan (regarding Israel) a lot more than he’d be comfortable with.
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.