The Bush Doctrine Can't Succeed with Exceptions

by Mark R. Levin
June 10, 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin061003.asp

When George W. Bush is good, he's very good. But when 
he's bad, he's very bad.

He's good on taxes, and bad on spending. He's good on 
judges, and bad on campaign-finance reform. He's a good 
wartime president, and a bad ally of Israel.

Yes, I said a bad ally of Israel.

The terrorist group Hamas announced the other day that it 
would not abide by the president's roadmap for peace, and 
would not cease terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. 
And Hamas, joined by other terrorist groups, has made 
good on its threat by killing Israeli soldiers and 
civilians. In response, today Israeli helicopters targeted 
a senior Hamas leader and wounded him.

In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said 
President Bush is "concerned that this strike will undermine 
efforts by Palestinian authorities to bring an end to 
terrorist attacks, and it does not contribute to the 
security of Israel."

Fleischer's statement on behalf of the president is not 
only offensive, but is a flat-out rejection of the policy 
the Bush administration itself has established in dealing 
with terrorism.

First, Israel is a democracy and a sovereign state. That 
Israel relies heavily on U.S. economic and military aid 
does not alter these facts. Israel's elected leaders, 
not the United States, decide what's in her best national-
security interest. Israel's leaders are accountable to
the Israeli people, just as President Bush is accountable 
to the American people. Israel's leaders not only have the 
right to take steps to protect their citizens, but failing 
to do so is a gross abrogation of their responsibilities. 
The president's public rebukes are not only arrogant, but 
they undermine Israel's ability to stand up to its terrorist 
attackers.

Second, the president was rightly offended when France used 
its position on the U.N. Security Council to try to defeat 
the Bush Doctrine as applied to Iraq. Yet, the Bush 
administration has no qualms about imposing a contradictory 
policy on Israel -- which requires Israel to accept, without 
retaliation, terrorist attacks on its people. In exchange, 
Israel is expected to entrust her survival on yet another 
"land-for-peace" initiative. This is not how America should 
treat its allies, especially those under siege.

Third, the president knows that Israel is a tiny country 
among a sea of enemies. Having been president during 9/11, 
he must understand the fear and anguish the Israeli people 
live with every day. In the aftermath of 9/11, he didn't 
sue for peace. He didn't seek negotiations with the Taliban 
regime. He rallied the nation around the principle of 
self-defense and ordered American forces into action.
President Bush did precisely the opposite of what he urges 
for Israel.

Fourth, it's no accident that the more land and security 
Israel surrenders, the more Israeli citizens are murdered. 
Terrorists see Israeli concessions, in the face of their 
attacks, as weakness and opportunity. And it's no accident 
that this has occurred during the Clinton and Bush years, 
the only two administrations to endorse a Palestinian 
homeland. What better evidence can there be that enough
Palestinians don't seek statehood and coexistence, but 
Israel's annihilation?

As long as Israel remains the exception to the Bush 
Doctrine, the doctrine cannot succeed. And if the Bush 
Doctrine fails, terrorism cannot be defeated.