On the Other Hand, Who Was Any Better?

Submitted by Sheldon Dan (United States), Jan 14, 2008 at 18:00

It was my opinion that Bush indeed was one of the best friends the Jewish state has had in the White House. I based that opinion on the fact that he was pursuing a policy that seemed to recognize the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. I was encouraged by the declaration that seemed to state that a final settlement would not be made with terrorist groups, that Israel would not be forced to the pre-1967 borders, and the settlement blocs would have to be part of the final settlement.

In this, Bush was "walking the walk" on a true peace, unlike other presidents, especially Clinton. All of us wanted to believe that Arafat could deliver on peace, but the Camp David meeting of 2000 destroyed the myth of the one-time terrorist being peacemaker.

Having believed that a new direction was being tried, I am now skeptical of these developments. Maybe you are right that the talk about "Palestine" was a bad sign, although I think Clinton had this in mind too. Maybe Rice and the State Department are at odds with their boss. However, it does seem like a reversal to me, and this talk about the "right of return" seems to be backtracking that is precisely the wrong step to take.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".