Yesterday, Israeli tanks and bulldozers rolled into Gaza as air strikes were conducted by American Apache helicopters during an Israeli military offensive which was the most extensive attack on Palestine since 1967. At least 20 Palestinians were killed including two children. Israel bulldozed down dozens of homes of poor Palestinians with plans to destroy more. Although the EU, UN, and many others condemned the actions of Israel, Bush, failed to say anything to discourage Israel, while pandering for the Israeli vote. All Bush would say was that that situation was "troubling" while placing special emphasis on the fact that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Today, Israel shot three flares and a missile into a crowd of Palestinians  who were demonstrating against Israel occupation and recent killings. 9 were killed including children and as many as 50 injured. Although Israel will argue, these killings were in the defense of Israel in its peace efforts, humanitarian groups called the actions of Israel "collective punishment." Bush refuses to condemn or criticize Israel. Why?

Bush ties Israel security to that of America

Bush equates Israel's security with that of America. In his speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) he asserted, "By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America. Our nation is stronger and safer because we have a true and dependable ally in Israel."

Some argue that the Iraq war was motivated by the desire to protect Israel. This may be true. The ties to Israel are strong with Paul Wolfowitz, a former HINEM board member (which has had an anti-Islamic bias) and others strongly influencing policy. However, some believe that Bush policy goes beyond merely protecting Israel and tying American security to Israel serves a broader ambition.

Project New American Century

Many around the world see it as part of the Project New American Century (PNAC) strategy for US hegemony advocated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others of influential with Bush. Although dismissed by many as a Jewish cabal "conspiracy theory" (an argument just effective to many as calling one a "liberal"), there is reason to at least consider the potential. It is difficult to completely disregard a plan overly advocated for years and years when it is being executed.

This may be one reason for not exerting US power to end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The Israeli problem is permitted to fester to provide a fuel for terrorist hatred, enhance concern and resistance by Islamists and in general antagonize the region to create a greater enemy for the clash of civilizations.

Because of the threat to the entire region - that Bush is openly advancing - the resistance in Iraq becomes greater because of support be others that are in the line of the Bush fire. As there is more resistance in Iraq, the greater the argument by Bush and his cronies for expanding the war to Iran and Syria to fight terrorism.

Core of the problems in the Middle East

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “at the core of the problems in the Middle East.” Unless part of the strategy is to incite hatred to worsen the Mideast situation, the strategy of support for Israel even to the detriment of the US does not make sense.  It is making things worse and some would argue they Bush is willfully trying to create ostensible justifications for expanding the war to Iran, Syria and others.

Bush should return the time honored tradition of fairness for which the US was known before Bush. Unless he wants to make sure he can continue his banner as the "war" president, he needs to change course. A step to restoring this reputation would be to become a “truly honest broker” between Israel and the Palestinians.

Something must be done to reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East. However, fairness would not be consistent with plans to democratize the Mideast by military means which needs greater hatred that leads to greater violence to justify its ambitions. 

Creating additional hatred may be deliberate

Bush focused upon the purported common threat posed to both  Israel and the America as he continues to build his case for more wars with Israel. Bush thanked Israel for helping define the evil enemy, the dangers they it poses and gave a clear sign as to who is next, stating, "You're educating Congress and the American people on the growing dangers of proliferation. You've spoken out on the threat posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. You've always understood and warned against the evil ambition of terrorism and their networks. In a dangerous new century, your work is more vital than ever. I thank you for doing your part in the cause of freedom."

"Your work is more vital than ever ..do.. your part in the cause of freedom." Bush made his call for confrontation of the enemy - in this case Iran, boldly asserting, "Emerging terrorist threats must be confronted before they can reach our country and harm our people. Every terrorist is at war with civilization, and every group or nation that aids them is equally responsible for the murders that the terrorists commit. This reinforces two themes of the Bush administration - the doctrine of preemption an his policy of holding nations responsible that harbor terrorists.

Bush added, "In time, Iraq will be a free and democratic nation, at the heart of the Middle East. This will send a message, a powerful message, from Damascus to Tehran, that democracy can bring hope to lives in every culture. And this advance of freedom will bring greater security to America and to the world."

As it is unlikely that Iran, Syria and others will just lay down while Bush seeks to impose his will upon them, Israel is not only his catalyst for creating anger and fear, but Israel is a critical part of the plan to attack Iran and broaden the on terror. This makes the reasons for favoring Israel at every turn regardless of the resentment and hatred generated even clearer. Nothing can interfere with the grand strategy, with the Bush mark on history. The opportunity can not be passed up.

As Bush may have trouble garnering support for a US attack upon Iran due to the quagmire in Iraq, Bush need Israel to make the first strike on Iran as part of the his strategy to democratize the Mideast.

Putting the Bush AIPAC speech and Israel policy in context

John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State influence the direction we go in the purported wars on terrorism. While in Israel in February 2003, Bolton stated that he had "no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward"

In a 2002 article in The Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu wrote: “ The United States must now act .... against the other terror regimes–Iran, Iraq, Arafat's dictatorship, Syria, and a few others. Some of these regimes will have to be toppled, some of them punished and deterred.” 

Bush recently said, "The heart of this vision is the responsibility of all parties ...- to fight terror, to embrace democracy and reform, and to take the necessary steps for peace." Bush went on,  "I reiterate our steadfast commitment to Israel's security and to preserving and strengthening Israel's self-defense capability, including its right to defend itself against terror."