Home

They couldn't even decide on a candidate. They were divided over taxes, education, free speech, abortion, ethanol, religion. And they were living in fear that a picture of them with their own party leader -- the president of the United States -- would show up in the public record.

But there is one issue on which the Republican Party lives and breathes a reflexive unity of spirit: Israel's right to defend herself. On this one issue, they couldn't agree with George W. Bush more.

A recent Rasmussen poll taken during Israel's military conflict in Gaza shows that 75 percent of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States. Barely half of Democrats agreed. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans back Israel's forceful counteroffensive in Gaza; less than three in 10 Democrats agree.

How did we get here? In a word, leadership. Throughout the years, Gallup has consistently polled Americans on the following question: "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?" (Starting in 1993, the question referred to Palestinian Arabs.)

On average during the administration of Bill Clinton, 41.5 percent of Americans were sympathetic to Israel versus the Palestinians. During Bush's presidency, the average was 51 percent -- a significant nearly 10-point improvement in Americans' attitudes toward Israel. Clinton's average was a monumental 16-point drop from the administration of George H.W. Bush, when 57.5 percent of Americans were sympathetic to Israel. Our current President Bush finally spurred a full rehabilitation of the damage done during the Clinton years to Israel's reputation in America in February 2006, when 59 percent of Americans were sympathetic to Israel versus the Palestinians.

You can even argue that during the Clinton years, Israel was best positioned to receive favorable reviews from Americans; there was the beginning of the Oslo peace process, Israel's peace treaty with Jordan, the Wye River accords, Camp David, the rise and mainstreaming of Hamas' suicide bombing culture, etc.

So why didn't Israel get at least the sympathy from Americans during the Clinton years as during the Bush-Sharon years? The answer is obvious; we learned, with the election of the eloquent and inspiring Obama, that words make a difference.

Like these words: "The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul."

Or these: "I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: 'Masada shall never fall again.' Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side."

Or these words: "Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."

Those are all from George W. Bush's speech before the Knesset in May 2008 celebrating Israel's 60th birthday.

But those are prepared speeches -- words the president agonized over and practiced. How does he frame the Israel issue in on-the-spot interviews? While talking to columnist Jay Nordlinger for National Review Online, Bush said this about a Palestinian state: "It hasn't worked out yet, but the principles for that state, and the notion of a two-state solution with Arab buy-in, are more real today than in 2005."

"Arab buy-in". That's about as frank as you can be. In other words, Israel has already anted up; let's see what the Arabs have to offer.

What are Bush's thoughts about being popular in the Middle East and among European academic post-nationalists? "You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel," Bush told Nordlinger. "That'll make you popular."

But Bush wasn't popular in the Mideast; he was simply too principled for the Arabs and their apologists.

And Bush's ability to influence the people around him, and spread his love and support of Jews and Israel, is beyond question. In February 2002, Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin ben Eliezer had to apologize for revealing to a newspaper that Bush's then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told ben Eliezer that it was a waste of time dealing with Yasser Arafat. In the same conversation, Vice President Dick Cheney expressed his feelings about Arafat when he told ben Eliezer: "As far as I am concerned, you can even hang him."

Bush appointed the late Tony Snow as his press secretary, who ably defended Israel day in and day out. Bush appointed John Bolton to haunt the dreams of Arab terror masters and anti-Israel hacks as his U.N. ambassador.

Bush's chief of staff is Jewish. With Douglas Feith, Ari Fleischer, David Frum, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey, it was a pro-Jewish, pro-Israel dream team. Except it wasn't a dream. Being pro-Israel was the default mode of American society during the presidency of George W. Bush.

Of course it wasn't just Israel. U.S. ties with England remained strong; France, Italy, and Germany elected conservative, pro-George Bush leaders. Bush teamed up with Israel to begin brilliantly guiding India into the First-World Western fraternity, instead of letting it fall into the arms of China and Russia. Our ties with Australia were arguably never better. Bush's proposed trade deals with Colombia and South Korea made clear statements on rewarding our allies for sticking with us, and not abandoning those countries to their regional terrorists and dictatorships. And my goodness, what Bush has done for Africa, where, in the words of Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete his "legacy will be that of saving hundreds of thousands of mothers' and children's lives from malaria, preventing new HIV infections and giving hope to those infected through care and treatment, and helping millions of young men and women get education."

Last year, Bush fought back tears during a visit to Yad Vashem. But he was unable to hide his anger when he was shown aerial photos of Auschwitz taken by U.S. forces during WWII. "We should have bombed it," Bush said, according to museum Chairman Avner Shalev. It was unclear whether he was referring to the tracks leading to the camps or to the camps themselves.

To be considered a friend to George W. Bush is to have more than an ally. It is to have a brother-in-arms; a loyal, dedicated, and profoundly warm champion in our nation's capital. For Zionists, his presidency was an eight-year-long shining moment in time; a glowing marker on the often dreary timeline of Jewish history.

In retrospect, a simple "thank you" doesn't seem to be nearly enough. But it's a good start.

Seth Mandel is the managing editor of The Jewish State.