« Does the President's God Want Peace? | Home | How Big is the Tent of Liberalism? »

Does the President's God Want Peace?

Most press reports on President Bush's tour of the Middle East note that he kept talking about peace between Israel and the Palestinians but could cite "no concrete steps" aimed at achieving it.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Subcommittee, I saw first-hand how the Bush administration not only failed to help bring peace to Israel and the occupied territories in 2001-2007, but seemed actively interested in thwarting the Palestinian dream of achieving an independent homeland in the West Bank and Gaza.

Faced with that glaring difference between what the administration says and what it does, I could only conclude that the president is quietly allied with the Jim Inhofes and Tom DeLays of the world, whose fundamentalist interpretation of the Old Testament leads them to believe that the God of the Bible does not want Palestinians governing any part of the Promised Land.

I construct a longer and more detailed argument for that conclusion in Against The Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President. But here I urge readers to ask themselves why the president, in two terms of office, did nothing to strengthen Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmood Abbas and hold him up as an alternative to Hamas. He could have promoted the peace he said he wanted by demanding a halt to the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, by encouraging Israel to negotiate the route of the separation barrier, and to either free or try the Palestinian prisoners held without charges.He did none of the above, to the dismay of Abbas and other moderates.

The president himself said in 2003 that a Palestinian homeland in the West Bank would be impossible if Israel kept carving up the land into smaller and smaller pieces.

Why the lofty talk and, even now, no action?

Senator Inhofe once proclaimed on the Senate floor that Israel is not free to yield any part of its territory to the Palestinians. "In Genesis, the Bible says: 'The Lord said to Abram, Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever... '

"This is God talking," Inhofe declared. "This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the Word of God is true."

I believe that President Bush operates under the same belief. It's the only answer that explains his administration's record on the peace process.

Given his many prevarications -- I'm a uniter not a divider, we can afford my tax cuts, I'll regulate carbon dioxide emissions, I'll have a humble foreign policy, we don't torture prisoners, we don't wiretap law-abiding Americans, Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat -- it's reasonable to conclude that President Bush has no intention of helping the Palestinians obtain a homeland, and never did.


Comments (19)

Senator Chafee, you really do understand President Bush. It is obvious that, one, he has no interest in Israel living in peace with its neighbors, and two, he has even less interest in speaking the truth about any subject.

There are very good reasons for the US Constitution requiring a separation between church and state, and Presidents like this one demonstrate that those reasons are valid. No one incapable of rational thought should be allowed to be president, and that applies whether the irrationality is religion based or just a mental impairment.

Once it became apparent that our president was irrational, impeachment should have been not just on the table, but foremost in the thoughts of Congress. Add the rampant law violations by this president and impeachment was no longer an option, but a necessity. Perhaps you can explain why this Congress has been so remiss in that duty.

avatar
it's reasonable to conclude that President Bush has no intention of helping the Palestinians obtain a homeland, and never did.

It should also be evident that Bush and his base in the Republican Party have had the sole and unifying intention of using their control of the government for one and only one objective-enriching themselves and their wealthy supporters. What good have they done for anyone else?

avatar

I think it was in the 1999-2000 debates when Bush was asked the question reagarding what he would say to Isreal if he was given the chance, and he said something along the lines of, "I'm going to tell them that they are going to hell."

avatar

I understand that Bush intended to leave Israel this time around with a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine in place - and in fact he said as much.

I really think that Bush lives in at least two completely separate realities. For example, in 2003 he said that a Palestinian homeland was impossible if Israel kept carving up the West Bank into smaller and smaller pieces - practical, pragmatic, reasonable and logical.

But it's at times like that, when he's faced with the task of dealing with what he knows needs to be dealt with that his fear of failure kicks in he leaves what is very real and escapes into a reality of his own making where he is not under obligation to confront and solve the problem.

I'll bet that this characteristic, actually a kind of illness, of Bush has been quite evident to those around him for most of his adult life. And I hold those people ultimately responsible for what has been a tragic eight years in American history.

I

One of the problems is that very few Senators and/or House Members have the courage you have. I always found in that you'd say the same things in private and in public.
Many (if not most) of your colleagues had the same take as you in private but in public mouthed the lobby's talking points.
One gets used to it.
All the same the absence of Lincoln Chafee from the halls of Congress is a great loss.
Luckily, you are still young. Plenty of time to run for office again as a Democrat. We'll keep the lights on for you.

avatar

Every time you say Members of Congress are duplicitous on Israel=Palestine issues, I intend to ask you to name the names. Otherwise you are full of shit.

Pretty much all of them. But, thanks to your crowd, the last thing I'm going to do is name them so that they can be targeted for defeat for being "pro-Palestinian" in private. To put it simply, if we had full public financing of elections, which will never happen, AIPAC would not get 50 Members of Congress at their "by demand" reception in Washington or more than 50 to co-sponsor the resolutions they write and which Members feel they must sign or be harassed and threatened.


I urge readers to ask themselves why the president, in two terms of office, did nothing to strengthen Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmood Abbas and hold him up as an alternative to Hamas.

Well, the Bushies did kinda do that. In their own inimitable way.

