Send Bush
Writing in Newsweek, Gregory Levey argues that President Obama should tap President George W. Bush to be his Middle East envoy:
Indulge me for a moment. Obama has ruffled feathers in Israel by calling for a halt to settlement growth and talking openly about an equitable fate for East Jerusalem, which both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital. He has elicited deeply felt unease about how much the American president can be trusted to safeguard Israel's basic security.
Obama claims that the peace process is an essential plank of his program for the region, but it will be impossible to make progress if he can't convince Israel to defer to American leadership. In the history of U.S.-Israel relations, probably no president has earned adoration and unequivocal trust from Israel like Bush. (An Israeli diplomat once told me that the former president gave a speech at the U.N. during his second term that attracted so many adoring Israeli diplomats that even the deputy U.N. ambassador couldn't score a seat.)
During the Bush years, Israelis were consistently among the few foreign populations that gave the American president high approval marks -- often in far greater proportion than Americans themselves. Senior officials in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, where I worked, spoke on their cell phones daily with their White House counterparts -- circumventing the State Department and the Israeli Foreign Ministry entirely.
That closeness paid off. It's no coincidence that, during the Bush years, Ariel Sharon had political cover to suggest "painful concessions" for peace -- a euphemism for withdrawal from territory. The unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip -- followed by preparations to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank that were interrupted only by the Hizbullah war of 2006 -- almost certainly would not have happened with anyone else in the White House less trusted to ensure Israel's safety.
Neither Obama nor his proxies enjoy anywhere near the same level of faith. ...
Read the full article.
Share
Facebook
9 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Obama would never do that because it would be hard to convince anyone in the region he was serious about peace if he did. It is interesting this would be suggested based on the record Bush complied while in office. Bush made his first trip to Israel in January 2008 (his last year in office.) The Israeli death toll during his 8 years in office was 1,210. The Israeli death toll over those 8 years was larger than any Israeli death toll over any prior 8 year period since Israel was established.
While I know many Israeli’s hate Jimmy Carter, the 8 years following his Camp David Peace accords and Peace treaty between Egypt and Israel were actually years with some of the lowest numbers of Israeli deaths. It just shows you that when you do nothing about the conflict, the conflict grows and more people die. When you work toward peace, you reduce tensions and reduce the deaths the result.
Bush’s primary peace efforts were his early Roadmap for Peace (which he did little to foster) and his Annapolis Conference in 2007. We all remember that Conference because he invited Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Annapolis, welcomed them and left about 2 hrs later to go back to Washington DC. Yeah, this is one engaged guy isn’t he?
I’m glad GW Bush has some friends in the world. However his record speaks for itself. He did little to advance peace and much to destroy it. He naively assumed “good” and “bad” were fixed states instead of states associated with our actions and behaviors. This led him to believe everything he did for the US was “good” and those nations he disliked were automatically “bad”. A person without a proper sense of “right” and “wrong” is incapable of making sound judgments. Who would really want that kind of individual in charge of anything? Obama once said he would welcome advice from GHW Bush, but not his son GW Bush. I think that pretty much closes the case on this silly idea.
This is a bad idea, of course. I don’t know why you are even suggesting this. Obama said what needed to be said a long time ago but I hope he does a lot more than what Bush did. Or say, does a lot less harm than Bush. The only place Bush is likely to be sent to is jail, if justice is served. If Bush is sent to ME to do something there’d be uproar for sure and tensions would rise dramatically. Let’s get rid of him for good, please!.
What a ridiculous idea! After succeeding in destabilizing the balance of power in the Middle East by toppling Hussein, extending Iran’s influence throughout the region, bungling the war in Afghanistan, and allowing Hamas and Hezbollah to increase their influence within Lebanon and Palestine so that negotiating a meaningful peace now is almost impossible due to the instability of governments within Palestine and Lebanon, to send Bush anywhere would be viewed as both dangerous and insulting.
Peter Wedlund:
By the standards of Barak Hussein Obama, George W. Bush is beginning to look better and better. While American Jews , in their superior “wisdom,” rejected the “stupid” Bush in great majorities and embraced “smart” Obama, Israelis knew both from their experience and in their kishkes who is “good for the Jews.” 78% of American Jewish voters turned to Obama, while Israeli Jews in similar numbers in polls rejected the “hope and change” candidate. With Obama at the tiller, it is already becoming clear where America and Israel stand. Are we better or worse off since the new administration with its respect for “suffering Palestinians” and “disrespected Muslims” has taken over?
I vote for worse.
Of course, there will be many who will try to justify their election choice by denegrating further the object of their scorn. As usual, not that difficult to predict, we will find that the new wizard is but a flim-flam artist with a nasty streak.
Oh, yes, I forgot. Peace in the area will not be found by stomping on Israel , forcing it to continue withdrawing to accommodate Islamofascist dreams of a Juden-rein “Palestine.” Peace will come when the Arabs and Muslims everywhere accept the idea of a Jewish state (not the lip service acceptance). Then, there’ll be lots of land for all to settle down and live their lives. There’s plenty of desert to go around.
Until then, Israel should circle the wagons, prepare to defend itself and get on with your business
If Bush goes Israelis just need to publicly display a maginified copy of the letter Pres Bush gave Sharon that some settlements will REMAIN ALWAYS in Israeli hands.
If Bush is sent anywhere, it should be to The Hague for trial as a war criminal.
Israel’s romance with GWB is a study in self-delusion. Bush was an enabler of some of Israel’s worst tendencies. There was no progress toward peace during his administration, and traditional American public support for Israel (apart from Christian evangelicals) took a huge hit. Take a look at attitudes toward Israel on American campuses, not to speak of developments throughout Europe and elsewhere. Generational change does not bode well for Israel’s future. Nor does avoidance of the necessity of a two state solution before it is too late.
The vast majority of American Jews do not support continued expansion of Israeli settlements and outposts (illegal even under Israeli law) that are recognized by virtually all as obstacles to peace--and often intended by settlers and their political enablers as precisely that. While settlements are certainly not the be all and end all for successful peace negotiations, and Palestinians (and their divided leadership) bear considerable responsibility for the failure to move effectively toward a two state resolution, I think Obama is right to draw some very public lines to establish that things have changed, and that there is now a real commitment by the White House to move both sides toward the compromises that will be necessary for any prospect for peace. Given recent history, it is understandable that public demands are addressed first toward Israel. Time will tell whether parallel demands are made--as they must be-- toward the Arab world. Only in this context can we learn whether the Saudi/Arab peace initiative provides a sound basis for constructive negotiations toward comprehensive changes in the Middle East, or is mere blowing smoke. Let’s see where the Obama team takes this before drawing premature conclusions and making racist characterizations of a man of immense talent who has always had friendly ties with the American Jewish community, and shown commitment to a peaceful resolution conducive to Israel’s long-term security and flourishing.
--The Wise Bard
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Carl Maltzman
07/29/09 03:45 PM
Bush? The President who said “the world needs a palestinian state”? Who said his proposed state must be “contiguous” and thus cut Israel in half? Who said that his “heart weeps for the suffering of the palestinian people”? Who said in front of the world that “Israel must stop the daily humiliations of the palestinian people”? We need this idiot in the Middle East? NO THANKS!