Pres Bush was best friend Israel ever had in Whitehouse
On Monday night, my wife and I attended President George W. Bush’s annual Chanukah party at the White House. Although other Presidents have held menorah lighting ceremonies, President Bush and his wife were the first to hold a party to celebrate the occasion. And it was quite a party-600 people replete with traditional Chanukah fare including potato latkes and jelly donuts and music to fit the occasion. The President said in the statement he released, “This year, as Jewish families light the menorah, the flame reminds us that light triumphs over darkness, faith conquers despair, and the desire for freedom burns inside every man, woman and child.” The President ended his statement by saying that “the forces of intolerance may seek to suppress the menorah, but they can never extinguish its light.”
When President Bush spoke before Israel’s Knesset on May 15, 2008- the day of the 60th Anniversary of Israel’s creation as a Jewish State-he gave an inspirational speech reflecting on what Israel meant to him, and what its existence means to the United States as a nation. One can say that it was certainly the most pro-Israel speech ever given by an American President.
Bush noted that the fight against terror and extremism was not just a clash of arms, but “a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle.” And he explained how Israel was a necessary ally in that fight, and why the United States could not capitulate to the demands of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. And, perhaps most important of all, he told the Israelis: “America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.” Israel, he assured them, “can always count on the United States of America to be at your side.”
George W. Bush’s commitment to Israel and his solidarity with the world’s Jews led me to reflect on a great irony. Within the United States, a high percentage of Jews, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, have been opposed to the policies of the Bush administration and bear an animus to Bush personally.
When I returned home from the party, a friend had e-mailed me two statements that address this issue. The first came from the head of America’s Reform Jewish congregations, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffe, who delivered his remarks as a sermon at the Union Board Services in Tampa, Florida on December 12th. Reform Jews are as a whole the most liberal politically of all Jewish religious bodies in our country. On various issues, especially social ones, they stand firmly opposed to the Republican Party political agenda. Whether it is gay rights, stem cell research, the fight of a woman to have an abortion if they choose, and questions pertaining to civil liberties in the fight against terrorism, they stand on the liberal side.
Rabbi Yoffe’s remarks were largely a meditation on our current crisis, and the hopes that American Jews shared for the success of the coming Obama Presidency, and their desire for the new President’s success in his endeavors to serve our country. He was particularly concerned for the creation of universal health care, and he urged President-elect Obama not to put its attainment off because of the serious economic issues confronting us.
It was a surprise, therefore, to read these words of Rabbi Yoffe:
-
“And what of the State of Israel? When we look at Israel today, we see a strong state with a reasonably healthy economy. Much of the credit should go to President George W. Bush. He supported Israel’s security needs, provided much-needed military aid, and accepted no excuses for Palestinian terror. The President is under siege right now, but we in the Jewish community must not forget that he has been a good friend to the Jewish State and the Jewish people.”(my emphasis.)
Reform Jews who often participated in the veritable orgy of Bush hatred must have blanched as they heard these words, but it would not have come as a surprise to those Jews who knew the President.
An op-ed by Noam Neusner, a Jewish liaison for President Bush from 2002 to 2005, explained to his readers how seriously George W. Bush was in his commitment. The Jews, Neusner writes, “really do matter to him.” It is not simply a case of pandering to a constituency, one he well knows does not support him politically. “I saw his eyes well up,” Neusner writes, “while watching the Holocaust-themed movie “Paper Clips”…I know how moved he was by meeting with Soviet Jewish refuseniks, Holocaust survivors and the parents of slain journalist Daniel Pearl.” Neusner attended one meeting the President had with Jews from around the world, who now lived in America after years of torment in countries like Cuba, Uganda, Zimbabwe and other bastions of anti-Semitism. As they told him how only in this nation did they find the right to live as Jews, Bush “walked out of the meeting shaking his head, appalled by the special hatred tyrants have reserved for the Jews.”