Eager to reverse the results of the election, Rice decided on a new plan of action that resulted in fighting in the streets of Gaza between Hamas and Fatah gunmen. The plan, which she developed after speaking to President Bush, was to put pressure on the Hamas government by providing the Palestinian security forces loyal to Abbas with training, intelligence, and large shipments of supplies and new weapons, paid for by the United States and by Saudi Arabia.

The hope was that Hamas, faced with a well-armed, well-trained force of Fatah fighters, might be cowed into moderating its positions or relinquishing the power it had won through elections. Alternatively, Hamas might be pressured into an escalating series of gun battles, in which case Abbas, as head of the Palestinian security forces, would have an excuse to crush Hamas by force...

I think for El Presidente and the Cabal it is a very simple premise.

Since 9/11/01 we have been at "war" with terrorists. In the Junta's view since some Palestinians have engaged in terror attacks none of them they can be negotiated with. And if we did urge the the Israelis to enter serious negotiations with the people who are considered to be an "enemy" in a time of war it would show weakness.

I wholeheartedly reject this kind of thinking. It is just more in a long line unilateral absolutist bullshit we've seen put forth by King George and his court. It is the "it can only be good vs. evil, you are either with us or against us" insanity. The same thinking applies to Iran, etc.

Does the President's God Want Peace?

If his is the God of the Old Testament, the answer, sadly, might well be 'No' ...

But, attempting to divine the intentions of an OT God is no business for Christians, of all people, to be bothering with.

"Do not return evil for evil. Avenge not yourselves, but rather give way to wrath; for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:17-21

Matthew 5:9 calls on all Christians to strive to be peacemakers.

Whenever we see a betrayal of Christian principles by church leadership, or by self-proclaimed 'Christian' political leaders, we should ask them how they square the old-time NT gospel of peace that Jesus preached with the newfangled gospel of war that they're preaching.

Our Christian concern is not to discern whether or not God wants peace, but rather, to follow His NT command to make it.

Sorry for the sermon. Guys like Inhofe piss me off. That you may be the biggest, baddest Biblical literalist on the block says absolutely nothing about your adherence to Christian principles.

It's not as bad as you make it out to be.

It's well known Abraham had glaucoma.

Who would've thought you're Bitó László's biggest fan?

And I thought I was making a funny.

Amazing; absolutely amazing! There really isn't anything new under the sun -- or at least on the internets.

Lincoln Chaffee says:

"Faced with that glaring difference between what the administration says and what it does,...."


Not long after Bush took office in 2001, he and Laura made a visit to the Boys and Girls Club of Wilmington, Del. It made for great TV as Bush told the audience how valuable they were in forming our young people to be law abiding, patriotic, hard working Americans....something to be proud of.

Not long after this photo op, I read that Bush cut federal funding to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America by 50%. This was the first time I saw that what he says and what he does are often two different things. How many times have I seen him do this in the ensuing years? Let me count the ways....

I believe that President Bush operates under the same belief. It's the only answer that explains his administration's record on the peace process.

You may be right Senator, but I don't think you can discount Bush's profound ignorance and incompetence. This President seems incapable of engaging himself deeply enough in any complex problem to understand its subtleties or to effect any kind of solution. Bush appears (from this distance at least) to be an extraordinarily superficial person who embraces cliches and platitudes because he's either too stupid or too lazy to think through issues himself. And like a spoiled and petulant child he believes things should happen just because he says they should happen. He doesn't understand work. Relying instead on his name, his wealth, his inflated ego, and his dismissiveness and temper, he's never had to do any real work. And so everything he touches is ineffectual and mediocre. While Bush may be remembered most for his abject failure in Iraq, Katrina is the defining event of his Presidency--it laid the emperor bare for all to see. As New Orleans sunk, America realized what it had for a leader. Or what it didn't have.
Heck of a job, Brownie.

PURPLE STATE POST: "Bush appears (from this distance at least) to be an extraordinarily superficial person who embraces cliches and platitudes because he's either too stupid or too lazy to think through issues himself."

RECENTLY IN THE NEWS: Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for......Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah's show of strength evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence. In Bush's view, the official said, "the disease must be treated - not its symptoms."

Yeah well the neocons suffered a setback today when Israel announced they were gonna have talks with Syria. A neocon defeat on foreign policy is almost always a win for sanity. A light at the end of the tunnel hopefully? As someone very wise said long ago;

"A bad peace is always better than a good war"

it's reasonable to conclude that President Bush has no intention of helping the Palestinians obtain a homeland, and never did.

Very reasonable.

But the evidence is even better for concluding that Palestinians and other Arabs have no intention of allowing Jews to keep their homeland, and never did.

If you accept that then Israeli settlements and poor treatment of Palestinians are eminently reasonable, as is Republican support. No need to resort to God.

Of course, "progressives" can never accept that conclusion no matter how good the evidence. Because if it's true their entire world view is not.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


July 21-25

Bill Bishop The Big Sort

July 28-August 1

Book Cover

August 4-9

Book Cover

August 11-15

James Galbraith The Predator State

August 18-22

Book Cover

September 1-4

Book Cover

September 15-20

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Al Shaw



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address