A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Bush and Israel

Writing from a left-wing perspective, DovBear ridicules Jews who think President Bush is a great friend to Israel in posts here and here.

My political leanings on Israel are what I call pragmatic right-wing, which means ideological support for settlement, while taking into account international, demographic and security realities.

DovBear is absolutely right that right-wing Jews who continue to convince themselves that Bush is a great friend to their cause are deluded. I've been arguing this for years, to no avail.

One thing that has frustrated me in recent years have been The Jewish Press' editorials in support of Bush's stance toward Israel. Given the JP's far right-wing stance on Israel (my columns are very dovish by JP standards), it is incredible that a President who insists on a Palestinian state, an end to all settlement activity - even in Maaleh Adumim - and who continually calls for a "contiguous" (i.e. Jew free) Palestinian state is so lauded. Bush's bogus promise to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as his first act as President has apparently been forgiven and forgotten.

When Hillary Clinton called for a Palestinian state, she was blasted by the JP. When President Clinton proposed a deal in which Israel would be left with 4 percent of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem would be divided, he was strongly criticized. Do those on the right really think Bush has a different vision for a final status deal? If so, how can they explain his criticism of construction in Maaleh Adumim? Bush has actually been the first president to stop nearly all new construction in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The reality is that as a result of Clinton and now Bush, Israel's status with respect to the territory it captured in 1967 is weaker than ever, including in Jerusalem.

It may well be, of course, that overall Bush is better for Israel than Clinton was, or than Al Gore or John Kerry would have been. In fact, I think he probably is. But now that Ariel Sharon is often criticized by the right, is Bush so sacrosanct that his negative policies can't be attacked, or at least not be praised in such a foolish and ignorant knee-jerk manner?

Incidentally, one of the arguments against Bush by a commenter on DovBear's site is that many more Israelis have died during Bush's term than during Clinton's eight years. For that reason alone, the person argues, Bush and Sharon have been awful for Israel. That argument is too stupid to be worthy of a response. I suppose the person who posted that comment also thinks that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were the worst Presidents in American history given the death tolls during the Civil War and World War II.
posted on 4/12/2005