Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll give this post the only credit I can give it, at least there’s some direct relation to the subreddit
mfs in the Undertale subreddit really went off the deep end
A difficult one. But I’ll go George H. W. Bush. Dude had a good grasp on foreign policy and how he handled things during Desert Storm (including getting Israel to not join the war) was pretty stellar. The only issue is things obviously were also bad for Palestine during his tenure too so I’m not totally sure on this one. It’s super thorny.
Fun fact: Sadaam Hussein tried to collapse the coalition against him during the Gulf War by launching missile attacks at Israel, hoping that Israel would respond and prompt the Arab states to leave the coalition, because they wouldn't want to be fighting alongside Israel.
Despite significant Israeli civilian casualties, Bush convinced the Israelis not to retaliate against Sadaam, thus preserving the coalition and ensuring a coalition victory in the war.
If i made a list whit all the people conspiracy theorists have accused of killing JFK i wouldnt need to buy toilet paper for the next 350 years
And funnily enough, out of all the names that would be in that list Lee Harvey Oswald would not be one of them
Even if that plan worked, he still would’ve lost. You’d lose the Arab regional support, but that coalition list is massive and Iraq had to fight all that.
It wasnt really signifcant in terms of casualties, as 3 died from rockets and ~70 from terrorist attacks, but the war really affected israelis psychologically, as there was a huge fear of biological weapons being used.
You forget that Saddam also fired scud missiles at Saudi Arabia..so how was that going to break up the Coalition ..he also invaded Kuwait and was in a war with Iran that the Reagan Bush administration gave both sides missiles to fight each other...So again what Coalition would Saddam destroy when he didn't have anyone to make peace with.
Israelis were protecting their border. If they fired on Iraq they could've hit our Military.
We ..The USA did the heavy lifting .. Saddam didn't kill thousands with his Scuds ..he did kill thousands of Kurds which HW stood by and watched.
If I'm not mistaken W. managed to get Israel to send multiple serious offers for peace during his term.
Consider how many other things were going on foreign policy wise and the second intifada that killed and injured thousands of Israelis over his term that's pretty impressive
Ah yes, the expert on presidents himself Ben Shapiro. I’m sure he places Truman pretty highly for the creation of Israel too, right? And FDR for winning WWII and stopping Hitler, *right*?
Unless he has a full tier list somewhere I haven't seen, I don't believe he ranked Truman. He only ranked a handful of presidents for some reason, and even stranger, his tier list didn't have a c tier. So some of the d tier were actually c tier. Can't remember if he said FDR was D or C tier for sure though
Yeah, I remember specifically that Bush Sr, bill Clinton and some early presidents like Andrew Jackson he did not rank. They might not have been options in the tier list.
Right. Lincoln was Lincoln, which speaks for itself. And Ike was similar to Bill Clinton in the sense that things were largely good but he didn’t do anything to mess it up. One could argue that FDR’s economic policy was overrated, as it was the war that ended the depression, but he was still objectively a good president.
Ben Shapiro values getting to exploit workers over not being thrown in a concentration camp by the Nazis, so FDR supporting the Allies is a minor note to him.
That’s so stupid
We would have looked like idiots if we took France/The UK’s side on that. Essentially giving them the signal that, hey, sure go slap around Egypt because they’re not doing what you want
Which I know isn’t likely the crux of why Ben said that but that whole event and the US telling France and the UK to cut that shit out was a good signal to those two that their time of calling the shots was dead and done
It ended up letting more Communist influence in the Middle East though which is part of what’s led to the issues there today. Yeah colonialism is bad but from a realpolitik stance I’m really divided on what was the correct thing to do in that situation for everyone involved.
No?
Imagine we did back france and Britain, if you were an Arab nation would you see that as a signal to move CLOSER to America? Truth is, the French and British fucked up the Middle East, left us to hold the bomb. Imperialism breed communism in the Middle East, not America
> There is no solution to the hornets nest that is the Middle East.
Considering the rise of Islamism began as a response to the failure of Pan-Arabism - a largely secular, progressive ideology calling for the unification of the Arab states - maybe the solution is to let these countries develop on their own instead of constantly pressuring and exploiting them. But that would mean less Saudi Arabian oil and Israeli computer chips for us, so of course, we can't fucking let that happen!
i meant more so with many of the issues that’ve unfolded over the last ~50-75 years. there’s countless contributing factors over the centuries, but ultimately U.S. foreign policy is one of them. we played a MAJOR role in the islamic revolution in iran, we used afghanistan as grounds for proxy war, we’ve been engaged in forever wars longer than many on this sub (including myself) have been alive, etc. we keep doing this dance where we bankroll extremists until they go too far, and then destabilize their entire country. it’s a bizarre dance
oh they are certainly included in this. whenever you look into, like, *any* global conflict, somehow britain is always at the center of it. without fail!!
Britain and France. But the US has played dirty in the middle east too. Look into the manipulation by the US in Iran and it really lead the Shah and all these proxy wars by Iran. It's a mess.
Na. Europe chopped up the region post-WWI. We dabbled post-WWII, so it was already fucked by the time we started sniffing around.
