George Haas, I Partially Agree
Reader comment on item: White House Nonchalance [toward the Middle East]
Submitted by orange yonason (United States), Mar 22, 2006 at 22:32BS"D
George, we're not all whining about Bush. I, my Rabbi and many others of us voted for him because he was clearly the only logical choice for America, and possibly for Israel, G-d willing. He means well to Israel, and is sincerely concerned for her welfare. But, ...he is wrong about encouraging a "Palestinian" state. Still, since I don't expect Bush to be more Jewish than most of the Jews who support such a monstrosity, I still consider him as good a friend as Israel could otherwise want, misquided as he is.
There are several problems. One is his delusional thinking about the so-called "Palestinians" which is touched on in the conclusion to this article mostly in praise of Mr. Bush's leadership,
"...I am on the horns of a dilemma or, as Tevya would have said: "On one hand", we have a President who is willing to fight Global Terrorism but, "on the other hand", we have a President who is dismantling Israel - which will bring a terrible calamity to America."
I couldn't agree more, and it is the source of a great deal of pain to see him squander all the good he is accomplishing around the globe by "...forcing Israel to bow and give in to the Arab Muslim Palestinian Terrorists. In this he weakens his message on fighting Global Terror wherever it occurs."
Absolutely correct, because ALL the terrorists, no matter what else they say they want, agree on demanding "justice for the Palestinian People." And by giving in to them on that, he gives them hope and undercuts all his other efforts. These savages are to be given "self-determination" on the heart of OUR Biblical homeland?! Just because that is what Sharon and Co., wanted, doesn't justify Bush signing on, especially when it is clearly a bad deal for the US.
Furthermore, even if Mr. Bush weren't so misquided, he still isn't the only one making policy. PowerLine Blog opines: "Dafydd relies on President Bush's track record of being "Texan." However, under the stewardship of Secretary of State Rice, the foreign policy of the second Bush administration hasn't seemed all that Texan to me."
Hopefully the following picture of Ms. Rice will illustrate why I think that's a pretty accurate assessment,
I don't have any faith in her ability to deal with hardened terrorists who mock her to her face, or her judgement in how to handle them. And she is a key player who has a lot of influence. In this atlasshrugs post, the author bemoans Ms. Rice's coming out of the appeasers closet,
"...her capitulation, the single most depressing development on the world stage. Unlike Rummy and Cheney, Condi is not the warrior I had expected ... The State department has the notorious reputation of Arabists, antisemites, appeasers ... I thought Condi would change the culture. Uh uh, just the opposite. As Secretary of State, she has become the leader of the appeasers. ...at the recent DOS Ramadan dinner with CAIR guests she lauded Islam as, not just a religion of "peace", but a religion of "peace and love" and the provider of "beneficence" to the United States."
That whole article is chock full of information that is sure to send you rushing to the Dr. for some anti-depressants.
Anyone who can assert that, "Where Oslo failed, retreat will succeed..." is NOT the one I want giving advice to President Bush!
And finally, we need to look at actions, not words. The US' pledge to keep Israel "safe" is a good thing, and well meant I believe. But, when America witholds aid funds promised to Israel for her surrender to terror, while pedging millions more for the terrorists, I am not impressed.
Still, in the final analysis after we do all we can we count on Hashem, not Presidents, to do the rest. Chazzak!
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".
Reader comments (285) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes