Former President George Bush's book is superficial. It is rife with foolishness. It is devoid of any in-depth analysis of events that sparked destructive wars. The editor was unable to save the book, neither in its style, nor in justifying fateful decisions that concern entire populations, among them the American people, or giving them an intellectual dimension, apart from the known right-wing ideological slogans. The above was a few of the opinions and comments of American and British newspapers about Bush's book “Decision Points”. These newspapers have taken the book's publishing and Bush's appearance as the opportunity to remind of his wars, his irrationality and his inability to understand complex issues. They also asserted that he brought nothing new. Yet no one has paid attention to the fact that Bush reiterates the ideas of Natan Sharansky, from his book “The Case for Democracy”. This Israeli politician, a former Soviet refusenik who immigrated to Israel and founded the first political party for Russian-speakers, became a minister under Sharon, before withdrawing from his government in protest of the withdrawal from Gaza. Sharansky was against the Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power. He was against any elections in the Arab World because its societies have not yet matured, as he published in his book. Bush used to say that Sharansky taught him the meaning of democracy, that he was his spiritual guide, and that his book was “part of [his] presidential DNA”. Condoleezza Rice quoted from the book when she stood before Congress for the confirmation of her appointment as Secretary of State. The ideas of this Zionist extremist can now be found in the speeches of that other Russian-speaker, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who reiterates them “spontaneously” and naively, exactly as Bush does. As for the fact that British and American newspapers found nothing new in the book, that may be true. But the old, the widespread, the well-known, all are undocumented. Simply as an example, Bush's stance on the July War of 2006: we all know that it was Washington that prolonged the war with the hope of getting rid of Hezbollah, but no one before Bush's book held any evidence for this. Thus, his confessing this exposed secret represents a historical document and yet another testimony of his ties to Israel. Another example is what Bush says about his famous reconciliation with former French President Jacques Chirac: “Jacques Chirac and I didn't agree on much. He opposed to the removal of Saddam Hussein. And he considered Yasser Arafat to be a man of courage. But we found common ground. Chirac explained to me Lebanon's suffering under Syrian occupation. And he suggested that we work together in order to prevent Syrian hegemony over this country. I agreed right away.” Bush thus explains how his collaboration with Chirac led to the issuing of UN Resolution 1559, his support of the “Cedar Revolution”, the withdrawal of the Syrian army and the establishment of the Special tribunal for Lebanon after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, without turning to the crisis endured by the Lebanese to this day. Bush is proud of this achievement, and of what he has accomplished in Iraq and in Mahmoud Abbas being elected President, considering this to be the beginning of freedom for the region. He says: “It has never happened for three Arab societies to achieve such an amount of progress towards democracy”. Bush tells of these facts in his book in much detail, but when he thinks, he returns to the theories of Sharansky, his inspiration in spreading freedom and democracy.