Neusner understands well that since Bush is a Southern evangelical Republican, it is virtually impossible for him to win over the Jews, and that criticism of him for favoring policies most Jews disagree with is “fair enough.” On foreign policy, some conservative Jews feel he did not do enough to confront Iran- he should have taken military action to stop them move to obtaining nuclear weapons- while others feel he was too bellicose.
But on Israel, Neusner cannot countenance that they see “his leadership on Israel and antisemitism” as both “quaint and one-dimensional.” Some take it for granted. “But they should not,” he warns, “be so casual with a friend.” In fact, Neusner argues that Bush was “more Zionist than many Israelis, more mindful of Jewish history than many Jews…and we American Jews can be thankful at least for that.”
A few years ago, I heard former Mayor Ed Koch of New York accept an award at a dinner honoring Jewish leaders in Washington, DC. President Bush was present, and Koch saluted him, telling his largely liberal audience that in his eyes- and Ed Koch is anything but a conservative- that George W. Bush was as a President the best friend that Israel ever had and the President most sympathetic to Jewish concerns.
Perhaps, like Rabbi Yoffe, more Jews in America will come to understand that.
Right, best friend? With friends like that…..?
See my postings on another thread, they are relevant.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=6538#comment-33302
Comment by yamit82 — December 19, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
How easily some people are conned. Bush was an archenemy of Israel whose speech was incredibly antiIsrael to the hilt, if only Jews would learn replacement theology code.
Comment by soren — December 19, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Ted posts these absurd missives from time to time to get a rise out of the gallery here.
And increase traffic.
Comment by Charles Martel — December 19, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
.
Yea, but when they work its fun!
Comment by yamit82 — December 19, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
I have a different definition of “friend”. I don’t expect a friend to side with Israel and work for her to keep the territories. It would be nice, but.
So my expectations are not that high.
Comment by Ted Belman — December 19, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
I’ve always thought of Bush as an affable dufus. In a way, I believe he delivered more than a dufus like himself could be expected to (especially when you consider the automatic opposition he tended to have). I understand that people will be disappointed or bitter because, if he is such a friend of the Jews, why did he not do some very fine thing for Israel? I believe the problem starts in Israel. There we have the Olmert/Livni led grotesque and corrupt leadership whose actions are more the actions of ruthless antisemites than advocates of the Jewish people. And the people of Israel actually vote them into office. And share with the government the belief that Abbas is “a partner for peace”. (And I could go on and on in this vein).
Now if Bush believes that Olmert is actually a good guy and takes advice from him (and I think Bush is enough of a dufus for this to be true), then its not surprising that Bush has made the choices that he has made regarding Israel, since they seem like the choices Olmert would really prefer. If Israel had had a leader of substance, of wisdom and great personal character, this might all have been very different.
Comment by Northerner — December 19, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Ted posted it because it was a good article and he shares the view and so do I, that Bush has been a great friend to the Jews. You people are expecting the president to be more Zionist than the Israeli government.
Exactly.
Comment by Laura — December 19, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Are you f’in kidding me?! Under his reign we lost Gush Katif! Condi Rice in all her ridiculousness pushed forward,”the piece process!” His grandaddy sold zyclonb to Germany! He is a TOTal inept spoiled un-articulate brat! Who commented and stayed at an elementary school while America burned! Then him and his admin tried desperately to cover their asses! He cost over another 4000 lives for the ridiculous war in Iraq which served to destablize the insane balance between Iraq and Iran, and stole civil liberties! He is by far the worst president, and he has great company!
Comment by tov — December 19, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Northerner: Not Eisenhower, Nixon,CARTER or Clinton openly proclaimed as policy the establishment of an Arab State in Y @ S. Nor did they shove down our throats a ROADMAP, partnering with 3 anti Israel entities, EU UN and Russia. Yes we have ourselves to blame for much but not the Policy and the built in negatives that have placed the Jewish state and the Jewish people in potentially mortal jeopardy. Dufus Shmufus, I could care less about Bush but what he has done against us is worse than all previous presidents combined.
