Lisa L. Rubin is a senior administrative analyst at the Dean’s
Office of the School of Medicine.
By Lisa L. Rubin
In his recent piece, Nathan Gonzalez opines that the presidency
of George W. Bush is lacking in statesmanship (“President
Bush needs to exhibit statesmanship,” Viewpoint, May 6).
While I agree with him in principle, the evidence he offers in
support of this allegation is not, in my opinion, that which would
first come to mind for a majority of Americans.
As corroboration Gonzalez offers Bush’s demand to Prime
Minister Sharon that Sharon withdraw his troops from areas of the
West Bank during Israel’s recent military incursion into
Palestinian controlled areas, which had functioned as the origin of
terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Israel’s
“defiance” of this demand, Gonzalez posits, not only
“marks us as targets for vengeful terrorism” but also
diminishes the stature of the United States in the international
community by creating the image of a “paper tiger.”
A statesman, as defined by Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary, is: one actively engaged in conducting the business of
government or in shaping its policies. It would seem to me that in
conducting the business of government during his first two years in
office, the policies for which the Bush Administration will be
remembered, those which will define and shape its legacy, will be
its post-Sept. 11 policies on terrorism.
In reviewing the president’s many statements to the press
during Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield, one notes that he was
constantly redefining the term “immediate” when used in
the context of the withdrawal of Israeli troops. Sometimes
“immediate” seemed to mean “as soon as Israel
deems it feasible to wind up the operation,” and at other
times “immediate” seemed to mean “by the time
Powell finds his way to the Middle East.” There was
ambiguity.
Where the president has never been ambiguous is in his
definition of a terrorist. I believe there are very few people in
this country who will forget his multi-faceted definition:
“If you feed a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you harbor
a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you fund a terrorist, you are
a terrorist.” And lest we forget, “If you are a
terrorist, we will hunt you down, no matter where you
hide!”
Unlike Mr. Gonzalez, who sees Israeli “defiance” and
Puppeteer Bush’s unwillingness to pull Israel’s
financial strings as the defining moment in the president’s
statesmanship, I say it was the demand itself that Israel withdraw
its troops that called the quality of Bush’s statesmanship
into question.
The United States’ War on Terror began in the fall of 2001
when President Bush threw down the gauntlet to all those he would
draw into the coalition by declaring: “Either you’re
with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” The Saudis and
the Egyptians have been significant beneficiaries of U.S. aid, yet
these two countries linger at the edges of the coalition, sharing a
policy on terrorism which is composed mostly of smoke and
mirrors.
Granted, Israel, too, has benefited mightily from U.S.
assistance over the years. However, in this fight Israel has been
with us 100 percent of the way.
I say again to Mr. Gonzalez, it was not the defiance but the
demand that called into question the president’s
statesmanship. It shows a decided lack of statesmanship on the part
of President Bush to demand that the Israelis fight this war with
one hand tied behind their backs!