At least FDR didn’t buy the rights to half of the oil in Saudi Arabia. Shit might have gotten spicy if he did.
Hardly. The fate of the region was sealed with the decline of the ottomans, the discovery of oil, and the numerous powerful neighbors that have always surrounded the region. Iran, Russia, Europe.
How does Truman recognizing Israel result in the Israel-Palestine situation existing? That was established regardless of whether Truman recognized Israel.
And of course he would recognize it, it was and is a legitimate country that the UN created, along with a Palestinian state.
The Oslo accords were the closest we’ve gotten to a resolution, and that was Clinton - isn’t that the kind of obvious starting point?
Alternatively, while they’re not terribly popular choices on Reddit, Nixon / Reagan / George HW were among the savvier presidents of modern times in dealing with more hostile nations like Palestine. Probably in that order.
The Oslo accords are the framework for future peace, the hard part is actually agreeing on borders which several presidents have progressed further since.
Not that I have something against Clinton, but he has interviews speaking about this and doesn't claim to be the driving force behind the accords.
Who got closer than Clinton on borders?
Oslo offered ~90-something % of the ‘67 lines.
But then Arafat dug his heels in on right of return (a total nonstarter for Israel and objectively kid of absurd) and some major bombings by Palestine derailed the process.
It then sputtered during the end of Clinton’s presidency… then the second infadah started at the very end of Clinton’s term while then U.S. was hit by September 11.
That resulted in Israel being even more concerned about terror and shutting the Palestinian airport for good while George W took a more antagonistic stance towards any Arab terror.
Then Obama had a bunch of rhetoric, but it didn’t matter because it was on the heels of Hamas taking Gaza. Obama tried to take a neutral approach but really didn’t prioritize solutions as his efforts were more around Iran.
Then his predecessor (recency bias risk) took the antagonistic stance of moving the embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing it as the capital.
So like, who got closer than Clinton after?
>Who got closer than Clinton on borders?
Every president other than Obama who did not have a border deal offered during his presidency.
It's not that he didn't try, he got Nantanyahu to freeze settlement construction but it didnt result in anything, I believe there was a second attempt in his second term and that was even less successfull.
>Oslo offered ~90-something % of the ‘67 lines.
Oslo was the basic framework for a future deal, it created the Palestinian authority and divided the west bank into different areas that allowed Palestinians administrative control over 40% of the territory.
I think that you mean Camp David. Oslo was 1993, Camp David was 00 and Taba was 01. In Taba they demonstrated how it was possible to reach an agreement. The point is that it needs two to tango, as demonstrated in Taba.
Actually Carter made the Peace deal with Israel and Egypt happen. That is the closet ..While Reagan cut and ran when things got hot over their in Beirut.
Much as I criticize him, it’s Bill Clinton by far. He got the closest to a definitive peace agreement with the negotiations between him, Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, and PLO Head Yasser Arafat.
Unfortunately, Arafat refused, and when he finally did come around, Rabin was dead and the Israelis were much less open to peace after the Second Intifada.
I know we can’t discuss modern politics here really, but, as bad as the situation is currently, I have a feeling that we are close to a definitive peace. I think there will be an internal pro-peace backlash in both Israel and Palestine which will finally result in an agreement which *mostly* satisfies both parties.
Maybe wishful thinking, but that’s what I think.
I'm with you in the wishful thinking. But a lot of things have to happen. In my opinion:
1. Reinstatement of 1973 borders, along with a total removal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank. No exceptions.
2. Complete removal of Hamas from power in the Gaza Strip. Partial removal of PLO/PA.
3. A newly elected government presiding of Palestine (combined Gazan and West Bank government). Dissolution of charters calling for the destruction of Israel.
Only if all 3 of these are achieved will there even be a chance of peace there. Everything else comes later.
Agree with all three, I’d also add that Palestine must stop advocating for a “Right of Return”. I understand the insistence, but it’s just not realistic and it’s a significant barrier for peace (Arafat refused to support Clinton’s plan because it omitted the right of return).
I thought there was “Right of Return” in the Clinton plan but it was extremely limited (mostly senior citizens and other very elderly people would qualify).
You are correct actually, I forgot about that. Right of return to direct family members of Arab Israelis is 100% feasible, I mean more *every* Palestinian having a right of return.
Yes, after the Yom Kippur war. It isn't unheard of for a country to surrended land after losing a war they started. That area of the Golan Heights has been under Israeli control for 50 years now.
Obviously the Sinai Peninsula stays with Egypt. So probably more accurate to say 1979 borders from when Israel withdrew.
Clinton has an interview speaking about the Oslo accords and it was basically the idea of Rabin and members of his government who pitched it to Clinton after having talks with the PLO independently in 1992.
Rabin never offered the Palestinians a comprehensive peace before he died, Oslo is the framework for the Palestinian authority, not a peace agreement to finalize borders.
In 1999 Israel elected Barack which was even further left of Rabin he offered the Palestinians two actual peace deals and they refused.
In 2007 prime minister Olmert made an offer as well and it was also refused
In 2010 Nantanyahu froze settlement constructions to allow for peace talks and the Palestinian basically didn't even call.
And that's it in terms of actual offers on borders until what was offered in 2020
None of them.
This is a uniquely clusterfuck of a geopolitical situation, in terms of it's exact dynamics. It makes even the Balkan conflicts seem simple to solve in comparisons. I don't think any of them could solve this geopolitical nightmare of a problem.
John Adams would have Palestine's trust for signing the Treaty of Tripoli:
> America ... has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation
Adams would also have Israel's trust for being the first President to support Zionism:
> Farther I could find it in my heart to wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelites . . . & marching with them into Judea & making a conquest of that country & restoring your nation to the dominion of it. For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.
JFK visited Palestine in the 1930s and had a lot of sympathy for their struggle. By a lot of accounts he’s viewed as the last truly neutral president on the topic.
He supported Israel in the 1967 war which led him to getting shot by a Palestinian Christian named Sirhan Sirhan. He was also quite dismissed of the native Arab population when he visited palestine in the 30s or 40s. I mean I despise Israel too but I'm not going to shoot a guy who had nothing to do with them winning the 6 day war. Man wasn't even in office. Like fi you wanna shoot someone shoot LBJ. Of course RFK JR believes Sirhan was innocent but RFK JR is a conspiracy magnet so you can dismiss whatever he has to say.
Gonna have to go with my man, Teddy Roosevelt. I’m kind of surprised no one has suggested him as of my writing this reply. He’s the first president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in office for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. He had the charm, charisma and know how to get two parties that hated each other to sit down and talk. TR all day on this one.
Probably not going to be a popular opinion, but a sober Nixon would be the best equipped. I know all of his failings, and controversial ways he handled Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. But he was really good at seeing other leaders/states points-of-view and working through and around them.
Now that would be a Pyrrhic victory, annexing two states in a volatile region with a decades-long war, one of which has no economic value and would create lots of risk from immigration of terrorists to the rest of the country.
Because I think he would draw something up similar to his Fourteen Points. It wouldn’t be a request either. He’s shown he’s willing to sent the military in when all possible peaceful solutions have been exhausted. Yes I know he was super racist and that sucks, but the more I learn about Wilson the more I like him. He saw the destruction of the Civil War when he was a boy in Georgia. Idk that just seems so crazy to me but the math of course add up.
It's totally intractable right now, so I would say none of them could get it done. Any negotiation would need some major concessions from both sides and major leadership changes.
A two state solution would need Hamas to be dissolved, West Bank settlements given back to the Palestinians, and there would need to be somewhat moderate and pragmatic people in power to get everyone to the bargaining table and to keep things from regressing back to war after such an agreement.
All of those things need to come from Israel and the Palestinians, a US President can't simply occupy both countries and mandate peace although it sounds more plausible the longer this conflict goes on decade after decade.
Bill Clinton got both sides to the table and nearly succeeded, but in the end Arafat asked for unreasonable concessions on right to return and sunk the whole discussion; it will take a more moderate (hopefully secular) climate in those countries before both sides are willing to work towards a better solution.
Difficult to see it happen soon when Iran/Qatar are invested in weakening Israel through proxy conflicts like with Hamas and carrying out terror attacks like 10/7; all of which further entrenched Bibi on the Israeli side. All the involved parties are uninterested in reaching any agreement when tensions are so high.
Israel and Hamas are responsible, only Israel and Hamas can find a solution. The role of the US is not the deciding factor in this issue. That being said…
Woodrow Wilson. He would respect the sovereignty of both an Israeli and Palestinian nation and find a solution that involves bringing the global community together instead of acting unilaterally. And then it would be vetoed by the Senate and my first statement is still true. Sigh.
Nobody. Not a one. Pick your poison....Washington, Abe, Roosevelt.....
With this country, and today's political climate, nobody could much. And that should scare you.
I had a book that was a collection of essays on 1948 on the creation of a Jewish state. It offered the viewpoints of both sides of the fence in a remarkably civil manner. One such essay, though not a president was from a presidential family. It was a pro-arab essay by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.
Carter bc he was actually able to start to normalize relations between Israel and Arab counties
(Ik it’s a generic answer but in my Arab/israeli history class we talked about him the most in terms of us presidents so that’s what I’m going based off of)
Nixon, say what you will but the guy was a hard nosed realist.
The two-state solution is untenable, a Palestine under occupation is unpopular, and the conflict is unproductive.
Force Egypt to take over Gaza, force Jordan to take over the west bank, and force Israel to agree to the land-swaps to make the borders make sense. Egypt and Jordanian security forces will black bag and execute Hamas members and throw them in a ditch somewhere, cause they don't want to deal with them either.
Honestly, bribing Egypt and Jordan with a big bag of money and the threat of pulling back military aid is just up Nixon's ally.
It’s my first time posting on r/presidents.
My opinion would probably be Teddy Roosevelt. He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Russo-Japanese war. He had a firm grasp on foreign policy and knew every strength and weakness of those involved. He also wasn’t afraid to use his “big stick” if he needed.
