Channels

Ambivalent. Bush
Photo: Reuters
Photo: Shaul Golan
Positive. Weissglass
Photo: Shaul Golan
PR Photo
Friendly. Gold
Photo: Eli Elgrat
Wagging. Sarid
Photo: Eli Elgrat

Was Bush good or bad for Israel?

How might history judge soon-to-be-former US president's legacy in the Middle East? Never, it seem, have we been so ambivalent

Was US President George W. Bush the best or the worst thing that ever happened to Israel? Never, it seems, have we been so ambivalent about an American president's legacy.

 

Some would say that the fact that Bush saw eye-to-eye with Israel on almost all things Mideast has improved Israel's stance exponentially; while others argue that he leaves behind him a blazing Middle East, raging with severely neglected conflicts.

 

Attorney Dov Weissglass, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff who also served as the White House liaison, said that the Bush administration was the best thing that ever happened to Israel.

 

No plan is a good plan

"As far as the US-Israel bilateral avenue, we have never experienced such understanding before. He helped remove (former Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser) Arafat from power; he was the one who signed the memorandum stating Israel will hold on to large (West Bank) settlement blocs; and he was the one behind the Road Map, which clearly states the a Palestinian state cannot form before they prove they have crushed terror and can sustain a proper government."

 

The fact the no significant breakthroughs in the peace process have occurred during the Bush administration, he added, is in his favor: "A peace process with whom? Arafat? The Palestinian Authority? Gaza? Could Israel afford for a Palestinian state under those conditions? You cannot fault Bush for understanding that. He did not force Israel into accepting a Palestinian state under those conditions, and instead pushed for the Road Map."

 

As for the Syrian avenue, here too Weissglass commended Bush's resolve: "We present the US administration with a stance; they accept it and we ask why? The US-Syrian conflict is a direct result of Israeli pressure. We were the ones who demanded Damascus be ostracized and the US began pressuring it because it was harboring Iraqi terrorists, who were targeting US soldiers."

 

Weissglass also disagreed with the premise that the war in Iraq caused Bush to neglect the bigger problem – Iran. "Was he supposed to declare war on Iran? People expected him to solve the world's problems in one hour."


Israel-friendly. Bush during his last visit to Israel (Photo: AP)

 

But not all was perfect. Weissglass did fault Bush for pushing for Hamas to be allowed to participate in the 2007 elections held by the Palestinian Authority. "The US believed Hamas would remain a minor political player, manipulated by lager political forces which would demand it relinquish terror. He was wrong."

 

An Israel-friendly president

Dori Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the UN and senior adviser to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agrees. "Bush was very Israel-friendly, he gave us one of the most important memorandums ever – his assurance of April 2004 to Ariel Sharon that Israel would never have to revert to the 1967 borders, and the US pledge to ensure Israel would always have defendable borders."

 

Nevertheless, Gold does believe Bush erred significantly on some issues which will affect Israel in the years to come: "He made us go against the Oslo Accords and agree to have Hamas bid in the Palestinian elections. The (security) arrangements devised for the Rafah crossing and Philadelphi Route by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proved to be a complete disaster and most importantly – he failed to stop Iran, despite all the evidence suggesting it is aiming for a nuclear weapon."

 

As for the peace process, Gold rejected the claims suggesting the Bush administration dropped the proverbial ball: "There is a tendency to accuse Bush for not doing enough on that front, or for focusing all of his efforts on the Annapolis Peace Summit, but that's not true. There were plenty of envoys sent to the Middle East to try and resolve the Palestinian problem, but the Palestinians kept hindering them."

 

Washington, he added, cannot be chided for wanting nothing to do with Syria: "Syria supports terror activities which affect the US, as well as Israel. You can’t admonish the administration for that."


Brace for the ricochets? Bush (Photo: Reuters)

 

Tail wagging the dog

Former Minister Yossi Sarid, however, holds the opposite opinion. Bush, he said, was one of the worst things to ever happen to Israel. "Never mind the fact that I don’t like him – the Americans themselves never liked him. He has brought calamities on Israel and on the entire world for that matter.

 

"He completely fell asleep on the job for seven years and neglected the Middle East conflict altogether."  

Bush's eagerness to politically align himself with Israel left the US out of the Mideast process, he argued.

 

"If the US is unwilling to talk to everyone we are not talking to – Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hizbullah – than what do we need them for? The say that he who spares the rod hates his son (Proverbs, 13:24) – I guess he really hated us."

 

Israel, he added, will soon find itself being held solely responsible for the damage Bush did to the Middle East. "We will be the ones hit with all the ricochets left by a limited, miserable president. The fact that he agreed with Israel on everything just proves that the tail was wagging the dog." 

 


פרסום ראשון: 01.20.09, 15:12
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment