In the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush said his policies in the Middle East would be markedly different than those of his predecessor.
The hallmark of the change, he promised, would be the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to the Jewish state’s capital of Jerusalem.
This week, President Bush broke that promise.
Just as Bill Clinton did repeatedly throughout his administration, Bush last Monday extended an administrative ban on the move for at least another six months. Bill Clinton, too, had promised in 1992 to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
In other words, George Bush is continuing the same U.S, policies in the Middle East that have produced such dismal results – policies that have failed miserably by any standard you wish to use.
In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, even authorizing the funds necessary to relocate the embassy. But Clinton repeatedly resorted to the temporary administrative ban procedure. And now Bush gives every appearance of continuing business as usual in a region that calls for anything but business as usual.
The question is: Why would this administration continue to follow the lead of the Clinton administration’s failed policies in the Mideast? Did the decision to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv result in peace? Or have such tentative moves resulted in more violence and uncertainty? Why would anyone continue to follow the same old failed policies in the Mideast?
Another example of status-quo policymaking in the Mideast is the appointment of Daniel Kurtzer as ambassador to Israel. This decision is even more indicative that Clinton Mideast policies are continuing under Bush.
More than perhaps any other individual in the State Department, Kurtzer is the architect of the policies that have reduced Israel to fighting for its life in a guerrilla war in the streets of Ramallah, Gaza and even Jerusalem. Now he has gotten the appointment he always coveted – as ambassador to Israel in Tel Aviv.
When Kurtzer got the job, it should have been clear to any informed Middle East observer that the embassy was not going to move. He would never stand for it. That important symbolic act would have gone against the grain of all he has stood for since his days in the first Bush administration.
Kurtzer wasn’t a surprise choice. In fact, he’s the obvious choice if your goal is to continue a peace process that has failed – and failed 100 percent. What was a surprise – and disappointment to many Christians and Jews alike who support the state of Israel and its right to defend itself – was the way Kurtzer was named.
You see, there was an alternative name put forth for consideration by a great many friends and political allies of the Bush administration. Granted it wasn’t a predictable name. It wasn’t necessarily a “safe” name. But it was a big name – one that commands broad support and respect among Bush’s evangelical base.
The name was Ed McAteer – a Christian businessman who has been known as a friend of Israel for at least two decades. McAteer, president of the Religious Roundtable, has, at the urging of friends and elected officials, allowed his name to be submitted for consideration by the White House.
A remarkably diverse coalition of national and local elected officials and Christian and Jewish leaders sent letters of support on his behalf. These included: Governors Don Sundquist of Tennessee and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Mayor Willie Herenton of Memphis, Rep. Ed Bryant of Tennessee, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, Americans for a Safe Israel Chairman Herbert Zweibon, Southern Baptist Convention President James Merritt, Rabbi Rafael Grossman, Bush’s Tennessee Chairman David Kustoff, Pastor Adrian Rogers, Thomas Nelson Publishers President Sam Moore, Phyllis Schlafly and, yes, even this columnist, who rarely gets involved in this kind of personal politicking.
What bothered some of those people – many of them long-time Bush supporters – was not so much that their man didn’t get the job. What disturbed them was that not one of those folks got so much as a personal letter from the White House explaining the final choice.
Imagine that. In 1988, Ed McAteer not only headed up Christians and Jews for Bush at the request of W’s father, he turned down similar invitations from candidates Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson and Bob Dole. And he never got so much as a personal letter or meeting from the current Bush administration – and neither did any of those endorsing his candidacy.
It seems that in both substance and style, Bush administration policy in the Mideast is going to mimic the failed policies of Bill Clinton.