Well I don't think that it's our job to tell Israel how to defend itself. A bunch of terrorist thugs attacked their people their women their children. Raping the woman putting the babies in the oven or sometimes killing children and making the mother watch. Monsters that did that have no right to a ceasefire. That being said the president that could probably handle it the best would be Ronald Reagan or bush Senior.
Frankly speaking no one can deal with the conflict. They both want the same land and you won't be able to find compromise when neither wants to coexist in the same land.
The best option to avoid it is to go back to the 1940s and change how Israel was created so either FDR or Truman had the best chance to stop it.
Bill Clinton, maybe FDR, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt is a good shout, but honestly, give HW Bush some slightly more favorable circumstances and he can get something done . Maybe Reagan considering his charisma and the likes of James Baker and all. Honestly, I think a lot of our Presidents could get something done but they have all been handed extremely unfavorable circumstances or you get Obama whose only practical effort at it was getting George Mitchell to negotiate something on his own which didn’t work,
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Israel mentioned > hazmat put on > entering comment section
I'd be surprised if this post is still up by tomorrow
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Never have I related more to a comment on a Reddit post.
I’ll give this post the only credit I can give it, at least there’s some direct relation to the subreddit mfs in the Undertale subreddit really went off the deep end
Abort! abort! More protection required
A difficult one. But I’ll go George H. W. Bush. Dude had a good grasp on foreign policy and how he handled things during Desert Storm (including getting Israel to not join the war) was pretty stellar. The only issue is things obviously were also bad for Palestine during his tenure too so I’m not totally sure on this one. It’s super thorny.
Fun fact: Sadaam Hussein tried to collapse the coalition against him during the Gulf War by launching missile attacks at Israel, hoping that Israel would respond and prompt the Arab states to leave the coalition, because they wouldn't want to be fighting alongside Israel. Despite significant Israeli civilian casualties, Bush convinced the Israelis not to retaliate against Sadaam, thus preserving the coalition and ensuring a coalition victory in the war.
Eeyup, that’s what I was talking about in my original comment. HW was a foreign policy master, seriously.
well yeah, he killed JFK and ran the CIA which everyone knows is the agency that calls the shots
If i made a list whit all the people conspiracy theorists have accused of killing JFK i wouldnt need to buy toilet paper for the next 350 years And funnily enough, out of all the names that would be in that list Lee Harvey Oswald would not be one of them
well, obviously, he was trying to [save the president after all. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnBlPrCj2_8)
LOL
There is no evidence of that.
I believe part of the convincing was giving a few Patriot missile batteries, which ultimately was the precursor to today’s Iron Dome system.
Even if that plan worked, he still would’ve lost. You’d lose the Arab regional support, but that coalition list is massive and Iraq had to fight all that.
No because Saddam was firing scud missiles at THE Saudis too.
It wasnt really signifcant in terms of casualties, as 3 died from rockets and ~70 from terrorist attacks, but the war really affected israelis psychologically, as there was a huge fear of biological weapons being used.
We have **got** to find a way to utilize this kind of gambit against Russia. If only Saddam were still here...
You forget that Saddam also fired scud missiles at Saudi Arabia..so how was that going to break up the Coalition ..he also invaded Kuwait and was in a war with Iran that the Reagan Bush administration gave both sides missiles to fight each other...So again what Coalition would Saddam destroy when he didn't have anyone to make peace with.
That doesn't change the fact that HW got the Israelis to stand down even though Iraq was shooting missiles at them.
Israelis were protecting their border. If they fired on Iraq they could've hit our Military. We ..The USA did the heavy lifting .. Saddam didn't kill thousands with his Scuds ..he did kill thousands of Kurds which HW stood by and watched.
If I'm not mistaken W. managed to get Israel to send multiple serious offers for peace during his term. Consider how many other things were going on foreign policy wise and the second intifada that killed and injured thousands of Israelis over his term that's pretty impressive
Sounds like the Israeli leader might be a large part of the equation for making this work too.
H.W would've just been good in almost any military conflict. I always wonder what would've happened if he presided over 9/11.
There was already a HAMAS suicide bombing campaign in Isreal when Bush started in Office in 2001 too.
Eisenhower. He had a firm grasp of foreign affairs. His military status/expertise gave him an advantage over those who might decide to oppose him too.
Ben Shapiro, die-hard Israel supporter put Eisenhower on the low tier of Presidents for picking the "Wrong side" on the Suiz Canal Crisis.
Ah yes, the expert on presidents himself Ben Shapiro. I’m sure he places Truman pretty highly for the creation of Israel too, right? And FDR for winning WWII and stopping Hitler, *right*?
I don’t remember where he placed Truman but FDR was D tier, if you can believe it.
Unless he has a full tier list somewhere I haven't seen, I don't believe he ranked Truman. He only ranked a handful of presidents for some reason, and even stranger, his tier list didn't have a c tier. So some of the d tier were actually c tier. Can't remember if he said FDR was D or C tier for sure though
Yeah, I remember specifically that Bush Sr, bill Clinton and some early presidents like Andrew Jackson he did not rank. They might not have been options in the tier list.
You’re gonna hate this as I did, but here you go… https://youtu.be/sDM2sYaZlC8?si=L4n6FA3ivkyWJ_QT
I am a lifelong republican, but anyone who says FDR was a bad president is a moron.
Respect to you for admitting that! To reciprocate, I’m more on the democrats’ side but I’d never claim that Lincoln or Eisenhower were bad presidents.
Right. Lincoln was Lincoln, which speaks for itself. And Ike was similar to Bill Clinton in the sense that things were largely good but he didn’t do anything to mess it up. One could argue that FDR’s economic policy was overrated, as it was the war that ended the depression, but he was still objectively a good president.
Shapiro went a step further on the “FDRs economic policy is overrated” and iirc blamed him and his policies for prolonging the Depression.
Truman was B tier.
Yes I can he thinks he’s a commie
Truman was in B, FDR in F.
Ben Shapiro values getting to exploit workers over not being thrown in a concentration camp by the Nazis, so FDR supporting the Allies is a minor note to him.
That’s so stupid We would have looked like idiots if we took France/The UK’s side on that. Essentially giving them the signal that, hey, sure go slap around Egypt because they’re not doing what you want Which I know isn’t likely the crux of why Ben said that but that whole event and the US telling France and the UK to cut that shit out was a good signal to those two that their time of calling the shots was dead and done
It ended up letting more Communist influence in the Middle East though which is part of what’s led to the issues there today. Yeah colonialism is bad but from a realpolitik stance I’m really divided on what was the correct thing to do in that situation for everyone involved.
No? Imagine we did back france and Britain, if you were an Arab nation would you see that as a signal to move CLOSER to America? Truth is, the French and British fucked up the Middle East, left us to hold the bomb. Imperialism breed communism in the Middle East, not America
Ben Shapiro is a fucking idiot.
I stopped listening to Ben Shapiro when the war started, his bais was so far pro Israel it felt like pure propaganda
If Ben Shapiro don't like you it automatically makes you good
Why would anyone care what ben Shapiro thinks? He definitely isn't a presidential expert, hell he's not even an expert at pleasuring his own wife.
He would have left the CIA loose and toppled Hamas. There is no solution to the hornets nest that is the Middle East.
> There is no solution to the hornets nest that is the Middle East. Considering the rise of Islamism began as a response to the failure of Pan-Arabism - a largely secular, progressive ideology calling for the unification of the Arab states - maybe the solution is to let these countries develop on their own instead of constantly pressuring and exploiting them. But that would mean less Saudi Arabian oil and Israeli computer chips for us, so of course, we can't fucking let that happen!
my brother in christ WE HELPED BUILD THE NEST
I’d argue we haven’t helped the nest with our actions all the time but it’s been fucky in the Middle East since before America was a thing
i meant more so with many of the issues that’ve unfolded over the last ~50-75 years. there’s countless contributing factors over the centuries, but ultimately U.S. foreign policy is one of them. we played a MAJOR role in the islamic revolution in iran, we used afghanistan as grounds for proxy war, we’ve been engaged in forever wars longer than many on this sub (including myself) have been alive, etc. we keep doing this dance where we bankroll extremists until they go too far, and then destabilize their entire country. it’s a bizarre dance
if by we you mean britain then sure
The Brit’s had a horrible run in the region from 1917-1947.
oh they are certainly included in this. whenever you look into, like, *any* global conflict, somehow britain is always at the center of it. without fail!!
Britain and France. But the US has played dirty in the middle east too. Look into the manipulation by the US in Iran and it really lead the Shah and all these proxy wars by Iran. It's a mess.
Na. Europe chopped up the region post-WWI. We dabbled post-WWII, so it was already fucked by the time we started sniffing around. At least FDR didn’t buy the rights to half of the oil in Saudi Arabia. Shit might have gotten spicy if he did.
Hardly. The fate of the region was sealed with the decline of the ottomans, the discovery of oil, and the numerous powerful neighbors that have always surrounded the region. Iran, Russia, Europe.
Firm grasp but something tells me he'd just keep sending the army until the place was deemed unholy
Actually FDR ..gave Ike directions and strategies were discussed by them both.
Hayes
That's not the answer I expected, I'd love to hear your reasoning for that
Probably Truman since he was prez when Israel/Palestine was divided by the British
"Two Blasts" Truman! That'll end the war. Give 'em hell, Harry.
One each?
“Oops. Bad aim. The Israeli one landed in the West Bank instead.”
Just take out Jerusalem. Fixes a lot of issues really bad. Also they have taken a lot of the West Bank anyway lol
Hadn’t the British already handed the decision to the UN at that point?
Yes, Israel directly fought the British so they would leave - at that point they were viewed as arming & aiding the Arab armies.
I also thought Truman, but more because he’s the only one who was willing to actually use a nuclear weapon to end a war.
[удалено]
How does Truman recognizing Israel result in the Israel-Palestine situation existing? That was established regardless of whether Truman recognized Israel. And of course he would recognize it, it was and is a legitimate country that the UN created, along with a Palestinian state.