By allowing Iran to go Nuclear will force Israel to prevent Iran and that means Nuking Iran, as we unlike America we do not have the conventional capability to ensure the destruction of all of Iran’s facilities. To protect Bushes failed policy in Iraq he has made Israel expendable.
Now both You and Ted tell me what actions and attributes you can attach to Bush to warrant calling him friend?
Comment by yamit82 — December 19, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Laura, I like you and have a lot of respect for your love of Israel. But in the case of Bush, you have a blind spot the size of the Grand Canyon. In addition to what yamit notes above, this president:
personally signed off on the Road Map (absent Israel’s 14 objections) and submitted it to the UNSC;
insisted on free elections in the territories virtually ensuring a Hamas victory;
nearly gave away our ports to the UAE (the Arabs will end up owning most of America anyway but Bush fought to put the ports in the hands of the Arabs);
gave Rice carte blanch to bully Israel into taking down checkpoints, opening the Rafah crossing, and using the service entrance at Annapolis;
sold the most sophisticated weapon systems to the Saudis and offered them nuclear technology;
recently gave tanks and other weapons to Lebanon which will almost certainly be used against Israel;
has reportedly red-lighted an attack by Israel on Iran;
refused to permit Israel to man missile-detection systems provided by the US (ask yourself why).
Shall I go on?
Comment by Charles Martel — December 19, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
I’m with Laura.
The Iraq War was supposed to be good for Israel. All neocons wanted it.
The Roadmap provided a lot of protection for Israel with its stages. Kadima was in favour of Annapolis and even supported the recent UNSC resolution. The problem is with Israel’s leaders, not with Bush.
Its true that Rice pushed insanely on the Rafah crossing agreement which turned out to be a disaster for Israel and Bush didn’t weigh in on Israel’s side.
But Bush has to straddle the line between Israel and all its opponents who are allies of the US. All in all He was our friend.
Comment by Ted Belman — December 19, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Was Bush a friend of Israel?
Yes.
The problem is that he tried to be the friend of everyone else too: Putin, the Saudis, the Palestinians, the Europeans, etc. etc.
That doesn’t work when have ideologies that are diametrically opposed to each other.
On the other hand, he had some bright moments, but then again, he wiped a lot of them out by other choices.
He could have been great, instead the bag is mixed; we are in a worse position today than when he was elected.
On the other hand, Gore would have been far worse IMHO.
Comment by RandyTexas — December 19, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Perhaps the “neocons” wanted it but Israel advised Bush against it. The GOI always knew that Iran posed a more serious threat. It’s a vile canard pushed by Walt & Mearsheimer and other Jew-hating conspiracy freaks that the US went to war in Iraq on behalf of Israel.
As noted above, Bush handed the plan to the UNSC for ratification while ignoring Israel’s 14 essential concerns. If you think the Road Map protected Israel, you should go back and review those 14 concerns. And the requirement that the Palestinians end all terrorism and incitement in Phase I was jettisoned before the ink was dry.
You have no idea what pressure was brought to bear by Bush and his Rottweiler Rice.
Bush was, is, and always will be a Saudi stooge. His library contributions from Riyadh will make those of Clinton look like pocket change.
Comment by Charles Martel — December 20, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Yamit, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you hate my current President. Since you voted for Barak Obama, this is not surprizing. Time will tell, whether you find Utopia with your new “messiah”.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — December 20, 2008 @ 1:05 am
Bush’s December Surprise
Michael Freund - Dec 18, 2008
Jerusalem Post
With just a month left to go before he leaves office, George W. Bush has decided to pull the trigger and drop a bomb on the Middle East. Only instead of targeting Iran’s illicit nuclear program, or Syria’s nefarious regime, the outgoing US president has inexplicably chosen to detonate a diplomatic device over the heads of all Israelis.
