Was just reading Drudge’s OBAMA REAX, where Obama interpreted Bush’s “those who talk, appease” comment as a gutshot at Obama.
My initial reaction, having spent way too much time studying that part of the world, was that Bush’s comment was almost certainly aimed at Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Shimon Peres — not Obama. General election foreign policy rhetoric, as we have seen, has nothing to do with reality. There’s no way to know whether or not Obama’s an “appeaser” until he actually starts making decisions.
Olmert, on the other hand, has made a slew of appeasing decisions, long after it became screamingly obvious that Israel’s most rational response was a heavy-handed one. The Arabs are furious that the Israelis, given such an obvious opportunity to maul any and every of Iran’s proxies in the region, has repeatedly squandered them.
Considering that Bush’s speech was to the Knesset, in light of mounting Hamas and Hezbollah provocations, it’s fairly clear that Bush was referring to Olmert, not Obama.
Update: here’s the quote in full.
In a speech to Israel’s Knesset, Bush said that “some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along … We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
Responding with a statement, the Obama campaign seized on Bush’s remarks even as it was unclear to whom Bush was referring.
“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
The White House said Bush’s comment wasn’t a reference to Obama.
“It is not,” press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. “I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.”
Obama’s definitely not the sole reference here. It gives Olmert some weasel room to help him save face, and probably is a secondary jab at Obama, but I am sure Olmert is the primary reference.
Score a rare point for the White House. Not that I expect the “reality-based community” to bother figuring it out.
Obama thinks it’s all about him.
Methinks the man doth protest too much! Obama’s guilt is showing for whole world to see - not his culpability necessarily, but definitely his guilt and worry over his previous comments at talking to our enemies. A man without such concerns wouldn’t be so quick to claim offense.
It should be obvious to most people that Bush was alluding to Carter’s ill-advised meeting with HAMAS’ leaders.
Or perhaps Obama is preemptively attacking the GOP in an effort to diffuse their expected campaign against him.
jonolan: Carter’s trip was probably done with the tacit approval of the State Department, just so you know … plus it was a while ago.
Anyway, there’s a lot of appeasement that’s been going on recently; Bush could have been referring to any or all of those instances, I guess. When I first read the article, my immediate reaction was, “Wow, that was a huge slap at Olmert,” who has been pursuing the most appeasenik policy I’ve seen in my own professional memory (considering his alternatives).
A lot of appeasement is going on, and you might want to add the UN with offering Iran gift packages for nuclear co-operation. And lets not even mention European foreign diplomacy - aka capitulation.
Israel, unlike any other player is as deeply at the heart of the storm as it gets. Mass annihilation for being Jewish is not an new or abstract concept. This prospect of initiating something that can’t be contained has shaken the current government.
Olmert and co. are guilty of not taking a strong offence - the best defense. But, this time around, they feel they will not necessarily come out on top in a full-scale Mid-East war. And who is beside them, and to what degree, is also not made clear.
Iran is not Germany of the late 30s, but there are many similarities in their calculations of the West’s unwillingness to take become involved. Lebanon is a dry run. Jordan is next in line.
Iran becoming over-confident and an inevitable misjudgement is what’s being waited for.
Not at all the way to go, but how it is playing out.
Mike Feldman
Or Iran can just keep winning!
Nobody ever won by losing.
“He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.”
All a lot of words. Everyone does that, Iran included.
No disagreement that Israel has to to somehow rectify the situation they are in. I don’t think the problem boils down to the inadequacy of some guy named Olmert.
Offering accomodation of the Muslim World’s assertion of tribal aggression carried to a world scale. has been the response of the West and Israel, in this 21st Century. Geographical distribution of petroleum reserves, misguided cultural notions of responsibility, and just plain backing down on confrontations, are factors.
If Israel’s internal calculation is that in an all-out full-scale war they will lose, and lose big-time, like permananent big time - what do you suggest they do?
I suggest they preserve a smidgen of credibility by butchering Hamas, including collateral damage if necessary, and including losing Schalit, if necessary.
Sure, Israel’s “public image” would be damaged by dead Palestinian babies. But since the Palestinian civilians won’t stop this themselves, who cares? Israel is basing its foreign policy on what others will say. That is more damaging to a country’s credibility than any conceivable collateral damage inflicted upon a complicit civilian population.
Israel is a Jewish Switzerland. The Israeli economy won’t be destroyed by this. Israel might have to sell some more technological expertise with second-tier countries, push a little more trade into murkier channels for the sake of their trade partners, etc. That’s not a very high price. On the other hand, long-term respect is, well, “priceless.”
The best change from within comes only after severe external pressure, as in the attempted July 1944 coup against Hitler.
Israel only loses confrontations with the Palestinians because it takes too much care with Palestinian civilians. It needs to go into areas, smash them up, kill any and all suspects, and get out. Obviously it can’t occupy Palestinian territory; but it has to clear it out none the less, or be slowly extinguished. So it has to move with a faster, heavier hand — which it is more than capable of. The “cost” is higher Palestinian civilian casualties. Well, maybe that will force Palestinians to reconsider the calculus of shooting Katyushas at Israel.
Sure, Israel will be judged less fairly than many other countries. So what? What does that really mean at the end of the day?