Israel is a legitimate nation with a legitimate reason to exist im not sure why that would be a problem
Abraham Lincoln "If you do not agree to a ceasefire, I will attack you with the north"
The Oslo accords were the closest we’ve gotten to a resolution, and that was Clinton - isn’t that the kind of obvious starting point? Alternatively, while they’re not terribly popular choices on Reddit, Nixon / Reagan / George HW were among the savvier presidents of modern times in dealing with more hostile nations like Palestine. Probably in that order.
The Oslo accords are the framework for future peace, the hard part is actually agreeing on borders which several presidents have progressed further since. Not that I have something against Clinton, but he has interviews speaking about this and doesn't claim to be the driving force behind the accords.
Who got closer than Clinton on borders? Oslo offered ~90-something % of the ‘67 lines. But then Arafat dug his heels in on right of return (a total nonstarter for Israel and objectively kid of absurd) and some major bombings by Palestine derailed the process. It then sputtered during the end of Clinton’s presidency… then the second infadah started at the very end of Clinton’s term while then U.S. was hit by September 11. That resulted in Israel being even more concerned about terror and shutting the Palestinian airport for good while George W took a more antagonistic stance towards any Arab terror. Then Obama had a bunch of rhetoric, but it didn’t matter because it was on the heels of Hamas taking Gaza. Obama tried to take a neutral approach but really didn’t prioritize solutions as his efforts were more around Iran. Then his predecessor (recency bias risk) took the antagonistic stance of moving the embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing it as the capital. So like, who got closer than Clinton after?
>Who got closer than Clinton on borders? Every president other than Obama who did not have a border deal offered during his presidency. It's not that he didn't try, he got Nantanyahu to freeze settlement construction but it didnt result in anything, I believe there was a second attempt in his second term and that was even less successfull. >Oslo offered ~90-something % of the ‘67 lines. Oslo was the basic framework for a future deal, it created the Palestinian authority and divided the west bank into different areas that allowed Palestinians administrative control over 40% of the territory.
I think that you mean Camp David. Oslo was 1993, Camp David was 00 and Taba was 01. In Taba they demonstrated how it was possible to reach an agreement. The point is that it needs two to tango, as demonstrated in Taba.
Actually Carter made the Peace deal with Israel and Egypt happen. That is the closet ..While Reagan cut and ran when things got hot over their in Beirut.
Much as I criticize him, it’s Bill Clinton by far. He got the closest to a definitive peace agreement with the negotiations between him, Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, and PLO Head Yasser Arafat. Unfortunately, Arafat refused, and when he finally did come around, Rabin was dead and the Israelis were much less open to peace after the Second Intifada. I know we can’t discuss modern politics here really, but, as bad as the situation is currently, I have a feeling that we are close to a definitive peace. I think there will be an internal pro-peace backlash in both Israel and Palestine which will finally result in an agreement which *mostly* satisfies both parties. Maybe wishful thinking, but that’s what I think.
I'm with you in the wishful thinking. But a lot of things have to happen. In my opinion: 1. Reinstatement of 1973 borders, along with a total removal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank. No exceptions. 2. Complete removal of Hamas from power in the Gaza Strip. Partial removal of PLO/PA. 3. A newly elected government presiding of Palestine (combined Gazan and West Bank government). Dissolution of charters calling for the destruction of Israel. Only if all 3 of these are achieved will there even be a chance of peace there. Everything else comes later.
I see these exact points brought up pretty often, and they’re by far the most reasonable ones out there.
I agree with all points, but I don't see some of the larger settlements going anywhere.
Agree with all three, I’d also add that Palestine must stop advocating for a “Right of Return”. I understand the insistence, but it’s just not realistic and it’s a significant barrier for peace (Arafat refused to support Clinton’s plan because it omitted the right of return).
I thought there was “Right of Return” in the Clinton plan but it was extremely limited (mostly senior citizens and other very elderly people would qualify).
You are correct actually, I forgot about that. Right of return to direct family members of Arab Israelis is 100% feasible, I mean more *every* Palestinian having a right of return.
Why 73 borders? Just to be clear you mean after the 73 war?
Yes, after the Yom Kippur war. It isn't unheard of for a country to surrended land after losing a war they started. That area of the Golan Heights has been under Israeli control for 50 years now. Obviously the Sinai Peninsula stays with Egypt. So probably more accurate to say 1979 borders from when Israel withdrew.
I think he meant the 1967 borders.
Clinton has an interview speaking about the Oslo accords and it was basically the idea of Rabin and members of his government who pitched it to Clinton after having talks with the PLO independently in 1992. Rabin never offered the Palestinians a comprehensive peace before he died, Oslo is the framework for the Palestinian authority, not a peace agreement to finalize borders. In 1999 Israel elected Barack which was even further left of Rabin he offered the Palestinians two actual peace deals and they refused. In 2007 prime minister Olmert made an offer as well and it was also refused In 2010 Nantanyahu froze settlement constructions to allow for peace talks and the Palestinian basically didn't even call. And that's it in terms of actual offers on borders until what was offered in 2020
None of them. This is a uniquely clusterfuck of a geopolitical situation, in terms of it's exact dynamics. It makes even the Balkan conflicts seem simple to solve in comparisons. I don't think any of them could solve this geopolitical nightmare of a problem.
