JERUSALEM: As George W. Bush left Israel on Friday, with only months to go as US president, he appeared confident his legacy there and in the wider Middle East would be a positive one.

Whatever the case, there is no doubt that his successor will encounter many of the same problems he did on taking office eight years ago, and face others that have emerged since then.

Bush, who ends a regional tour on Sunday at a conference in Egypt hosting several regional leaders, summed up his views earlier this week in an interview with Egypt’s privately owned Dream TV.

He was asked whether he had added to the problems and sufferings in the Middle East.

“I would just ask them to wait for history to answer the question,” the US president said, according to a transcript of the interview.

“I think history will say George Bush clearly saw the threats that keep the Middle East in turmoil, and was willing to do something about it, was willing to lead and had this great faith in the capacity of democracies and great faith in the capacity of people to decide the fate of their countries.

“Yeah, I think people will say, he had a difficult set of circumstances to deal with, and he dealt with them, with a sense of idealism.

“There’s an advent of a young democracy in Iraq. Ask those people what it’s like to live under a freer society, rather than the thumb of a tyrant or a dictator; or the people that we’re trying to help in Lebanon by getting the Syrians out through a UN Security Council resolution; or the Palestinians ...for whom I’ve articulated a state.”

Anthony Cordesman, a regional expert at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, mentions a few more facts that are not nearly as encouraging.

Firstly, he points to the 2006 summer war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah “with all of the repercussions, what it did in terms of impressions of the IDF (Israeli army), Israeli security”. Israel failed in its aim to eliminate Hezbollah as a regional player, and saw the reputation of its once seemingly invincible armed forces sullied.

Cordesman also referred to a September 2007 Israeli attack on what the United States claims was a nuclear reactor in Syria, pointing to fears that Damascus might be seeking its own atomic weapons or aiding ally Iran in its suspected bid to acquire them.“The United States, I think, has endorsed it, and I frankly have my sympathy for that,” Cordesman said.

“You have Hamas in charge of Gaza. You have the Palestinian security forces, which were relatively coherent at the end of the last presidency, virtually destroyed.

“You have Iran certainly much more strong and, in many ways, much more testing of us and you have the impact of the Iraq war.

“And you have, I think, a fair amount of frustration among the Arab world ... Now that’s the legacy you can’t change. That’s going to be the legacy the (new) president will inherit.” While Bush’s visit to Israel was linked to the country’s 60th birthday, the president was also keen to talk up his aim of getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree on a peace deal before he leaves office in January.

Yet virtually no visible progress has been made towards a deal.

Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, recently said he thinks the prospect for a peace deal by the end of Bush’s administration is “totally unrealistic, given that (Bush) has neglected it for seven years”. Instead, he says, Bush “needs to pass a peace process on to the next president in good working order so the next president can pick it up and drive it to a conclusion.” Daniel Kurtzer, who also served as US envoy to Israel, as well as to Egypt, recently said the “major priorities in the Middle East will be Iraq and Iran”.

“There’s no question that Iraq will define much of whatever the next president does in the world, especially in the Middle East. And the emerging possible nuclear threat from Iran is close behind as a strategic issue for the United States.”—AFP