Trappease Artist

Premier Bush was in Israel this week, which gives me a really uneasy feeling. I just get the sense that Bush feels like he understands Israel in a way that the so-called "experts" could never muster. And forgive me the sin of assumption, but I can't help but know that Bush's knowledge of the history of Israel is extremely spotty.

Still, it was right and proper that the American president address the Israeli Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the birth of modern Israel. What was wrong and improper, however, was Mr. Bush's conduct.

Like he so often does, Mr. Bush spoke with a swagger and a sense of clarity and entitlement that is wholly without foundation. "Presumptuous" is perhaps the most apt word. Mr. Bush presumed to articulate the dangers of "appeasement" to the government of a state founded in his own lifetime by Holocaust survivors. I don't think the Jews need such lessons.

In an non-veiled attack on Barack Obama, Bush ridiculed communication itself, which he not-so-deftly equated with appeasement. In a mocking and caustic tone, he slandered those who urge open talks with "evil" powers. The funny thing is, Mr. Bush has talked with some pretty evil people himself.

To his credit, Bush made peace with Muamar Qadafi in 2003, neutralizing that terrorist's WMD arsenal. Was Mr. Bush "appeasing" Mr. Qadafi? Or was he making a hard-headed realist decision which ended Libya's identity as a terrorist state? For this course of action, I call Mr. Bush brave. If Obama did the same thing, Mr. Bush would call him a coward.

Mr. Bush's government is negotiating with North Korea, which is on the short list with Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Myanmar as the worst places to be born on Earth. North Korea is still technically at war with the United States. It could kill 10,000 American soldiers before I finish this blog, if it so chose. It is ruled by a government which can rightly be called evil. And yet, Bush talks to them. Is that appeasement?

I say no. Again, I applaud Mr. Bush for talking with the enemy in Libya and North Korea, because the only thing worse than war is a war due to miscommunication resulting from a refusal to talk. You know, like what happened with Iraq. And what may happen with Iran, if Bush has his way.

Since Bush has talked with Libya and North Korea (and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who are listed as "allies" in this Orwellian fiasco), we must ask ourselves what makes Iran different. What makes Iran so evil that they can not be talked to? What made Iraq so evil that they could not be talked to? The only answer, of course, is Mr. Bush's whimsical decree.

Beyond the hypocrisy of the self-serving standards of Mr. Bush's definition of appeasement is the fact that he gave a speech ridiculing a man for suggesting communication in a foreign country. Israel is a close ally, but it is a foreign country. American presidents do not speak ill of other Americans to foreign audiences. Period.

How many times have Mr. Bush and his minions castigated opponents of the war by saying that politics should stop at the water's edge? That domestic dissent only emboldens our enemies? So, apparently, it is unacceptable for Americans to critique foreign policy in America, but it is perfectly acceptable for the American president to belittle his likely successor in front of a foreign parliament. Clintonian in its audacity, isn't it?

There is another dimension to this. Mr. Bush was telling the Israeli parliament that it was cowardly and craven to have any contact with adversaries. Does Mr. Bush realize that Israel made peace with Egypt, its mortal enemy, nearly 30 years ago?

Does Mr. Bush realize that if Israel had not negotiated with its Egyptian neighbor, who publicly called for its extinction for 30 years and fought an unending war against it, that Israel would probably not have survived?

Israel, unlike Mr. Bush, understands war and peace. Israel understands that peace is made with enemies, not friends. And if Mr. Bush claims to be a man of peace, how does he presume to become so by ignoring his enemies?