In a move that was said to have been “personally led” by Bush, diplomats from the 15 member nations of the UN Security Council convened for an emergency session on Saturday to discuss the text of a proposed resolution aimed at tying the hands of Israel’s next government.
The draft resolution, which was slated to be passed Tuesday, calls on Israel and the Palestinians to continue to negotiate “core issues” such as dividing Jerusalem, even after the present Israeli and Palestinian governments leave office in 2009.
“The initiative,” as Haaretz reported on Sunday, “is seen as a bid to cement the Annapolis process with the approval of the highest authority,” with Bush hoping that Security Council backing will make it “irreversible.” This, he believes, will result in “shielding it from the administration changes in both Israel and the US.”
Knowing full well that a new Israeli government, most likely headed by Binyamin Netanyahu, will take power in February, Bush prefers not to let the people of Israel decide their own fate. Instead, he is attempting to impose a diplomatic straitjacket on Israel’s democracy by trying to compel the next government to continue with the largely futile process of negotiating with the Palestinian leadership.
This is Bush’s December surprise, a last ditch and pitifully transparent effort on the president’s part to salvage what little remains of his once grandiose plans to establish a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians, of course, eventually did get a new leader in the form of Mahmoud Abbas, but they have still proven both unwilling and incapable of reaching a deal with Israel. If anything, with Hamas now in power in Gaza, and Abbas’ authority barely extending to his own secretarial staff, Bush’s much-ballyhooed vision for Middle East peace, in which he invested so much time and energy over the years, clearly lies in tatters.
It is therefore all the more appalling that in trying to establish a legacy, Bush has chosen to expend some of his last remaining political and diplomatic capital in order to generate future pressure on Israel. Just think what he could still accomplish on issues of major foreign policy significance if he put his mind to it. He could be turning up the heat on Iran to forestall its nuclear progress, or taking concrete steps to block the flow of foreign jihadists from Syria into Iraq.
Bush could take action to hit the terrorist lairs in northwestern Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are believed to be based, or he could lead an international effort to oust Zimbabwe’s disastrous dictator Robert Mugabe. Instead, he has chosen the easy way out, grasping at the far simpler straw of trying to lock Israel in place in a process almost certain to fail.
How sad and how pitiful that the man once considered Israel’s best friend in the White House has chosen to send the Jewish state to the doghouse, all in the vain hope that future historians might view him in a more positive light.
Bush’s desperation brings to mind another lame-duck US president who, more than 30 years ago, tried to leave his own mark on history before heading out the door, only to see it rebound against him.
IN THE waning days of his brief term of office, Gerald Ford put forward a last-minute proposal to grant full statehood to Puerto Rico, which has been a US commonwealth since 1952. The haste and timing of the move, which ultimately went nowhere, evoked a great deal of scorn and even ridicule, for it was patently clear to all concerned that it was little more than an outgoing president’s feeble effort to insist that he still mattered.
Commenting on Ford’s proposal, Time magazine declared in its January 17, 1977 issue that it “surely reflected the familiar predicament of a lame-duck chief executive whose desire to deepen his mark in history is matched only by his loss of real power.” Three decades may have passed, and the personalities and issues involved may have changed - but that sentiment remains as accurate now as it was back then.
Comment by yamit82 — December 20, 2008 @ 4:15 am
The Question should be what payoff Bush will receive from the Saudis, Gulf States etc. for his loyalty and help to their causes? Library contributions could be only small change. Sharon early on Understood the Americans, when he warned them that we would not be another Czechoslovakia. He quickly backed off from that position probably mostly out of fear for his own personal ass as Israeli wolves with American help were sizing him up for stripped prison uniforms. BB will not be different, They have a thick file on him just waiting to be opened and applied if he doe not toe the line accordingly.
Agreed, that was our choices then but in the end we will never know for sure. What we do know is how bad and dangerous Bush has been for us and the final results are not yet in and tallied. The final verdict could be even worse than what we see now.
