Every now and then I am surprised to find that Bush can still blow my mind. Reading his recent address to the Israeli Knesset, I was taken aback by the way in which he deliberately grounded his support for Israel in theological terms. While one might claim that this was simply an appeal to his immediate audience, it would still seem highly insensitive to the destabilizing debates going on in Israel today around the role of religion in state affairs. Quite a few of those Knesset members -- and I don't speak only of the Arab MKs -- must have felt uncomfortable at the invocation of a biblical promise, for they too are engaged in a battle against the proponents of Greater Israel for the character of the state.

A couple of selections are instructive, though the whole speech is worth reading:

Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael. (whitehouse.gov)

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. (whitehouse.gov)

Of course, his religious commitment to Christian Zionism is not surprising. But in the middle of a trip that was supposed to buttress a crumbling peace process, Bush’s overwhelming identification with Israel came as a seemingly unnecessary affront to Palestinians. The last time he was in the region, Bush managed to self-destruct at a press conference with Abbas, making light of the system of Israeli checkpoints Palestinians must negotiate to keep alive a long-dead economy. But his Knesset speech was a calculated move, a scripted speech that the White House decided to release. Given Condoleeza Rice’s activity over the last several weeks, how does she feel about this speech? Surely it must have undermined in every way the pressure she has tried to exert on Israel over the removal of roadblocks -- pressure that is still more effective at making her appear tough than it has ever been at changing Israeli behavior.

Ha’aretz’s Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner have already suggested a schism between Rice and Bush, a backdoor to Rice’s boss through which Israel can appeal for leniency. It’s possible that this speech came out through that door, but I find that explanation unsatisfying. What led Bush to make such a strong speech? Much of it seems to be the kind of bombast you would expect at these ceremonial events, but I can’t believe that Bush’s handlers wouldn’t recognize the way this speech would be interpreted in the Arab world. And it seems an excessively public way to rein in a subordinate.

When Rice commented just days ago that peace “might be improbable but it's not impossible” (AP), I thought this was a big deal. Since when does the Bush administration exhibit doubt? In my reading, this is a repudiation of their commitment to broker a peace deal before Bush leaves office. When reading more of the quote it seems even more pessimistic:

“I'm also a big believer that nothing is really impossible,” she said in an interview conducted Monday and aired Tuesday on CBS’ The Early Show. “It might be improbable, but it's not impossible.” (Ha’aretz)

It’s “not impossible”, qualified by the assertion that, for Rice, “nothing is really impossible”. I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is. But if a couple of weeks of Rice nudging Israel are followed by silence from Rice and this speech from Bush, are we seeing a change of policy? What is the message here? Is Bush distancing himself? Having paid for the wedding and enjoyed the honeymoon, is the bulging belly of Annapolis giving him second thoughts?