|
|
|
Jewish World Review May 21, 2008 / 16 Iyar 5768 Finding Appeasers in the Mirror By Jonathan Tobin
Dems cry foul at Bush rhetoric on terror, but will either party do more than talk?
An Iranian-made Grad model Katyusha rocket crashed into a mall in the
city of more than 100,000, wounding four persons while several dozen
others were treated for shock.
The missile, launched by the Islamic Jihad group from their safe haven
in Hamas-ruled Gaza, served as an interesting counterpoint to Bush's
tough talk about terror, which set off a controversy back home.
Bush's speech was noteworthy because it expressed a passionate support
for Zionism in a way that only an evangelical Christian such as the
43rd president would find congenial. While some of his predecessors
such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton ("Shalom, chaver") have spoken
with affection of Israel, it was remarkable to hear a president
describe the re-creation of Jewish sovereignty in terms that a
religious, as opposed to a secular, Zionist would use.
It's one thing to talk about common values, but quite another to speak
of Israel's independence as "the redemption of an ancient promise given
to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz
Yisrael," as Bush did.
Bush didn't stop there, but eventually went on to predict what the
Middle East would look like 60 years hence, when Israel will be
celebrating its 120th anniversary in peace alongside a peaceful and
democratic Palestinian state in the midst of a Middle East in which
such states will be commonplace, and from which Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and
Hamas will be banished.
From his lips to G-d's ears.
FIGHTING WORDS
Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, treated
that sentence as a personal attack, even though he wasn't mentioned in
it. Obama has said that he intends to meet with leaders of rogue
states, such as Iran and Syria, which Bush has shunned.
"Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon
and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including
tough, principled and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like
Iran and Syria," Obama said in a statement.
Democrats quickly realized that by taking offense at this charge, they
could engage in a debate with the unpopular incumbent rather than with
the Republican whom Obama must face in November, Sen. John McCain. As
such, the exchange was scored a win for Obama.
But lost amid the tactical partisan squabble are some more important
points than whether or not Bush was thinking of Obama when he said the
word "appeasement."
Obama has reiterated his opposition to talking to Hamas, even though he
says he would talk to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who
threatens to destroy Israel.
But at the same time that Bush and Obama were drawing lines in the sand
about Hamas, representatives of the Israeli government were themselves
engaged in negotiations with the group about a cease-fire and the
exchange of prisoners via the good offices of Egypt. Given the need to
stop the terrorist missile barrage on southern Israel and gain the
release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, they believe they have
little choice but to bargain with these killers.
Also that week, the United States did nothing as Hezbollah terrorists
routed the moderate pro-Western Lebanese government and made it clear
that that tortured country remained firmly in the grip of allies of
Iran.
Combined with the utter contempt with which another pro-democracy Bush
speech was received by the leaders of the Arab world, and what you have
is an administration whose words are not matched by deeds.
Partisans will say that is merely a reflection of Bush's incompetence,
and they won't be entirely wrong given the mistakes made in Iraq. But
the president's second term has actually been a lesson in the futility
of attempts at diplomacy, such as those that Bush derides and Obama
embraces.
On Iran, there has been plenty of tough talk. But in practice, all Bush
has done about the growing existential threat that it poses to Israel
and the West is ineffective diplomacy in which he has relied on Western
European countries that Iran knows will always back down.
As for the administration's effort to push for peace between Israel and
the Palestinians, though the president's critics blame him for the
stalemate, Bush's shunning of Yasser Arafat (unlike Bill Clinton's
genuine appeasement of that terrorist) was correct. So was the decision
to stand by Israel when it launched counterattacks that defeated
Arafat's intifada terror offensive.
CHAMBERLAIN OR CHURCHILL?
So rather than worrying about whether Bush's successor will be an
"appeaser," it might be more apt to ask the lame-duck president whether
he will himself live up to his rhetoric in his remaining months of
office.
Obama's talk of meeting with Ahmadinejad is certainly wrongheaded. But
what we must ask is what will he do if, as president, his "tough
diplomacy" fails to halt Iran's nuclear drive, as it inevitably will.
Skepticism that he will do nothing more than talk is warranted. The
question isn't really about who is an "appeaser" today, but whether or
not either Obama or McCain will have the will to forcefully confront a
genocidal regime that must now surely think any American will back down
when push comes to shove.
Heart-felt support for Israel such as that spoken by Bush is more than
welcome, but while Palestinian missiles continue to fall and with the
threat of far worse from Iran in the future, it doesn't matter much
what Republicans or Democrats say about terror. It's what they are
willing to actually do about it that counts.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
Let him know what you think by clicking here.
© 2007, Jonathan Tobin
| ||||||||||
