March 19, 2002 9:05 a.m.

he Bush administration’s new stance on Israel is familiar, but also surreal. Every administration has treated Israel’s determination to defend itself as an inconvenience; but this Bush administration seemed different, especially after Sept. 11: The president seemed to “get” that Israel was engaged in exactly what the U.S. now had to do.

Bush also seemed sure to fulfill a campaign promise: not to interfere unduly in the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to make demands on Israel that put it in a weaker position, and cost it lives.

But then the president decided that Israel’s attempts to protect itself weren’t “helpful.” He dispatched his pitiful, uncomprehending envoy, Anthony Zinni, to the Middle East, to further, or restart, or talk about the “peace process.” One TV newscaster said that Zinni arrived there “facing a mounting death toll.” Gee, that’s nothing compared with what the victims and their families face!

The administration, only a half-year into the war, seems to view the Arab-Israeli conflict as a problem for the U.S., above all. According to a “senior official,” speaking to the New York Times, Colin Powell told Ariel Sharon to “get out of Ramallah and the other areas. The implication being, ‘This is the president’s mission, the president’s decided to send Zinni, and it’s not going to be good if it’s interpreted that your actions are undermining the president and his envoy in their attempts to end the violence.”

Thus Israel is given a choice: protect its citizens from murder or cross its primary — sometimes only — ally. That’s a lousy choice to impose on a government, especially one whose nation faces mortal threats.

You would have thought we were beyond this kind of strong-arming — unenlightened strong-arming; you would have thought that the administration now recognized the right — the necessity — of self-defense, and the futility of appeasing Muslim fanatics determined to kill; you would have thought that Bush understood the folly of rewarding Yasser Arafat for terror. For a time there, it seemed that Arafat would actually be punished for inflicting near-daily violence on Israel: the PA-sanctioned suicide bombers, freighters full of explosives, etc. But no: Washington has ridden to his rescue again.

And the media, of course, toasted Bush for this. The headlines said “Bush Rebukes Israel!” and the editorialists almost shouted with glee that the president was at last showing “evenhandedness”: Evenhandedness, that great shibboleth, is seen as a sign of wisdom in things Middle Eastern. Our betters are always telling us to “understand” the aggrieved and murdering Arabs; an understanding of the Israeli position is not encouraged.

On Sunday, the New York Times had the headline “What Does He Want? The Enigma That Is Sharon.” The question “What does Sharon want?” is among the easiest in the world: He wants that his nation live and not die, that it somehow endure among the millions bent on lying about it and killing it.

George Bush claims that Sharon’s actions are “unhelpful,” but he doesn’t say unhelpful how — or to what. Does he imagine that the Arabs will rush to overthrow Saddam if only Sharon plays nice and lets girls at their bat mitzvahs be blown up without response? Bush doesn’t say, either, what incentive Arafat could possibly have to quell the terror: The United States will obviously not require it of him. He’s sitting pretty once more, strolling and smiling with Zinni, looking ever the statesman.

Just when Jerusalem thinks it at last has Arafat isolated, the Americans come along and un-isolate him. I’ll tell you what incentive the PLO has to stop the killing: zero.

A sharp-eyed and conscientious reader pointed out something quite interesting to me. In the current National Review, our John J. Miller has an article on James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute. Miller writes, “When the United States arrested a Hamas leader in 1995, Zogby called the move ‘destructive and not helpful to the peace process,’ as if letting terrorists run free were somehow in the interests of peace.”

And now Bush and the rest of the administration parrot that same language. Disgusting. And also unnerving. We are not yet in James A. Baker III territory, but we should watch.

So, Judge Charles Pickering is finished — at least, he went down to defeat in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

There is a new line developing, among the liberals; actually, it was established about a week ago, when it became clear that Pickering wouldn’t make it: “The country is divided. The 2000 election was screwy, with the Democratic nominee, the loser, winning the popular vote. Bush has no mandate. He was ‘selected, not elected.’ The Democrats have control of the Senate, thanks to Jeffords. Bush has no business pushing for conservative judges. He’s not that kind of president. He has no right.”

