President Bush’s speech in the Israeli Knesset

Moving beyond the world of over-reactions and political drama, has anyone actually read President Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset?

…We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.
Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel’s independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world.
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: “Come let us declare in Zion the word of God.” The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.
Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before the dream was fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust — what Elie Wiesel called “the kingdom of the night.” Soulless men took away lives and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God. When news of Israel’s freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She later said: “For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words.”
The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom.
My country’s admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.
I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: “Masada shall never fall again.” Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.
This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It’s also an opportunity to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles — shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international elites.
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation.
We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.
We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms — whether by those who openly question Israel’s right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.
We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli’s leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction.
We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.
The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.
This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.
And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.
America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners in peace.
The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.
That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. So as we mark 60 years from Israel’s founding, let us try to envision the region 60 years from now. This vision is not going to arrive easily or overnight; it will encounter violent resistance. But if we and future Presidents and future Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in our ideals, here is the Middle East that we can see:
Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world’s great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved — a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with today’s oppression a distant memory and where people are free to speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists’ vision and the injustice of their cause.
Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of tolerance and integration. And this doesn’t mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized.
This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America’s closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on the earth.
Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.
Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel’s independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar — the key to the Zion Gate — and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, “Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day.” Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: “I accept this key in the name of my people.”
Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless.

Noel Sheppard writes:

…From a speech that lasted over 20 minutes — interrupted eight times by applause from Israeli Knesset members — America’s media exclusively reported 83 words they felt insulted the candidate for president they have been unashamedly supporting for over a year.
Everything else in the President’s stirring and emotional address went completely ignored, so much so that the other 2,400 words were totally irrelevant, as was the signficance of the day and the moment…

Or, as Andy McCarthy said:

Can Somebody Explain to Me…how Obama sat in Wright’s church for 20 years and managed never to hear anything, but hears 20 seconds of a Bush speech that doesn’t mention him and perceives a shameful personal attack?

ADDENDUM
In response to the first comment from Greg in the Comments section, let me highlight my response:

The point of this post was not to be a Bush apologist but to point out the overall nature of Bush’s speech and thereby provide a context for showing how Obama looked thin-skinned and defensive by over-reacting to the appeasement comment. And to point out how the media grabbed 83 words of the speech and focused only on them.
Separately, it is a blunt truth that Bush has greatly damaged, if not destroyed, the Republican “brand” through the reckless domestic spending which fell under his “compassionate conservatism” label (assisted in no small part by the then-Republican-controlled Congress), through his horrible handling of the illegal immigration issue, through poor execution for several years of the Iraq war, and for his general inarticulateness in defining and advancing a coherent policy agenda on a consistent basis.
It is why I have previously said I hoped the Republicans lost control of the House in 2006 and spent some time in the wilderness and why I have criticized McCain directly in the past on this blog site, saying he wasn’t presidential timber. (And that doesn’t even touch my problems with his policy preferences on illegal immigration.)
As a result, not only is the party direction-less but a generation of young people, unlike the 1980’s, has been brought up with absolutely no reason to be part of the party’s efforts.
And some of us older conservatives, who never completely bought into the party stuff anyway, are now adrift. McCain is hardly a viable alternative for some of us and it is far from clear at this time whether some of us will sit on the sidelines in November or not.
The real issue I am trying to highlight here in raising Obama’s increasingly clear and worrisome foreign policy views is that those views, which only become more troubling with the passage of time, may drive some of us to hold our nose and vote for McCain when we were originally going to not vote for him.
Underlying the November politics of all this are two very different views of human nature, how the world works, and the scope of the battle against Islamofascism. My broader intent is to highlight the differences between those two vastly different world views because that is both worthy of debate and crucial to scrutinize, even as Obama attempts to declare such conversations as off limits.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg
Greg
13 years ago

If anything, I would really love to see this site STOP trying to be “Bush Apologists”. This last eight years have been nothing short of some of the DARKEST in American history and that’s largely due the Moron-in-Chief and his half-baked bad ideas. We still don’t know what his REAL motives are/were but we know that his buddies in Big Oil got rich while the rest of us are scraping together gas money from the change under the couch cushions.
This jerk could give a speech on how the sun is shining and water is wet and we’d all be remiss if we didn’t check to make sure that was true.

joe bernstein
joe bernstein
13 years ago

Right Greg-Bush is the person that a politician most fears getting an endorsement from.Bush and cheney and their gang of neo con draft dodging sit at home warriors are the ones making it possible for the left wing agenda to have a shot at becoming reality as a reaction rather than on its own merits.Without the 8 years of screwing things up,Obama would be doing well to get re-elected in Illinois in 2010.Now people are entranced by “change”which is actually a return to the days of Johnson and Carter for domestic and foreign policy respectively with a few add-ons like amnesty for illegal aliens and draconian gun control.

Donald B. Hawthorne
Donald B. Hawthorne
13 years ago

Greg: The point of this post was not to be a Bush apologist but to point out the overall nature of Bush’s speech and thereby provide a context for showing how Obama looked thin-skinned and defensive by over-reacting to the appeasement comment. And to point out how the media grabbed 83 words of the speech and focused only on them. Separately, it is a blunt truth that Bush has greatly damaged, if not destroyed, the Republican “brand” through the reckless domestic spending which fell under his “compassionate conservatism” label (assisted in no small part by the then-Republican-controlled Congress), through his horrible handling of the illegal immigration issue, through poor execution for several years of the Iraq war, and for his general inarticulateness in defining and advancing a coherent policy agenda on a consistent basis. It is why I have previously said I hoped the Republicans lost control of the House in 2006 and spent some time in the wilderness and why I have criticized McCain directly in the past on this blog site, saying he wasn’t presidential timber. As a result, not only is the party direction-less but a generation of young people, unlike the 1980’s, has been brought up with absolutely no reason to be part of the party’s efforts. And some of us older conservatives, who never completely bought into the party stuff anyway, are now adrift. McCain is hardly a viable alternative for some of us and it is far from clear at this time whether some of us will sit on the sidelines in November or not. The real issue I am trying to highlight in here in raising Obama’s increasingly clear and worrisome foreign policy views is that those views, which only become more troubling with the passage of time, may drive some of us… Read more »

george
george
13 years ago

It’s too bad the White House admitted, anonymously mind you, that his remarks were aimed at Obama.

Donald B. Hawthorne
Donald B. Hawthorne
13 years ago

Maybe the comments were directed at Obama, maybe they weren’t. Anonymous comments are never entirely reliable. White House sources later said the appeasement comment was directed at Jimmy Carter.
I would make the response of “Who cares?”
None of that really matters because the issue became Obama’s (and many other Democrat’s) reaction, the one thing Obama had control over.
I would further argue that if Obama was tougher and less thin-skinned, he would have simply agreed publicly that appeasement is bad. Something like “Well, duh, of course appeasement is a bad course of action. Next question…”
And the whole thing would have blown over.
But he didn’t do that and there is “information” in how he actually did respond.

Greg
Greg
13 years ago

I think the “No, no we were talking about Jimmy Carter, the single most irrelevant political figure alive today,” spin was crap. It was delivered half-heartedly by a spinmeister that didn’t even try to sell it.
Of course they were talking about Obama.
I think they had every right for getting indignant. All the Dems want is to TRY diplomacy first instead of Captain Kirk-ing every situation.
You remember diplomacy, don’t you? Where people that don’t like each other sit around a table and hash out a bribe that makes everybody acceptably unsatisfied with the situation but the U.S. military doesn’t have to show up and turn your country into a s$&% hole for the next 50 years.

Donald B. Hawthorne
Donald B. Hawthorne
13 years ago

Greg: The challenge, I believe, here is to ask whether diplomacy has any chance of working with both people whose world view does not tolerate opposition and with enemies who, in some cases, are not even nation-states. Does anyone think a diplomatic pathway would change bin Laden’s course of action against us? European diplomats have talked with Iran for years now about limiting the latter’s nuclear programs…without success. Meanwhile the head of Iran talks about wiping Israel off the map, talks ominously about the USA, and is developing missiles which will be able to reach Europe – eventually with nuclear warheads. Iran has been fighting the USA in some fashion since Khomeni took over in the late 1970’s; no President before Bush II has had any success changing Iranian behaviors via diplomatic channels. The USA has talked diplomatically with the Palestinians over numerous administrations and has nothing to show for it as violence continues and the charters of the PA and Hamas both still say one of their goals is to destroy Israel. And after numerous diplomatic efforts, the Arabic newspapers report what the Palestinians really are saying even as their statements in English say something different. We have seen diplomatic efforts by Carter, Clinton and Bush with North Korea go nowhere and they now not only have nuclear weapons but have apparently been helping the Syrians develop the same. So we have a conundrum where the world is infected with some truly bad people who can’t be reasoned with. And those are at least nation-states with identified leaders! On what basis would anyone hold diplomatic negotiations with Hezbollah? So the unanswered question is: How do you deal with such people, many of who overtly call for the destruction of our country and/or Western Civilization? Now, that doesn’t mean that… Read more »

OldTimeLefty
13 years ago

Don,
You have expended more words on this topic than it’s worth because you have a political ax to grind. The sharpness of the ax is in inverse proportion to the number of times you voted for George W Bush for president. My guess is that the ax is very dull.
OldTimeLefty

rhody
rhody
13 years ago

I guess the sheiks Bush begged to pump more oil were real impressed by his cowboy act at the Knesset.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.