Bush in Israel: The Sun Sets on America's Relationship with Israel

President George W. Bush's visit to Yad Vashem could not help but remind you of President Nixon's visit to Yad Vashem.

Nixon like Bush had come to Israel in 1974 as a weakened President on his way trying to shore up some support for peace negotiations and create a legacy at Israel's expense. After the devastating Yom Kippur War when Nixon and Kissinger prevented Israel from repeating the preemptive attack that had brought Israel victory in 1967, Nixon arrived in Israel with a plan to offer Egypt a nuclear reactor and pressure on Israel to make concessions in the name of peace.

Nixon arrived to a shattered nation that he had helped to shatter. He came to a nation still mourning its young men and grumbling reluctantly he visited Yad Vashem. Heavy security cordons and bulletproof glass protected him against angry crowds. After following Kissinger's plan to "cut Israel down to size" by bringing it to its knees in a war and letting the Arabs have their victory, Nixon came pressuring Israel to negotiate with its enemies while promising them a nuclear reactor, the one method of deterrence Israel had left.

In private talks with Rabin, Nixon said that "the days when Israel felt very comfortable with a relationship . . . where we supported Israel . . . were going to be Israel's best friend... where your immediate warlike neighbors, Syria and Egypt were considered enemies of the United States, those days are over. I don't think that's a policy. I don't think it's viable for the future."

Rabin replied that "Peace had to be related to security... it could not consist simply of a series of Israeli withdrawals; there had to be reciprocity; Israel could not tolerate terrorist attacks." (Heroic Diplomacy - Kenneth W. Stern)

As in 1974 and as 34 years later in 2008 such statements by Israeli leaders went ignored.

At Yad Vashem Bush, like Nixon before him, stood in a place dedicated to the knowledge that there is an enduring global paradigm dedicated to the extermination of the Jews while on a mission to empower those who are dedicated to killing Jews today.

In 2008 Bush came to Israel, disdained addressing the Knesset as this might show partiality to Israel, brought a raft of armed military personnel to Israeli soil and delivered a list of conditions to Israel while praising Abbas as a good man and a man of peace.

For all the friendly facade, Bush came bearing the same message that Nixon had. Bush's statements clearly call for carving up Israel, dressed up as they might be in euphemisms.

Bush began his Palestinian tour with lavish praise from Abbas, leader of one of the world's largest terrorist organizations

Our people will not forget Your Excellency, your invitation and your commitment towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. You are the first American President that confirms and reiterates this right.

and indeed Bush had. It is a sad legacy to those Jewish conservatives who who argued that Bush would be friendly to Israel, only for Bush to wind up pleasing those Jews who voted for Gore or Kerry while spitting in the face of those who supported him.

Bush meanwhile spoke openly about applying pressure, not even bothering to hide it behind more diplomatic language

"Is it going to be hard work? You bet. And we can help support these negotiations, and will. I was asked yesterday at a press conference, you know, what do you intend to do; if you're not going to write the agreement, what do you intend to do? I said, nudge the process forward -- like, pressure; be a pain if I need to be a pain -- which in some people's mind isn't all that hard."

It of course only got worse from there with gems like Bush's emphasis on modernizing the same force that is continuing to participate in the murder of Israelis

And so my message to the Israelis is that they ought to help, not hinder, the modernization of the Palestinian security force. It's in their interests that a government dedicated to peace and understanding the need for two states to live side by side in peace have a modern force.

and of a contiguous Palestinian state, despite the obvious impossibility of a contiguous Palestinian state without cutting Israel in half, it would be like calling for a contiguous state between Mexico and Canada while pretending that you still intend to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States.

Now, the vision of the Palestinian state is one of contiguous territory. In other words, as I said earlier in my administration, I said, Swiss cheese isn't going to work when it comes to the outline of a state. And I mean that. There is no way that this good man can assure the Palestinians of a hopeful future if there's not contiguous territory. And we -- that position is abundantly clear to both sides.

In his statement Bush said;

I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk.

and of course the "hard solution" will not involve the Arab side abandoning its demand for Jerusalem, we know that ahead of time. It will instead demand more Israeli concessions to the terrorists in exchange for nothing.

All this revealed Bush's statement at Olmert's conference to be a blatant lie

It's essential that people understand America cannot dictate the terms of what a state will look like. The only way to have lasting peace, the only way for an agreement to mean anything, is for the two parties to come together and make the difficult choices.

After all Bush was busy dictating exactly what that state would look like. And once again pushed the idea of pressure...

But we'll help, and we want to help. If it looks like there needs to be a little pressure, Mr. Prime Minister, you know me well enough to know I'll be more than willing to provide it. I will say the same thing to President Abbas tomorrow, as well.

Bush repeatedly equated the idea of Israeli settlements and Palestinian Arab rocket attacks as if people living in a place is equivalent to murder.

You know, one of the concerns I had was that -- whether it be the unprovoked rocket attacks or the issues of settlement, that the leaders would be so bogged down in the moment that they would lose sight of the potential for a historic agreement.

and of course we wouldn't want to get so bogged down in the war being fought against us that we fail to recognize this "historic moment" which seems to come every few years when a President flies over to Israel and promises that everything will be hunky dory once the terrorists get more land and more guns to play with.

Much has been made of Bush's widely publicized statement at Yad Vashem wondering why America didn't bomb Auschwitz. That statement is an obscenity and an abomination. It would be the equivalent of FDR turning his backs on the Jews of Europe while asking why America didn't intervene in the Russian Pogroms of the early 20th century. It is not Auschwitz that needs to be bombed today but Gaza and Tehran and yet again an American President is selling out the world's most persecuted people to cater to its enemies and America's enemies as well.

Nixon lied when he claimed that some sort of magic time had ended when America and Israel were on the same page, because that time never existed. For all of Israel's existence, America has been hoping to win over the Arabs, supporting Israel only because the United States does not have a single reliable ally in the Arab world it can actually count on.

America's role in Israel's creation was lukewarm at best and the pressure for territorial concessions began from day 1 when Israel took the Negev and has never let up through all those years. As long as America continues catering to the Arabs in the hopes that the devotees of Islam will eventually learn to love America, any alliance with Israel is built on the same shaky legs.

Since Suez, American administrations have placed the Arabs first and their allies, whether it be England and France or Israel, second. That has not changed under Bush and will not change under any President. If the sun is setting on Israeli-American relations it is only because America is pushing Israel even closer to the brink than it did under Nixon presenting it with a choice between survival and following American dictates.

Israel cannot survive the growing cancerous expansion of a terrorist state within its borders, a terrorist state president after president is determined to fund, arm, train and implement. For too long Americans and Israelis have grown comfortable with the illusion of a close relationship in what is actually a frustrated abusive relationship in which America is certain that if it slaps around Israel hard enough, the middle east will somehow be stabilized. That route is a dead end for both America and Israel. Unless both countries wake up to that, neither country will survive the Jihad.