Ah, but remember: That’s not what they’d said before. No. They said that Pickering was a racist, a Neanderthal, a hater not only of blacks but of women and the poor.

This is the way the liberals always play. If conservatives don’t expect it, they’re ineducable. It meant nothing to the Left that Pickering had put himself and his family at risk when he prosecuted the Klan — back when it was unpopular to do so in Mississippi. It meant nothing that he had the support of most black citizens in his community. Democrats still depicted Pickering as a kind of Klansman — a man who, if he wouldn’t burn a cross himself, would tolerate it.

The most delicious line uttered in this whole business came from Medgar Evers’s brother, who said, “The NAACP and the Klan are the only two organizations that are against him down here [in Mississippi] right now.”

Contemplating the destruction of Pickering, I was reminded of something in a piece I did last summer about Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee (“The ‘Nastiest’ Democrat,” NR, July 9). Here’s what I had in mind:

One Leahy foe puts the beef of many this way: The senator “always likes to have an ethical veneer for his purely partisan attacks. He can’t just say [for example] that he despises Ted Olson’s views, that he resents his representation of [George W.] Bush in Bush v. Gore, that he’s sorry there has to be a conservative solicitor general at all. No, he has to say that Olson lacks integrity, that he lacks honesty, and that’s what stinks about Patrick Leahy.”

I would say to Democrats, Look: If you want to say that Bush shouldn’t get judges because of the election, fine. But knock off this BS about how our guys are racists.

You won’t believe this, but I in a way feel sorry for Al Gore. Democrats are treating him like a leper. The thought of his running for president again fills them with dread. They seem to want anyone but.

But the guy did win the popular vote, was the “victim” in the strangest presidential election ever. Eisenhower creamed Stevenson, and the Dems nominated him again. It’s not like Gore is a Stevenson, electorally. He already has one of the cleverest bumper stickers in history: “Reelect Gore in 2004.” And yet he’s seen as a Big Loser, a poison pill.

I’ll get over it, believe me (like the next time he opens his mouth): but, for now, I feel a little sorry for Gore.

Wanna see a great headline? It comes from the New York Times, and it concerns H. Rap Brown, rené Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (wouldn’t you’ve guessed?): “Ex-Black Militant Gets Life for Murdering Deputy.”

Funny how ex-black militants murder deputies. What do current ones do? Murder two?

The DA in the Brown case “happened to be black,” as we say — and probably a good thing, too. After the sentence was handed down, he said, “He deserved [the death penalty], but we went from a case where people said we wouldn’t get a conviction to life without parole.”

Well done.

Okay, get a load of a second Times headline, this one dealing with tort reform: “Class-Action Bill Favorable to Business Passes House.”

I’ve said it a thousand times, and will repeat it: It’s not accuracy that’s at issue, but bias.

Having just come back from a wedding in Georgia — Jimmy Carter’s, not Eduard Shevardnadze’s — I’d like to make a few observations, disparate.

First, I’m at the airport, and there’s a sign that refers to “international destinations.” This reminds me of the absurd aversion to that necessary and good word, “foreign.” As you know, Ted Turner forbade the use of the word “foreign” on CNN, leading to many ridiculous moments. (Reuters, for its part, forbids the use of the word “terrorists” to refer to the 9/11 terrorists, but that’s a different outrage. A related outrage, actually.)

Back to that sign in the airport: It should have referred to “foreign destinations,” such as Paris and Panama City. What are “international destinations”? Multiple destinations? Trieste? Cyprus?

On campuses, foreign students are routinely referred to as “international students,” meaning, perhaps, that they should hold at least two passports and have parents from different countries. On the PGA Tour, foreign players are always referred to as “international players.” America, I’m afraid, has taken “international” as a synonym for “foreign,” having been deprived of the latter.

Remember, though, that “foreign” is no pejorative — I, for one, am happy to be a foreigner in Damascus, or even in Ottawa — and no one should tell you otherwise.

But I was going to talk about the South. I particularly like that, in those parts, “vegetables” can taste like desserts. It is a pleasure there to eat those “vegetables”; I hardly need the pie and cake (though I don’t refuse).

I loved, too, a place name: Newborn, Georgia. What a beautiful and inspired name, with its religious connotation.

Oh, more food: I meant to say that ambrosia — that sometimes laughed-at food — is well named.

Back to ’ligion (as in those immortal lines from spirituals, “I’m so glad I got my ’ligion in time,” and, “I ain’t never gonna lay my ’ligion down”): A sign on a church marquee said, “Grace Happens” — a fine conviction, which nicely acknowledges, and turns on its head, the secular and vulgar expression.

I want to say, too, that I read a Dave Barry column in the Atlanta paper. For some reason, I expected it to be not-funny, or tired, or cliched, or a little lame. I don’t know: just a bias, a prejudice, a species of ignorance. That column was amazingly hilarious and sparkling — virtually anthologizable. No wonder the guy’s rich and famous.

Will you indulge me in a quick musical note? I have my complaints — many — about Leonard Bernstein, but I will always love him for one comment he made: “I’d give five years of my life to have written The Stars and Stripes Forever.” Bernstein was a true musician, knowing the worth of this music and other music. He also knew what his song “Somewhere,” for example, was worth. It’ll live as long as there are songs.

I’m building up to something here. I’ve often said about John Williams — the movie composer, not the guitarist — that there are only two groups of people who grasp his greatness: real musicians and the unwashed masses. Those in between — the middlebrows, the dilettantes, the pretenders, the know-nothings — laugh at him. Most people could live 500 years and not come up with anything nearly as good as, say, the Raiders of the Lost Ark music or the theme used on the NBC news.

Okay, here’s my point: I have now been to several weddings at which the Andrew Lloyd Webber song “All I Ask of You” was performed. I have heard it in a string-quartet transcription; I have heard it in a piano transcription; I have heard it sung. And it is perfectly natural — not the least out of place — among other classics played at weddings.

True musicians recognize the worth of this remarkable song. Marilyn Horne is not the least of the musicians who have recorded it.

So, next time you hear some fool scoff at Andrew Lloyd Webber — who, to be sure, like most composers, has written his share of dreck — just know that the fool in question, if he labored over many lifetimes, could never produce anything remotely so good as “All I Ask of You.”

May I descend to talk about the Liza wedding? Just two quick points: 1) The bridal bouquet was caught by a man. ’nuff said. So perfect. And 2) a New York Post reporter supplied us with a wonderful detail: “After the wedding, church employees prepared for [the next day’s] sermon: ‘When Life Seems Like a Bad Joke.’”

Shame on me: I, along with the rest of the civilized world, wish the couple the best of luck.

Finally, a quick language note, relating to the previous Impromptus. The Times had an article on strife in Columbia University’s English department. Some say this strife is so bad, the department has trouble recruiting.

But the department’s chairman issued something of a denial. He said, “No one has said, ‘I would have loved to have come, but you’re such a mess.’”

This error in tense is all around us. The chairman should have said, “No one has said, ‘I would have loved to come, but you’re such a mess.’” He also might have said — second best — “No one has said, ‘I would love to have come, but you’re such a mess.’” But not the ever-popular “would have loved to have come.”

Oh, hang on: Actually, the guy’s right: His interlocutors probably would have said, “No one . . .”

I know, I know, why pick on a person’s English? But the man is the department chairman (“chair,” he would probably say) at Columbia University, and we were just talking about this very mistake, and . . .

Come to think of it, I have a further thing to say: I am hopelessly behind in my mail, and probably always will be. At this point, there’s no way of digging out — of getting up to par — without resigning my job and retiring to a monastery to answer e-mail full time. I say this with no glee or mirth or pride. I say it with remorse, disgust, and guilt. So, to the unread and unanswered: Please forgive me.