A Rejoinder to J Street's On Bush's Statements before the Knesset

Isaac:

The problem with looking at the problem strictly through an American lens is this: it is too narrow for the context. Let me be clear: I think GW Bush has been the worst President for our country in its history, but time will be the judge on that assessment. Bush's basic message was one that it was difficult to disagree with: appeasement is bad. I do not think that any thoughtful person, Zionists especially, will disagree with that notion. I've seen and heard all of the statements (Biden, Pelosi, Dean, et al) and they are, as you say, all quite upset as they are looking through a strictly American lens at what Bush said. Religious Zionists like me do not do that. Things that affect Israel have to be looked at through a wide-scope and assessments of their impact have to be viewed also through how the statement would play for the Israelis, as it is they who have to suffer under the rocketry of Hamas and the threats from Hezbollah and by extension, Iran. To these ears, getting upset at what Bush said looks like a) politics as usual and b) not worth getting that excited about, given that Bush is at this point an irrelevancy to foriegn policy, as if he ever had one. I think that J Street has to be careful to pick its fights and issues quite carefully and not be reactionary, taking into consideration only a part of the puzzle of MidEast politics as they affect America as well as Israel. The only thing that gave me pause -- that led me for a nanosecond to believe that Bush was indeed referring to Obama or those who consider speaking with Hamas, et al, was the little smirk on his face after he mentioned "a senator who wanted to talk to Hitler after the tanks started rolling into Poland in September of 1939". His little smirks are his "tell" -- to borrow from Poker -- that give his true intentions away. All I can tell you is this: there are too many "J Streeters" who are willing to give up too much for too little so the fact that it "played well" on the list is not that meaningful to me. I do not know what your list stands for. I agree that a cease-fire is a good thing, as is the saving of lives on both sides. But what is the price Israel will pay? To allow Hamas to rearm and regroup? The time during any cease fire has to be accompanied by close monitoring of what is coming into Gaza by way of new terrorists and new weaponry, lest the post-cease-fire look a lot worse than before one. The violence that they perpetrate is mainly hard on those whom they ostensibly represent: civilians, among whom they hide like the cowards they are, placing them intentionally in harm's way when the inevitable Israeli defensive retaliation comes. It is not hard on Meshaal and his minions, and in making that the violence is "hard on Hamas", I disagree with you. They do not care about the lives of their own people which is why they keep them in abject poverty, squalor and misery. If they cared, they would be doing things a lot differently. At the risk of alienating some of your supporters, I would suggest that J Street more clearly define what its stances are and are not. At some point, J Street will have to do so or risk its credibility with people like me who are less prone to knee-jerk reactions every time someone sings a key off-note about America or Israel's future. Knee-jerk reactions are what I expect out of AIPAC, not from you and just because everyone (not Jewish) in the Democratic party is whiffed at President Bush doesn't mean that J Street has to automatically join them. You have a bigger responsiblity than they do. Remember that for the future.