While George Bush basically figured out that Middle East Peace is an illusion, Mr. Obama promises to go at it full bore. Mr. Obama says:
"It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as between Israel and its Arab neighbors," he said.
The subject of Israeli-Palestinian peace was the first foreign policy issue Obama addressed in his trip to the State Department, which came on the day Hillary Clinton assumed office following her Senate confirmation Wednesday. She also introduced a second envoy, Richard Holbrooke, who will serve as point man on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obama was criticized even before taking office for remaining silent during the recent Gaza violence, and the Mitchell announcement - coupled with his remarks on the subject - seemed a bid to demonstrate that he is now fully engaged in the issue after relieving himself of the shackles of the transition period.
"We have come to the State Department today to send a very clear message that we will reinvigorate American diplomacy," declared Vice President Joe Biden, who accompanied Obama on his first meeting with Clinton at her new headquarters.
Every President who has tried to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict has failed. The only success story so far has been Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan and it had nothing to do with American diplomacy (although America did grease the deal). It had to do with the fact that the parties involved wanted to settle. So unless Obama is going to use his magic soft power on Hamas and get them in a deal making mood he is setting himself up for epic fail.
Obama doesn't understand that real diplomacy is about carrots and sticks. He is big on carrots and disdainful of sticks. Which is why he will fail. What Obama doesn't get is that Middle East Peace is nothing at all like making a deal for an Congressional Senate Seat for one of his cronies.
Plan for war - because Obama knows nothing about keeping the peace.
Many Democrats such as Obama, and such as Pelosi& Kerry & Dodd ( neglecting David Duke"s trip to Damascus) with their pilgrimages to Damascus, give the impression that their only knowledge of the Middle East came from reading three articles in the NYT.
Given all the efforts that US Presidents have expended on the "peace process" in the last 60 years, anyone with a minimum of knowledge of that would realize the US cannot order the Middle East the way a child would arrange a checkers board.
For all the talk about "end to unilateralism" and "cooperation with neighbors", one would think that the Middle
East, of all places is one place where we would realize that hubris about American power would not fit.
If we can fix it, then why hasn't it been fixed in the last 60 years? BTW, "Hamas" reminds me of the Spanish word "jamás"- very similar prnunciations- which means NEVER.
Gringo · January 23, 2009 10:27 AM
I have no idea how successful Obama will be in the Israeli situation.
It depends only partly on his work and skills. There are other parties involved which no one person controls. And those parties themselves change over time.
This last sentence caught my eye:
"Plan for war - because Obama knows nothing about keeping the peace."
Perhaps:
"Plan for surrender."
comes closer.
K · January 23, 2009 7:28 PM
I don't think Obama will surrender. There's room under his bus for Middle East Peace.
When it does come to war, one that is Obama's idea, I think he'll go into it in a way that will make Bush look like peace-loving hippie.
Donna B.: When it does come to war, one that is Obama's idea, I think he'll go into it in a way that will make Bush look like peace-loving hippie.
All he has to do is to treat them the way he did his primary opponents. After all, Chicago politics doesn't do nice.
Gringo · January 24, 2009 12:26 AM
Donna, Gringo: I agree that Obama would fight to the last for his own power and his associates.
My thought was more that Obama may very well toss Americans under the bus.
After all, he has the power - and it is is massive - to kick hell out of any Americans who prove surly and unhelpful in the days ahead.
And if he does I expect as much protest by the rabbits that live in my yard as from the Congress, courts, the law professors, or the ACLU.
There would be silence from sea to shining sea from those who pose as champions of liberty.
The squeaks of Limbaugh would be unheard. And sometimes people disappear.
But Obama has fewer options abroad, the world is simply too big with too many people.
The dilemma of our power is this:
The US has long been able to destroy anyone anywhere. And yet we are unsure we can control even the most remote and weak peoples.
So Obama begins with unlimited physical power in the US. But he must negotiate from economic and demographic weakness overseas. The obvious temptation is to suppress dissent domestically.
Several Presidents in crisis faced the same problem. Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and HST all acted as needed.
In general I think they got it about right.
I don't mention more recent Presidents simply because that would introduce a lot of unhelpful passion into the topic.
Nothing about Obama so far makes me believe he will not gladly go far farther than other Presidents. And I do not recall another who faces less restraint.
K · January 24, 2009 2:52 AM
>"It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as between Israel and its Arab neighbors,"
A fool's errand. As long as muslims hate jerws, there will be no peace. That Obama doesn't seem to get this speaks to his ignorance of history.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Many Democrats such as Obama, and such as Pelosi& Kerry & Dodd ( neglecting David Duke"s trip to Damascus) with their pilgrimages to Damascus, give the impression that their only knowledge of the Middle East came from reading three articles in the NYT.
Given all the efforts that US Presidents have expended on the "peace process" in the last 60 years, anyone with a minimum of knowledge of that would realize the US cannot order the Middle East the way a child would arrange a checkers board.
For all the talk about "end to unilateralism" and "cooperation with neighbors", one would think that the Middle
East, of all places is one place where we would realize that hubris about American power would not fit.
If we can fix it, then why hasn't it been fixed in the last 60 years? BTW, "Hamas" reminds me of the Spanish word "jamás"- very similar prnunciations- which means NEVER.