Hebrews scientists were surprised by the abandonment of the Jewish State term, coined by members of the Bush team in November 2001, at the express request of the then Prime Minister Sharon. During his tour, the President was limited to talk of the Jewish national home, going back to the time of the Balfour Declaration (1917). For Tel Aviv political establishment this formula equals a shield: to defend the ethnic concept (the Jewish State), protects Israel against a hypothetical Palestinian, but also immigration wave, and above all, of the increasingly disturbing demographic explosion of Israeli Arabs, who today represent 19 percent of the State’s population and whose birth rate could mean, in the long run, a real danger for the Jewishness of Israel. This time, Bush was limited to allude vaguely to the right of return of the nearly 4 million refugees using, according to Jewish experts, a very similar vocabulary to the of the Palestinians. Another cause of dispute was the reference to the future borders of Israel. The U.S. President again stressed the need to respect the borders of 1949.

UNS stance criticised by Hebrews successive Governments that seek to negotiate withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, taking into account the current status quo, generated by the presence of numerous blocks of the controlled West Bank settlements, when not occupied by the army of Tel Aviv. Do but in this particular case, the stance of Bush was very clear: the President stressed the need to initiate consultations on the final status ending the occupation that began in 1967?. Although the current occupant of the White House opted not to speak out clearly about the status of Jerusalem, fearing possible criticism of the powerful American Jewish lobby, acknowledged that a host of political and religious obstacles hindered the solution of the double capital. In short, many, too many setbacks to the political class Israeli, who expected a boost from the President of the United States. Many setbacks also for friendly monarchies of the Persian Gulf, which interpreted tour of the President as a mere incitement to organize a new global danger: the so-called Iranian terrorism. While it is true that Iran does not have too many friends and allies in the area, it is also true that the prospect of a new war adventure similar to the Iraqi shakes the foundations of the feudal monarchies of the middle. Something seem to agree Arabs and Israelis: today, there are many, too many reasons to distrust the stratagems of Washington.