January 11, 2005
The Bush Difference
In "Who wants a re-voted?" Dov Bear claims that there's loads of evidence that right wingers, like myself, are wrong and that Bush is bad for Israel (or presumably at least worse than any Democrat.) Yes I know that President Bush favors a Palestinian state. I am against that. But is there any Democrat who opposes such a state? It was Clinton who saw to it that a Palestinian state would be inevitable. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton would attach no responsibilities to said state. Bush does.
Clinton hosted Arafat at the White House more than any other world leader despite Arafat's constant violations of the Oslo Accords. That legitimized the illegitimate. Bush undid that by making Arafat a pariah despite the world opinion that felt otherwise.
If someone would ask me to describe the two Presidential actions of the past 15 years that were most inimical to Israel it would be.
(1) George H. W. Bush's invitation to King Hussein to the White House after the Gulf War. The Jordanian King had supported Saddam in Gulf War I and Yitzchak Shamir had sacrificed Israel's sovereignty to aid American war aims. But the King got the royal invite and Shamir got the back of the President's hand.
(2) President Clinton's betrayal of Israel following the Hebron Accords. In order to get the cabinet to vote for the Hebron Accord, the Clinton administration assured the cabinet explicitly that any Israel would be able to determine the size of further withdrawals. The next month when Netanyahu announced the size of his planned withdrawal, Arafat said it wasn't enough and Clinton/Albright spent the next year and a half until Wye browbeating Netanyahu to make the redeployment larger.
I would argue that 2 is worse than 1 because it subverted Israeli democracy.
But arguing how bad Clinton is not an argument for how good Bush is.
1) Would the Clinton administration have walked out of the Durban conference on principle? Colin Powell did. I doubt that Albright or Christopher would have.
2) Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who would have said what Bush's Ambassador to the UN, John Danforth said when vetoing another anti Israel resolution?
Now consider what this resolution does not say. It does not mention even one of the 450 Qassam rocket attacks launched against Israel over the past two years. It does not mention two hundred rockets launched this year alone. It does not mention the two Israeli children who were outside playing last week when a rocket suddenly crashed into their young bodies. It does not mention the undisputed fact that Qassam rockets have no military purpose-that they are crude, imprecise devices of terror designed to kill civilians. It does not mention that Hamas took “credit” for killing these Israeli children and maiming many other Israeli civilians-calling these deaths and woundings a “victory.” It does not mention that the terrorists hide among Palestinian civilians, provoking their deaths, and then use those deaths as fodder for their hatred, lawlessness, and efforts to derail the peace process. It does not mention the complete failure of the Palestinian authority to meet its commitments to establish security among its people. It does not mention any of these facts, nor does it acknowledge the legitimate need for Israel to defend itself. The resolution is totally lacking in balance.The statement isn't perfect but it is one of the most supportive of Israel from a public servant I've seen. (I compared the Bush administration with the Clinton administration here.)
3) How would the Clinton administration have reacted to "Operation Defensive Shield?" It's true that President Bush made some unfortunate comments in April 2002 and in one case the administration didn't veto a UN condemnation of Israel. But Bush didn't do any more than that. The Clinton administration's reaction to the opening of the tunnel on the Temple Mount in September 1996 was more vehement.
4) Is there any Democrat likely to serve in government who publicly thanked Israel for bombing the Iraqi reactor or calling the disputed territories the "so-called occupied territories? Well Donald Rumsfeld said both. I imagine that most Presidents would have publicly contradicted an underling who said that. (Bush pere wouldn't let Jack Kemp meet with Ariel Sharon in his Cabinet office.)
5) I laid out the case for Bush against Kerry over here. There were quite a few positive reasons to support Bush and worry about a Kerry presidency. The fact that some of those were expressed by Martin Peretz, an unabashed liberal whose magazine endorsed Kerry, was particularly surprising.
President Clinton's approach to the Middle East can be summed up by his response to Yasser Arafat. Clinton blamed Arafat for making him a failure. Clinton was simply interested in pieces of paper and photo ops and never demanded compliance from the PA. He gave Arafat a legitimacy that he didn't earn and undermined Israel's democratically elected government.
I have many disagreements with Bush but he's been the most pro-Israel president since Reagan. So no, Dov Bear, I don't want a re-vote.
(PS Why is Bush's support for a Palestinian state is disqualifying - faulty as it is? He can't be more Catholic than the pope. Doesn't Israel's current Prime Minister consider a Palestinian state inevitable?)
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad. Posted by SoccerDad at January 11, 2005 05:41 AM | TrackBack