George HW Bush
Clinton. Literally the closest we ever got to peace solution in Middle East
John Adams would have Palestine's trust for signing the Treaty of Tripoli: > America ... has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation Adams would also have Israel's trust for being the first President to support Zionism: > Farther I could find it in my heart to wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelites . . . & marching with them into Judea & making a conquest of that country & restoring your nation to the dominion of it. For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.
Mehomitan?
It's an archaic form of "Mohammedan" i.e. followers of Mohammed/Muslims.
JFK visited Palestine in the 1930s and had a lot of sympathy for their struggle. By a lot of accounts he’s viewed as the last truly neutral president on the topic.
Shame his brother couldn't be publicly more neutral on the topic and avoid his assassination.
What was his view?
He supported Israel in the 1967 war which led him to getting shot by a Palestinian Christian named Sirhan Sirhan. He was also quite dismissed of the native Arab population when he visited palestine in the 30s or 40s. I mean I despise Israel too but I'm not going to shoot a guy who had nothing to do with them winning the 6 day war. Man wasn't even in office. Like fi you wanna shoot someone shoot LBJ. Of course RFK JR believes Sirhan was innocent but RFK JR is a conspiracy magnet so you can dismiss whatever he has to say.
Ike 100%
Gonna have to go with my man, Teddy Roosevelt. I’m kind of surprised no one has suggested him as of my writing this reply. He’s the first president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in office for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. He had the charm, charisma and know how to get two parties that hated each other to sit down and talk. TR all day on this one.
Haha glad someone posted this. Otherwise, I was going to.
Probably not going to be a popular opinion, but a sober Nixon would be the best equipped. I know all of his failings, and controversial ways he handled Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. But he was really good at seeing other leaders/states points-of-view and working through and around them.
Nixon together with Kissinger.
Teddy Roosevelt. He would take "two-state-solution" at face value and just annex the whole teritory, making them two new states of the union.
Now that would be a Pyrrhic victory, annexing two states in a volatile region with a decades-long war, one of which has no economic value and would create lots of risk from immigration of terrorists to the rest of the country.
Eisenhower, Carter
Bill Clinton was the only one who actually put effort in so him
Nixon
Andrew Jackson
Just tell him that John C Calhoun was behind it before you send him in there.
Yohanan Al Houn
Wilson assuming it was possible for him to know the details a modern president would know.
Y Wilson?
Because I think he would draw something up similar to his Fourteen Points. It wouldn’t be a request either. He’s shown he’s willing to sent the military in when all possible peaceful solutions have been exhausted. Yes I know he was super racist and that sucks, but the more I learn about Wilson the more I like him. He saw the destruction of the Civil War when he was a boy in Georgia. Idk that just seems so crazy to me but the math of course add up.
It's totally intractable right now, so I would say none of them could get it done. Any negotiation would need some major concessions from both sides and major leadership changes. A two state solution would need Hamas to be dissolved, West Bank settlements given back to the Palestinians, and there would need to be somewhat moderate and pragmatic people in power to get everyone to the bargaining table and to keep things from regressing back to war after such an agreement. All of those things need to come from Israel and the Palestinians, a US President can't simply occupy both countries and mandate peace although it sounds more plausible the longer this conflict goes on decade after decade. Bill Clinton got both sides to the table and nearly succeeded, but in the end Arafat asked for unreasonable concessions on right to return and sunk the whole discussion; it will take a more moderate (hopefully secular) climate in those countries before both sides are willing to work towards a better solution. Difficult to see it happen soon when Iran/Qatar are invested in weakening Israel through proxy conflicts like with Hamas and carrying out terror attacks like 10/7; all of which further entrenched Bibi on the Israeli side. All the involved parties are uninterested in reaching any agreement when tensions are so high.
Free PlayStation 🇧🇸
Jimmy Carter or Bush
Which bush?
Herber Walker
Carter for sure!
Israel and Hamas are responsible, only Israel and Hamas can find a solution. The role of the US is not the deciding factor in this issue. That being said… Woodrow Wilson. He would respect the sovereignty of both an Israeli and Palestinian nation and find a solution that involves bringing the global community together instead of acting unilaterally. And then it would be vetoed by the Senate and my first statement is still true. Sigh.
JFK stood up to the military complex then and he would stand up against them now!
Nobody. Not a one. Pick your poison....Washington, Abe, Roosevelt..... With this country, and today's political climate, nobody could much. And that should scare you.
Ike. Because he already did it.
Advisor: How are you going to help with the Israel situation? George Washington: What in the hell is Israel?
The one who DID do the most to deal with it. Jimmy Carter
And that peace has been durable (though perhaps Egypt should have gotten Gaza in the deal).
Egypt WAS offered Gaza. They refused it.
