RUTHFULLY YOURS

Bush confirms that only a self-reliant Israel that is willing to stand up to America and win is considered an asset by the American establishment. Everybody supports winners especially Americans and Israel is not perceived as a winner by those who count. I can only but concur with that perception. It’s not to late to change that perception though but I fear it won’t happen under BB. Yamit

Daled Amos

Reuters has an advance copy of George Bush’s memoir Decision Points, in which Bush writes that he received–and turned down–a request by then-Prime Minister Olmert to bomb the Syrian nuclear plant:

Former President George W. Bush says he considered ordering a U.S. military strike against a suspected Syrian nuclear facility at Israel’s request in 2007 but ultimately opted against it.

Israel eventually destroyed the facility, which Syria denied was aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.

In his memoir, “Decision Points,” to hit bookstores on Tuesday, Bush wrote that he received an intelligence report about a “suspicious, well-hidden facility in the eastern desert of Syria” that looked similar to a nuclear facility at Yongbyon, North Korea. This prompted suspicions that Syria was trying to develop a weapons program with North Korean help.

Shortly afterward, he spoke by phone with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

“George, I’m asking you to bomb the compound,” Olmert told Bush, according to the book, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

Bush said he discussed options with his national security team. A bombing mission was considered “but bombing a sovereign country with no warning or announced justification would create severe blowback,” he wrote.

As it turned out, Israel went ahead and attacked the Syrian facility on its own–a mission that for which Bush did not give the green light, nor was he asked for it.

And what was Bush’s reaction to Israel’s attack?

Bush wrote that Olmert’s “execution of the strike” against the Syrian compound made up for the confidence he had lost in the Israelis during their 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Bush feels had a mixed outcome.

Keep in mind that the war with Hezbollah began in July 2006–yet the Bush administration apparently had begun to lose confidence even before then.

According to a post on IMRA back in April 2006, Bush did not think that Israel was up to the challenge of the war against terrorism:

Bush and some of his aides have been quietly concerned over the image of Israel as a country ready to withdraw in the face of terrorism. Privately, leading aides and strategists believe that Israel’s hesitancy to fight Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups could encourage Al Qaida and those sworn to defeat the United States. They also see Israel’s failure to defeat Palestinian insurgents as encouraging Iran’s belligerency.

…Bush’s attitude toward Israel has changed as well. Until 2002, Bush saw Israel has a powerful ally of the United States and able to deter its enemies. Today, the president sees Israel as weak and Bush has publicly pledged to protect the Jewish state from an Iranian attack. Quietly, Israeli defense officials dismiss Bush’s pledge was little more than symbolic given the start of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

“The feeling in both the administration and among belatedly among many conservatives in Congress is that Israel has to accept the fate of a small nation reliant on a superpower patron,” a leading U.S. analyst who is close to the administration said.

So which is it: did Bush start losing confidence in Israel because Israel was hesitant to engage Hezbollah, among others, or because it did engage Hezbollah–but fought it to a draw (at best)?

Either way, the Syrian attack would have eased the doubts that Bush had.

Of course, today it is a moot point–Bush’s concerns are not Obama’s and Obama has shown no real interest in Israel as a military asset, let alone as an ally. If anything, the current president would welcome a more hesitant Israel.

Following the midterm elections and the Republican resurgence, however, a more assertive Israel might not only be more welcome, but also more appreciated as well. If indeed the Republicans are in favor of a more aggressive policy towards Iran, Israel may once again be perceived as an asset and not as the roadblock to peace in the Middle East.