If I was in Washington, DC right now, I’d probably go to the White House, or wherever the Secret Service has its headquarters, and demand, “What have you done with the real George W. Bush?” Can this be the same chief executive who said, “You’re either for us or against us,” when it came to fighting terrorism, or who declared he wouldn’t negotiate with the Palestinians until they got serious about establishing a democratic state? As a former Republican, I never was one of those folks who called the 43rd president dumb, but you have to wonder about him presiding over the summit meeting that began in Annapolis, MD, today.
Over the past fifteen years, we’ve seen peace talks at Oslo, Wye, Camp David, and elsewhere, and all of them failed in the end. In every case, if the talks didn’t break down, the Israelis ended up handing over land or making some other concessions. The Palestinians have given nothing in return; nothing, nada, zilch. They have not honored their agreements to recognize the State of Israel, crack down on terrorism, or stop the teaching of hatred in schools, mosques and the media. Nor is there any sign that a Palestinian state could become anything other than an impoverished, backward, undemocratic bantustan of hate — and an enemy of the United States to boot.
Years ago, the conflict in Northern Ireland looked just as impossible to solve as the one in the Middle East. The reason why peace came there was because leaders like Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley were tired of fighting, and getting too old to keep it up. Well, the current Palestinian leaders aren’t spring chickens. Are they or the next generation of Arabs mellowing out? (sound of crickets in the background) On top of that, Hamas says it has no intention of honoring any agreement signed by Al Fatah, so what’s the use?
Here are some articles that express my point of view, that the summit is a useless dog-and-pony show at best:
It’s Munich in America, by David Horowitz
The Four-State-Solution, by Gamaliel Isaac
Speaking of Munich, Neville Chamberlain was smarter than Ehud Olmert in one way. He signed away somebody else’s country, not his own! Trying to make terrorists peaceful by offering them land is like trying to make a tiger become a vegetarian by offering it more meat.
I have heard that Bush is doing it because he badly wants to have a legacy as a peacemaker, just as Bill Clinton did at Camp David. Well, I hate to break bad news to you, Mr. President, but have you seen who has won the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years? Conservatives don’t qualify anymore. In fact, Jimmy Carter got the prize in 2002 simply because he’s an opponent of the Bush doctrine; a member of the Nobel Committee freely admitted it. Now if there was a Nobel War Prize, on the other hand . . .
Bush has had some embarrassing moments, like Hurricane Katrina, Harriet Miers, and his ineffective response to illegal immigration and barking mad liberals. However, I think that after he leaves the White House, he’ll be considered a better president than he is now, like Harry Truman was. Especially if the United States wins the war against Islamic terrorism. The picture below was made in November 2004, and it shows fifteen reasons the president had for giving thanks in that year. While the picture itself is old, most of the points made are still valid. Why don’t you claim those, and our current healthy economy, as part of your legacy, Mr. President?
