Bush is neither fighting a war against global terror nor is he a friend to Israel
Reader comment on item: Capturing Osama

Submitted by Dafna Yee (United States), Mar 20, 2004 at 13:22

I have read your articles for a long time and have been impressed with their content and your attention to accuracy. So, I was surprised, considering Bush's record of actual support to the Arab countries, to see you put in an obvious plug for reelecting Bush in your letter about Bin Laden.

Have you forgotten the fact that Bush was the first US president to openly support the creation of a "Palestinian State" on Israeli land (and has used the phrase "occupied territories" exclusively whenever he refers to that land)? Or his personal pressure to release Arab terrorists already in Israeli prisons as a "goodwill gesture" while doing nothing to effect Jonathan Pollard's release? What about his hypocritical demands for Israelis to show "restraint" and adopt "negotiation" rather than military force to deal with "Palestinian" terrorists, all the while stating that he declared an all-out war against global terrorism? Or his continued refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital in defiance of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, which requires such US recognition? Or his personal pressure to guarantee Arafat's safety? Do you realize that the State Department does not even list Arafat on its international terrorist list? Or that Bush has stated publicly that he does not consider Arafat to be a terrorist? Do you really think that Bush's personal endorsement for the detestable "Road Map" is in Israel's best interests? Have you also forgotten Bush's invitation to the Saudi prince (a country which openly backs and finances much of world Islamic terrorism including Bin Laden) to visit his home and that he always refers to the Saudis as "American allies"? What about his criticism of Israel's building of an antiterrorist fence? (He called it a "disruption of Palestinian life" and an obstacle to peace negotiations while he mouthed concessions to Israel's right to security -- obviously as along as Israel doesn't take direct actions to insure that security.) Just what message does Bush's double standards on the treatment of terrorists send to the world?

It is not a coincidence that the present Intifada (which has cost over 1000 mostly civilian Israeli lives) occurred during Bush's term in office. More Israelis have been killed or maimed because of efforts to keep Bush's "friendship" than in dealing with the open enmity of the European Union. It is also perfectly clear to many of us that, while Bush's speeches (which are all written by professionals) talk about his love and support for Israel, his actions have shown that his true goal is to bring "peace" to Israel, even if Bush's "peace" will prove to cause Israel's ultimate destruction. Obviously, his true friendship lies with those he calls his Arab allies (including the "Palestinians").

Just for the record, I am not a Kerry supporter. Many of his statements trouble me very much but at least there is a chance that we can persuade Kerry that his assessment of the situation in the Middle East (including its published "history") is false. But, Bush has proven that he is more interested in the friendship of the Arabs, including those who call themselves "Palestinians", than in truly giving Israel his support. He is far more interested in fighting global terrorism as long as it doesn't involve supporting Israel taking aggressive measures to do the same. I suggest that you reexamine your support of Bush whose piecemeal attacks on terrorists have done nothing to solve the problem of global terrorism and whose open support of Arab "moderates" has increased the danger worldwide.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.