At Israel's Parliament, a French Lesson in Leadership for Bush
Barely a month after President Bush chose the venue of Israel's Knesset to scold his domestic critics (or was he scolding the Israeli leadership, as this NYT editorial suggests) with accusations of appeasement, French President Nicholas Sarkozy found himself at the same podium yesterday, but with dramatically different results.
Sarko gave his American counterpart something of a French lesson not only in how to behave at a foreign parliament, but also in what constitutes both friendship to an ally and leadership on an issue.
The full Sarkozy speech is here (in French, the English version is not yet available, but highlights can be read here)--and contrasting it to Bush's May 15th effort is nothing short of embarrassing.
Sarkozy is credited by Israel and by the French Jewish community with having immeasurably improved French-Israeli bilateral relations. He is considered a friend and trusted ally and was feted during his Israel visit--no less than his Washington equivalent.
Sarkozy's speech was warm, full of admiration for Israel's accomplishments and understanding for Israel's genuine security concerns--but it also contained the home truths that the Israeli's needed to hear and that a visiting friend was best placed to impart. It contained precisely the ingredient--honest friendly advice or leadership--that was so absent in Bush's gutless pander-fest. Take this as a useful corrective to David Brook's gushing op-ed today and a reminder that when in Jerusalem brave Bush becomes "le wimp".
Bush did refer to some of what is needed for a peace deal during his visit last month--but that was in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt three days later, not in the Knesset--really courageous of you, Mr. President.
Two Presidents, two speeches, one leader:
President Bush on the borders for a 2 state solution: ___________.President Sarkozy: "It is not possible to have peace without a negotiated border based on the 1967 lines with an exchange of territories."
President Bush on settlements: ___________.
President Sarkozy: "Peace cannot be achieved without a total and immediate cessation of the settlements."
President Bush on Jerusalem's future status: ___________.
President Sarkozy: "Peace cannot be achieved without the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and guaranteeing freedom of access to holy sites for all religions."
President Bush on the Palestinian refugee issue: ___________.
President Sarkozy: "Peace cannot be achieved without solving the problem of the Palestinian refugees, while respecting the identity and purpose of Israel."
President Bush on Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Syrian, or Israeli-Lebanese peace talks: _________.
President Sarkozy: "(France) is ready to organize on its soil all the talks that could lead to (peace), whether in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the Syrian-Israeli dialogue, or the talks that will have to resume, one day soon I hope, between Israel and Lebanon."
Both stated their commitment to Israel's existence and security, and expressed their staunch opposition to anti-Semitism. And both of course discussed the threat of Iran.
Just how appalling was the use of the phrase "the false comfort of appeasement", by America's leader to describe negotiations is given a new clarity when one considers that "appeasement" (read: diplomacy) has been outsourced by the Bushies to the French and other Europeans.
So Sarko spoke of both "sanctions" and "openness" regarding Iran. The U.S. is backing the EU 3's talks with Iran--but then hurling abuse about it when in the Knesset or when it suits domestic politics.
This is all the more stunning when one considers that President Sarkozy has also improved US-France relations, is close to Bush, and is hardly a 'gauchiste'. But then this was not really about ideology--Bush probably agrees with Sarkozy on the substance of 2 states--it was about leadership, or the lack thereof.
Oh, and by the way, after the Sarkozy tough love speech there was appreciation, applause and respect from the Israeli's--and no sign of menu's offering "freedom fries" in the Knesset cafeteria.
Comments (8)
My fundamentalist Christian, movement conservative father asked me today to pick him up a copy of Bugliosi's new book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." Clearly, this is this sign of the second coming and the indication that it is far too late, if it was ever possible, in any event, to teach Bush or Cheney or any of this crew anything about the ways of the world or appropriate behavior, diplomatic or otherwise, in a global environment.
My own view is that they were always incorrigible and unreflective, (that is, way too screwed up), whatever the surface or deeply psychological explanation, to change anything once they "assumed" office. Apparently, this is what ideology does for people who are capable of seeing only what they want to see -- it turns them into rabid egomaniacs, tyrants, and fools and the rest of us into victims, some less innocent than others.
June 24, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Keep in mind, though, that being reflective means being consistent, and then it demands hard work reviewing speeches, orders and plans for consistency.
Bush has neither the verbal fluency in the written word required to be consistent. His delivery of speeches he reads from the teleprompter in bursts of no more than four or five words at a time demonstrates that. Plus, it's hard work, something Bush has spent all his life avoiding.
Cheny may be quite consistent in his evil, but he is so manipulative, secretive and duplicitous no one ever knows what he really intends.
And yes, both are incorrigible.
It's no surprise that Bush presented one or two weak sound bytes to the Knesset instead of the clear effort to understand the issues that Sarkozy presented. Except for the domestic American political implications, neither he nor Cheney care about either Israel or the Palestinians. They have spent seven years demonstrating that.
June 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I finished reading this book last weekend and I certainly hope that someone out there has the balls to prosecute Bush the way that Vincent lays out. It's a well written book. Heh, he even calls out Rush Limbaugh for a 2 hour debate. Says he doesn't have time to waste on debating "the wannabes" so to speak.
June 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually reading this made me sad. ie It just goes to show what a right winger can get away with that a Democrat assumes he can't.
(is contrast this with Obama's speech to AIPAC)
sigh
June 24, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually reading this made me sad. ie It just goes to show what a right winger can get away with that a Democrat assumes he can't.
(is contrast this with Obama's speech to AIPAC)
sigh
June 24, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably a mistake to gush too much over President Sarkozy: he is, after all, just another career politician - the main contrast, though is that Sarko at least tries to come across as some sort of statesman when making speeches in fora like the Knesset: our own Cretin-in-Chief doesn't even seem to make that little bit of effort.
*sigh*
So what else is new?
June 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One might say that the professionalism of the staff at Quai d'Orsay are kept to a higher standard than at the State Department.
June 26, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This piece reinforces my disgust for the constant criticism of France by "patriotic" Americans. Sometimes I'm just so embarrassed to be associated with Bush, just because I'm an American.
June 25, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink