Friday, September 23, 2005
A New Ambassador To Israel?
Well, this doesn't look promising...
And what's really going on with Israel? Having withdrawn from Gaza, Israel doesn't even get Washington lip service when it comes to its determination not to assist in PA elections that feature Hamas terrorists.Indeed. Ambassador Jones was quoted, just this past Tuesday, as follows: "I am not familiar with Israel, but I plan to study the country as soon as possible."
Which begs the question: Whatever happened to George W. Bush's raison d'etre — namely, that we oppose terror networks and the countries that support them? Maybe the answer lies in what passes for tea leaves these days — as in the fact that the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's right-hand man on Iraq, has "roots in the Arab world so deep," reports the Washington Post, "that his beloved greyhound is named Kisa — for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, his first posting in the Arab world." Explains Mr. Jones: "Maybe they wanted someone who could provide the Arab perspective, too."
Which is weird, at best. Of all countries, Israel certainly knows the Arab point of view, historically delivered at gunpoint. But why, oh why, is the American ambassador concerned with presenting the Arab point of view? Is the Arab point of view the American point of view? And where does that leave us in the so-called war on terror?
Better hit those books, Mr. Ambassador.
I had hoped -- see my most recent post -- that President Bush would not be a President (the latest in a long line) to let Israel down in times of need. Eisenhower did it; Johnson was no help; Carter's naivete is legendary in Israel, making Clinton look omniscent by comparison. And, of course, the current President's father set the gold standard for callous treatment of Israel.
Let's hope GWB is better than that. But between this and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, I'm not as hopeful as I was.