NY TIMES: Bush appeasement attack directed toward Israel as well
Posted by Max Bergmann
The New York Times has a truly stunning editorial today. The paper makes the very important point that when Bush made his appeasement remarks in the Knesset it is almost certain that he knew that Israel was negotiating with Syria. Thus, his appeasement attack was directed not just against Obama, but the leadership of the Jewish state of Israel as well. The Times writes:
Everybody knew President Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama last week when he likened those who endorse talks with “terrorists and radicals” to appeasers of the Nazis. But now we know what Mr. Bush knew then — that Israel is in indirect peace talks with Syria, a prominent member of Mr. Bush’s list of shunned nations — and it seems as if the president was going for a two-for-one in his crack about appeasement.
If so, it was breathtakingly cynical to compare the leadership of the Jewish state with those who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught, and irresponsible to try to restrain this American ally from pursuing a settlement that it judges as possibly being in its best interests.
Outrageous.


There is NOTHING wrong with meeting with your "enemy" to try to find common ground -- provided your "enemy" is one that you can reason with.
So Bush' appeasement remarks are, sometimes and in some places, MISPLACED.
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | May 23, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I think you and the Times are giving Bush way too much credit for political chutzpah. He's just not that engaged. And he lives in a world of cognitive dissonance, where Israeli talks with Syria existed on the dimly cognized outskirts of consciousness, unrelated to his hawkish, no negotiations political message that he no doubt believes Israelis are all solidly behind.
This editorial seems like a bit of an overly-clever ploy by the Times to make political points for the Democratic side, and help Dems troll for Jewish votes, by painting Bush as insultingly anti-Israel, and grotesquely and deliberately willing to paint the survivors of the Holocaust as Chamberlain-like appeasers on Israel's 60th birthday. That's just absurd. Bush may be an idiot, but you can't convince me that he and his team are not doing everything politically possible to help McCain by sucking up to Israel and the pro-Israel vote.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | May 23, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I think it is actually more likely the quote WAS directed at the Knesset and the rest of the Israeli government more than at Obama, actually. One Israeli general was quoted as saying afterwards that there would be no peace agreement between Israel and Syria until the current administration left office, if that only enforces the point at all.
Posted by: Simmons | May 23, 2008 at 04:58 PM
According to the guy who apparently wrote the Knesset speech, the dig was intended for Jimmy Carter.
http://thepage.time.com/friday-press-gaggle-with-dana-perino/
If that's true, then is it so "outrageous?"
I won't expect it to be mentioned in this forum, but much of the Israeli/ME press has noted that the slated negotiations involving Syria and Israel come at a time when Olmert and Assad are facing criminal investigations (Israel's highest court just cleared the way for the corruption probe involving Olmert to go forward, and Assad is awaiting the findings of the UN's Hariri tribunal).
In Israel, it's something of a given for negotiations to be called by embattled leaders. The press and opposition in the Knesset tend to back off to allow the "peace process" to continue, no matter what they suspect its cynical origins to be.
But if you want that sort of historical analysis, this blog isn't your best bet. Try Haaretz or any Lebanese newspaper, no matter how partisan.
Posted by: Soldiernolongeriniraq | May 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!
Posted by: cheap coach handbags | January 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM
This editorial seems like a bit of an overly-clever ploy by the Times to make political points for the Democratic side, and help Dems troll for Jewish votes, by painting Bush as insultingly anti-Israel, and grotesquely and deliberately willing to paint the survivors of the Holocaust as Chamberlain-like appeasers on Israel's 60th birthday. That's just absurd. Bush may be an idiot, but you can't convince me that he and his team are not doing everything politically possible to help McCain by sucking up to Israel and the pro-Israel vote.
seslichat
Posted by: sesli sohbet | June 18, 2010 at 07:54 AM
The Israel is in indirect peace talks with Syria, a prominent member of Mr. Bush’s list of shunned nations — and it seems as if the president was going for a two-for-one in his crack about appeasement.
Posted by: Buy Domains | October 11, 2010 at 02:34 AM
I guess I am just simply thinking outloud, but perhaps you could think about selling advertising on this blog page. Appears like you may do very well mainly because I am sure quite a lot of people follow it. Just a thought..
Posted by: Roland Bloomer | October 13, 2010 at 02:19 AM
Breathtakingly cynical it may have been, but it must be remembered that no one has ever accused Bush of reasoned thinking, considered judgment, or any degree of subtlety.
Posted by: cuckoo clocks | October 21, 2010 at 03:24 AM
One Israeli general was quoted as saying afterwards that there would be no peace agreement between Israel and Syria until the current administration left office, if that only enforces the point at all.
Posted by: Home Foreclosure Search | October 30, 2010 at 07:14 AM
Let's just say no to nationalist socialism and the neo cons. Let Israel and America work together for peace, not never ending war against think tank created boogie men. Cheney, Bush, Feith, Podhoretz, Boot, Libby, and their comrades betrayed both nations.
Posted by: Nightly Business Report | November 01, 2010 at 01:23 AM
In Israel, it's something of a given for negotiations to be called by embattled leaders. The press and opposition in the Knesset tend to back off to allow the "peace process" to continue, no matter what they suspect its cynical origins to be.
Posted by: New Foreclosure Online | November 10, 2010 at 03:30 AM
thanks info in this article is very good and interestin article, Bush's remarks earlier in Jerusalem as an attack on him, although the White House said they were not directed at the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Posted by: Cathy Cassells | November 12, 2010 at 01:53 AM
One Israeli general was quoted as saying afterwards that there would be no peace agreement between Israel and Syria until the current administration left office,if that only enforces the point at all.
Posted by: Home Protect Home Warranty | November 16, 2010 at 05:30 AM
Well the painting Bush as insultingly anti-Israel, and grotesquely and deliberately willing to paint the survivors of the Holocaust as Chamberlain-like appeasers on Israel's 60th birthday.Thanks
Posted by: Al Dacascos | November 19, 2010 at 12:24 AM
The New York Times was having a truly stunning editorial..
Posted by: Gatehouse Academy Reviews | November 24, 2010 at 04:25 AM
Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama when he likened those who endorse talks with “terrorists and radicals” to appeasers of the Nazis.
Posted by: Gatehouse Academy Reviews | November 25, 2010 at 03:15 AM
I think Israel and America for together for peace, not never ending war against think tank created boogie men. Cheney, Bush, Feith, Podhoretz, Boot, Libby, and t
Posted by: PetCareRx Complaints | November 26, 2010 at 04:48 AM
It was breathtakingly cynical to compare the leadership of the Jewish state with those who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught.
Posted by: Buy Toyota Parts | November 29, 2010 at 06:51 AM
Specialize in manufacture explosion proof light, including: explosion proof floodlight, led flashlight, spot lamp, led mining light, led searching light with rechargeable battery in China.
Posted by: led miner cap lamp | November 30, 2010 at 09:21 AM
e who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught.
Posted by: UGG støvler | August 29, 2011 at 04:38 AM