Translated material
Beware of Obamacare
In Israel, George W. Bush is considered the best American president
Israel reacted with cautious optimism to the election of Democratic Party candidate Barack Hussein Obama as US President . As the Ha'aretz newspaper notes, "Israel, like the rest of the world these days, is susceptible to 'deception,' but the Jewish state fears drastic changes in US foreign policy."During the presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly said that he was ready to enter into dialogue with the ruling regime in Iran. The Israelis believe that there is nothing to talk about with the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, since in his speeches he more than once predicted the disappearance of the Jewish state from the world map. Israel also fears that Obama will want to negotiate with the Hamas movement, which seized power in the Gaza Strip in 2007. Israel and America, unlike Russia, consider this group terrorist.
Israel is often called the 51st US state. Historian and employee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem Yaakov Dobrovolsky noted to Vremya Novostei: “American presidents now consider it their duty to actively promote the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and support the Jewish state. Since 1979, the conclusion of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, the United States has annually provided financial and military aid to Israel."
The United States is the main strategic partner for the Jewish state. In many ways, America's position determines Israel's foreign policy. It is generally accepted that George W. Bush was the best American president for Israel. He did not demand large territorial concessions from the Israelis to the Palestinians and tried to persuade Arab countries to negotiate with the Jewish state. However, the Maariv newspaper notes that Bush’s loyal attitude towards Israel did not lead the region to peace: “Iran is closer than ever to creating a nuclear bomb, Hamas has come to power in the Gaza Strip, and Egypt is gradually moving away from Israel... Bush had good intentions, but because of his limited view of the world and because of his Wild West manners, nothing good came of it."
According to Yaakov Dobrovolsky, “Obama’s policy in the Middle East will largely depend on who will be appointed to the post of US Secretary of State and head of the National Security Council, since Obama’s own experience in the international arena, and especially in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, is minimal ". As an example, our interlocutor recalled that during the election campaign, Obama twice spoke out on such a painful topic for Israel and the Palestinian Authority as the problem of the status of Jerusalem (will it remain a single city under Israeli sovereignty or will it turn into two capitals of two states, Israel and Palestine ). Both times, Obama called the opposite decisions acceptable.
At the same time, Maariv notes that one should not trust election speeches: “American presidents never do exactly what they promised during the election campaign. Bush had no intention of touching on the problems of the Middle East, but look how it all ended.”