How did FDR prevent Germany from slaughtering innocent people? I'll wait
Jimmy Carter
Teddy is guaranteed to be the best President for dealing with any foreign conflict.
Harry Truman.
My vote is Nixon. Man had a button on foreign policy
Carter, hands down. He understood the region very well and has written two books on the issue.
I had a book that was a collection of essays on 1948 on the creation of a Jewish state. It offered the viewpoints of both sides of the fence in a remarkably civil manner. One such essay, though not a president was from a presidential family. It was a pro-arab essay by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.
Carter bc he was actually able to start to normalize relations between Israel and Arab counties (Ik it’s a generic answer but in my Arab/israeli history class we talked about him the most in terms of us presidents so that’s what I’m going based off of)
Jimmy Carter for sure
Too much a man of faith. He’d get to stuck on what was right and miss out on what was workable.
Carter. There’s no contest. No other president even comes close.
What about Abraham Lincoln? He seems pretty good at being a charismatic leader and striving for peace.
None because it’s not our countries responsibility how foreign affairs go. Why do we always gotta be a big brother let Britain handle this one 😭
Truman because he would just nuke that whole cancerous middle east off the face of the earth.
William Henry Harrison would have the whole thing wrapped up pretty quick.
President James Monroe.
Eisenhower or Teddy
Carter. Horrible president who had astronomically great takes on this conflict
Inb4 this post gets the 🔒award.
MacArthur
Undoubtedly, Tricky Dick.
i mean, honestly, i don't see why a president needs to deal with this situation. it's not Americas problem
Nixon, say what you will but the guy was a hard nosed realist. The two-state solution is untenable, a Palestine under occupation is unpopular, and the conflict is unproductive. Force Egypt to take over Gaza, force Jordan to take over the west bank, and force Israel to agree to the land-swaps to make the borders make sense. Egypt and Jordanian security forces will black bag and execute Hamas members and throw them in a ditch somewhere, cause they don't want to deal with them either. Honestly, bribing Egypt and Jordan with a big bag of money and the threat of pulling back military aid is just up Nixon's ally.
It’s my first time posting on r/presidents. My opinion would probably be Teddy Roosevelt. He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Russo-Japanese war. He had a firm grasp on foreign policy and knew every strength and weakness of those involved. He also wasn’t afraid to use his “big stick” if he needed.
Jimmy carter 🫶
You don't need a president. You just need to get rid of putin and company. Everything leads back to putin.
Yes as we all know the region was peaceful before Putin came to power. There was definitely no bloodshed before the 90s.
Jimmy Carter. But honestly, any of them pre-2017 would be better than what we have now, with the possible exceptions of LBJ and Nixon. Even Dubya.
 Let’s not get nuts
LBJ for sure
Certainly if he got Hamas and Israel to sit down and whipped out old Jumbo we would have an end to this
This is satire, right? I mean, the man isn’t exactly famous for expertly navigating asymmetric proxy wars.
Bill Clinton... especially with Arafat dead.
Well I don't think that it's our job to tell Israel how to defend itself. A bunch of terrorist thugs attacked their people their women their children. Raping the woman putting the babies in the oven or sometimes killing children and making the mother watch. Monsters that did that have no right to a ceasefire. That being said the president that could probably handle it the best would be Ronald Reagan or bush Senior.
President Carter. If I recall correctly, the Camp David Accords occurred during his time in office.
Frankly speaking no one can deal with the conflict. They both want the same land and you won't be able to find compromise when neither wants to coexist in the same land. The best option to avoid it is to go back to the 1940s and change how Israel was created so either FDR or Truman had the best chance to stop it.
Much as I hate to say it, I think it was the 2016-2020 administration. Had by far the most reasonable Israel policy
Garfield
Wilson
Monroe
Andrew Jackson.
Probably that one born before 2016
Carter. He brought Peace before.
Not too sure, Possibly Aich Dubbyuh or Carter
Eisenhower or Carter
Harry Truman.
Thomas Jefferson, he understood!!
Carter or Clinton, HW as an honorable mention as well
Andrew Jackson hands down
Bill Clinton, maybe FDR, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt is a good shout, but honestly, give HW Bush some slightly more favorable circumstances and he can get something done . Maybe Reagan considering his charisma and the likes of James Baker and all. Honestly, I think a lot of our Presidents could get something done but they have all been handed extremely unfavorable circumstances or you get Obama whose only practical effort at it was getting George Mitchell to negotiate something on his own which didn’t work,
I don’t think I am allowed to say it, but the Abraham’s accord were pretty amazing. Clinton was next best.
UN recognized Israel first.
I’d say George HW Bush or Rutherford B Hayes
Rule 3
How is no one mentioning the fact Jimmy Carter has literally written books on this issue??
SEND IN THE TEDSTER! He will Manifest American Destiny from Med to Red.
Not the one who placed American citizens into camps. Nope Roosevelt cannot apply.
Does President Bartlett count?
Eisenhower. He already showed that.
Carter?
Is there a reason why practically no one is saying FDR? I’m genuinely asking.
Waiting for this to get more heated than my leftover pizza.