print“President George W Bush called the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel an ‘act of terror’ and outlined his own conditions for a ceasefire in Gaza, in his weekly radio address to the American people.”
Listen to the president’s radio address. This is a very emphatic statement from George Bush. Such a forceful position in support for Israel makes it hard for the incoming president to deviate, or chart a new course.
Update I: The backdrop to the Israeli offensive:
A quarter of a million Israeli citizens have been living under incessant terror attacks from the Gaza Strip with thousands of missiles fired over the past eight years.
Israel left Gaza in 2005, giving Palestinians the chance to run their own lives. Despite this, more than 6300 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel since then.
During the past year alone, more than 3000 rockets and mortars have been launched into Israel.
As US President-elect Obama stated during a visit to Sderot five months ago, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.”
More…
Update II (Jan. 4): Regarding Bush and the comment by “gunjam” (may his gun never jam): Bush’s support for Israel’s self-defense need not be psychologized. The president’s violation of the negative rights of Iraqis; and his support for those of Israelis is not courageous, but craven and contradictory. As I observed in “Conservatives For Killing Terri“:
I can think of only two occasions on which I agreed with George Bush. Both involved the upholding of the people’s negative, or leave-me-alone, rights.
The first was his refusal to capitulate to the Kyoto-protocol crazies. Not surprisingly, some conservatives denounced this rare flicker of good judgment. And I’m not talking a “Crunchy Con” of Andrew Sullivan’s caliber—he does proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. No less a conservative than Joe Scarborough commiserated with actor Robert Redford over the president’s “blind spot on the environment.” (Ditto Bill O’Reilly.)
The other Bush initiative I endorsed was the attempt by Congress to uphold Terri Schiavo’s inalienable right to life—a decision very many conservatives now rue.
Update III: Did I hear Bush claim Hamas took over Gaza by violent coup? This is what the neoconservatives would like their acolytes to believe. This pie-in-the-Palestinian-sky helps neocons downplay the failure of their democratic evangelizing. Hamas, of course, won the 2006 elections fair and square. Even J. Carter conceded that much, if I’m not mistaken, as did other observers like him, who rushed to the PA to watch their Palestinian protégés practice democracy. The neocons will never admit that a democratic heart does not beat in every breast. In their cultural relativism they are no different from the lefties. Neocons are simply lefties who like war.
Ms Mercer: That same tough (obdurate?) facet of President Bush’s character that led us into Iraq (much as you opposed this move!) is — dare I say it? — also enabling him to thumb his nose at world opinion regarding Israel’s recent (long overdue) foray into Gaza. The man infuriates and pleases in turns. He is not easily predictable, it seems. Your point that his now-articulated position will make it harder for Obama to change course regarding Israel v. Hamas is a brilliant insight that I have not read elsewhere — and I have fairly well covered the blogosphere for three days reading about this conflict. [Why, thank you.–IM]
I can’t wait for the day when Israel will be back (completely) in the Jews’ hands. Where it should be. Where it always should have been.
Israel probably needs to round up around 10,000 or so Hamas “fighters” and bring them into custody indefinitely. Nevertheless, Gaza is Israel’s problem and not (fortunately) mine so I have no standing to scold anyone. It does appear that they have learned the lesson of not relying solely on air power.