Remember Ted the Buck stops at Bush. Rice at least theoretically carried out Bushes policies. He is responsible for the good and the bad and I see no good. Israel warned Bush against occupation and attempts at nation building and we were always dubious about democratization of the Arab world. Iran should have been the main target. I see here more of a Saudi influence than any strategic logic in occupying Iraq, while ignoring and allowing Iran to nuclear weaponize. This is all Bush and his responsibility. Even the military aid to Israel was conditioned to extensive arms sales and giveaways to all of Israels immediate and potential enemies. Better to give us nothing if it means not selling and giving three times more to our enemies. Israel was used as the proverbial fig leaf to cover sales of advanced weapons and systems to Israels enemies.
Finally Oatmeal:
I don’t hate politicians, its a waste of energy and emotion. Bush would be a pleasant companion as a drinking buddy but he has been in my opinion the worst president for Israel at least since Carter and maybe even surpassing that other piece of shit.
I voted for Obama because I figured for the Jews a win win situation. If Obama as expected is bad for the Jews and Israel then it might be the needed catalyst to force needed changes and reforms that without such external influence would never occur, It will I hope put our destiny in our own hands and not dependent on others who at best are apathetic and at worst would sacrifice us for a few pieces of silver. If I am wrong and Obama is good for the Jews and Israel than I / we have lost nothing therefore a win, win situation. Our over dependence on America has weakened Israel in so many ways that on balance I argue we are worse off and not better off. If Obama can help to or cause a CHANGE in this respect ultimately, I believe we will be a much stronger and secure Nation. I do not believe in historical determinism. I believe we can change the end results or at least influence them.
Utopia is Platonic and not a Jewish concept nor is it in our reality akin to Thomas More’s fictional concepts or the enlightenments: Voltaire’s philosophical Candide. The Jewish reality is in the Beginning G-d created…!
Comment by yamit82 — December 20, 2008 @ 5:06 am
In spite of all the criticism hurled against Pres. Bush here and in past comments on this blog, many of which I have joined in, I still maintain that President Bush has been a good friend to Israel.
Those in this discussion thread and past discussion threads who trot out their litany of complaints against Pres. Bush to justify their view that Pres. Bush has been Israel’s enemy and not her friend, continue to guage Pres. Bush’s words and deeds against a definition and understanding of the word friend that we have been familiar with since childhood.
The concept of friend on an interpersonal level is that friends are those who truly love one another and will stand with each other through thick and thin, come what may.
The concept of friend on the geopolitical stage is not quite the same concept as the concept of interpersonal friendships.
On the world stage, friendships between states or perhaps equally characterized by the phrase, alliances between states ared formed, based on any number of factors including a shared religious and cultural historical heritage, shared ways of thinking and perceptions of self and the world, shared values and aspirations, some sense of a friendship as we have known since childhood and perhaps above all, perceptions of self interest and mutual self interest. Once must also throw in the idea of a nation’s leaders sense of duty and obligation to do what is best for the nation they lead in terms of alliances or friendships formed.
I have always measured Pres. Bush’s words and deeds in the context of a geopolitical definition and understanding of the concept of friendship. In spite of being frustrated, if not angry with many of Pres. Bush’s policies and words vis a vis Israel as are expressed by some in this discussion thread, I still am of the view that Pres. Bush has been a good friend of Israel’s and may very well be the best friend Israel has had compared to past Presidents and other world leaders.
In expressing my frustration and condemnation of a number of Pres. Bush’s policies that directly or indirectly negatively impacted Israel, I was really saying I wanted Pres. Bush to be an even better friend of Israel then he has been.
Comment by Bill Narvey — December 20, 2008 @ 8:18 am
That “litany of complaints” are called facts and evidence. Funny how lawyers choose to ignore the very thing they are trained to pursue when it doesn’t conform to their preconceived, unsupported, and demonstrably false view of the world.
Notice that in comments from all the Bush acolytes above, there is not a single fact — not a shred of evidence — offered in support of their contention that Bush was in any way, shape or form, good for Israel.
We are reminded however, that he was an “affable dufus”, that he “had to straddle the line between Israel and all its opponents”, and that “Gore would have been far worse”.
Oh, and of course, that he was the best friend Israel ever had in the Whitehouse.
Comment by Charles Martel — December 20, 2008 @ 9:02 am
Charles, cheap shots reflect poorly on you, especially since you are such a good writer and have demonstrated your great insight.
Come on now!
You knew very well that my expression “litany of complaints” referenced the very same evidence and facts you speak of here and which I have many times, shared your concerns over.
OK, I get it. You do not think Pres. Bush has been a friend of Israel at all by any definition.
Just out of interest, what is your definition of friend when it comes to guaging whether any world leader and nation, past and present is a friend of Israel’s and do you think any such world leader and nation makes the grade of friend of Israel by your definition?
Comment by Bill Narvey — December 20, 2008 @ 9:36 am
It’s fascinating that in Googling for “Bush friend Israel”, while a few articles and commentaries appear which ostensibly take the same view as that of our esteemed webhost, all of them are conspicuously devoid of any real substance to support their contention.
There appears to be a contagious pathogen associated with Bush Derangement Syndrome which acts by paralyzing the central nervous system with particular effect on the reasoning centers in the brain. Otherwise healthy and well-functioning people suddenly find themselves utterly incapable of explaining why they hold the positions they do. I understand that the disease is transmitted within the population at an especially high rate when dealing with an affable doofus.
Lyndon Johnson
Comment by Charles Martel — December 20, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Agreed with the exception of not honoring Americas commitment to keep the Staits of Tiran open, which became a casus belli for the 6 day war, that in hindsight was the best thing that happened to Israel and the Jews since Matza Balls and bagels and locks. Yea I would go with Johnson and Nixon a close second.
Comment by yamit82 — December 20, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Narvey, you still evade an ans. to why you believe Bush was good for Israel, in any context of your choosing.
Comment by yamit82 — December 20, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Yamit and Charles, since you asked, why do I believe Pres. Bush is a good friend of Israel, I took a moment to reflect on it.
I am not sure why I believe that. I certainly can list off a number of specific concerns I, along with you and others have raised with his policies and positions.
Is it possible that I have convinced myself without a shred of proof? That is not like me.
I will have to think on that a bit more.
Comment by Bill Narvey — December 20, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Yamit, Charles, Narvey: You are childishly simplistic when you refer to a “friend” as it might apply to international relations. We are not in the realm of teen age dating or companionship. When two nations have coinciding interests they might cooperate in varying areas.Example, in the cold war period Israel and the west were on the same side of the fence, and therefore America backed Israel wholeheartedly, well almost 100per cent. America still required allies in the Arab world and so there was always a line beyond America would not cross in their support.
The cold war is now over, and the interests of both parties are no longer fully convergent. Intelligent observers realize that and the new Israeli leadership will understand fully that the U.S. can support Israel only to the point that it is not breaching any of its own interests.
When Eisenhower ordered Israel, Britain and France to desist during the Suez campaign it was not antisemitism that drove this decision, rather the question of how this war would effect the stability in the region. Eisenhower was concerned about the economic, political effects on the western alliance if the war would continue. Such a decision did not render Eisenhower any less a friend of Israel than any other President.
America will always a friend of America first and other relations would be judged in the light of how it furthers the U. S. position in the world.
Comment by h peskin — December 20, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
While I don’t think Bush is a friend of Israel, I do believe he used to have a friendler attitude toward us in his 1st term. Overall I believe Israeli leaders gave him plenty of excuses not to have to be our friend.
Comment by Shy Guy — December 20, 2008 @ 4:04 pm