Obama moves fast on M.E. diplomacy

I just read the transcript of Pres. Obama’s address at the State Department today. That’s the one where he appointed former Sen. George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East peace, and former Amb. Richard Holbroooke as Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mitchell is a good choice. He has a good feel for the needs of brokering peace in tricky situations, which he helped do in Northern Ireland. And he knows quite a lot about the Israel-Palestine issue from his earlier work investigating the causes of the Second Intifada.
Plus, as a former Senate Majority Leader, he has the political stature that will be required to cajole people from both sides– and even Israel’s well-entrenched ‘Amen Corner’ in the US Congress– towards the decisions that will be needed to build durable final peace agreements.
Of course, it’s also a good sign that perennial “Israel-right-or-wrong” cheerleader Abe Foxman actually criticized Mitchell for being “too even-handed” between Arabs and Israelis. (I have it on good authority that there was a time when “even-handed” was thought of in Washington as a good description of what was needed in US diplomats working on Israeli-Arab issues. But it certainly hasn’t generally been seen as a good thing for as long as I’ve lived in the country– since 1982. Let’s hope we’re returning to a decent respect for even-handedness and basic fairness.)
I am seeing some excellent early actions from Obama. On the day he was inaugurated he phoned the leaders of the PA, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt– starting with the PA’s (time-expired but who’s counting?) President, Mahmoud Abbas. That was one early sign of his concern for moving fast on Arab-Israeli issues. Today’s appointment of Mitchell is another, even stronger one.
Plus, I think it’s excellent that on his second full day in office the President went to the State Department to join Sec. Clinton in making these announcements. That’s a strong signal of the value he places in the work of diplomacy that the State department’s employees do.
Regarding Mitchell’s appopintment, of course a lot remains to be revealed. One telling sign was that the hawkish Clinton adviser Dennis Ross, whose strongly pro-Israeli think-tank had previously announced that he would be kind of super-adviser for the whole region stretching from the Middle East to Afghanistan, reportedly wasn’t even present at tofday’s announcement. (Maybe, though, he’ll end up working more on Iran issues? Who knows?)
Clinton said at the State Department event that “the president and I have asked [Mitchell] to be the special envoy for Middle East peace.” That leaves it a little unclear who he’ll report to, which is a key detail.
When Obama spoke, he said this about Mitchell’s task:

    He will be fully empowered at the negotiating table, and he will sustain our focus on the goal of peace.
    No one doubts the difficulty of the road ahead, and George outlined some of those difficulties. The tragic violence in Gaza and southern Israel offers a sobering reminder of the challenges at hand and the setbacks that will inevitably come.
    It must also instill in us, though, a sense of urgency, as history shows us that strong and sustained American engagement can bridge divides and build the capacity that supports progress. And that is why we will be sending George to the region as soon as possible to help the parties ensure that the cease-fire that has been achieved is made durable and sustainable.
    Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.
    For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.
    To be a genuine party to peace, the quartet has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.
    Going forward, the outline for a durable cease-fire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.
    Yesterday I spoke to President Mubarak and expressed my appreciation for the important role that Egypt played in achieving a cease-fire. And we look forward to Egypt’s continued leadership and partnership in laying a foundation for a broader peace through a commitment to end smuggling from within its borders.
    Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.
    I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who’ve faced suffocating poverty for far too long.
    Now we must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace. As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating.
    Relief efforts must be able to reach innocent Palestinians who depend on them. The United States will fully support an international donor’s conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy. This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority.
    Lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire, and that’s why I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.
    Senator Mitchell will carry forward this commitment, as well as the effort to help Israel reach a broader peace with the Arab world that recognizes its rightful place in the community of nations.
    I should add that the Arab peace initiative contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative’s promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.
    Jordan’s constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel provide a model for these efforts. And going forward, we must make it clear to all countries in the region that external support for terrorist organizations must stop.

This is pretty good as a starting US position.
I was also interested to see that Pres. Obama went into considerably greater detail about Mitchell’s task than Sec. Clinton did. So that might well indicate that Mitchell will be reporting more to him (through National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones) than to Clinton.

45 thoughts on “Obama moves fast on M.E. diplomacy”

  1. Well at least someone is even handed.
    The BBC has completely screwed their credibility with their bleating about ballance.
    Denying the Disasters Emergency Comittee the chance to raise money because someone doesn’t want the devastation and misery to be shown on TV at prime time is evil, iniquitous and wrong.
    http://www.guardian .co.uk/world/ 2009/jan/ 22/gaza-charity- appeal

  4. I guess I may have missed this somewhere, but surely President Obama meant to include the duly and democratically elected government of Hamas in his list of political entities with which he planned to work out some sort of agreement concerning the most recent depredations by the Apartheid Zionist Entity on the captive Palestinian refugees in Gaza?
    Or does President Obama fully intend to support and encourage the Apartheid Zionist Entity in its progrom of murdering the democratically elected Hamas leadership so that assorted apologists for the A.Z.E. can then cynically whine about how they just don’t have anyone on the Palestinian side with whom to negotiate?

  5. What a disgustingly one-sided speech. He made it sound as if the suffering and death was equal on both sides, and he put all the onus on Hamas, and none on Israel. Israel was, after all, just defending itself, and the only thing it is required to do is withdraw from Gaza, which it completed on Wednesday.
    And I understand that the odious Martin Indyk was there.
    This is about what I expected, but I guess I still wished for something better.

  6. No mention of driving Palestinians from their homes and keeping them in de fscto concentration camps for years, with periodic air and missile attacks on “high value” targets which take dozens of innocent lives.
    No mention, as Michael has noted, of recognizing the democratically elected government of Gaza, which election was promoted was promoted by the US/Israeli gang until the electees proved not to the masters’ likings, and so they were attacked and murdered, along with their adult supporters and their children.
    Not a very good starting position, I’d say.
    It gets worse. Obama is obviously still intentioned to go big in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has now increased their control from 54% to 72% of the country. Afghanistan will be Obama’s principal undoing while Palestine continues to suffer.
    Obviously Obama is getting bad advice and he’s not smart enough to recognize it. Well the White House has a new web site appearance — that’s something new.

  7. Truly bizarre. President O makes his first telephone calls to Mahmoud and Ehud and Hosni and Abdul but none to the person Helena has been saying for nearly two years is the democratically elected Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and Helena sings O’s praises.
    Obama says: “Now is the time for Arab states to act on the (Arab) initiative’s promise BY SUPPORTING THE PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT UNDER PRESIDENT ABBAS AND PRIME MINISTER FAYAAD, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.” !!!!!
    Obama says: ” The United States will fully support an international donor’s conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy. THIS ASSISTANCE WILL BE PROVIDED TO AND GUIDED BY THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY.” !!!
    Obama says: “the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, SO THAT HAMAS CANNOT REARM” !!!
    Obama says: To be a genuine party to peace, the quartet has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: RECOGNIZE ISRAEL’s RIGHT TO EXIST; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.” !!!
    And Helena response to all this is a glow tick: “Pretty good as a US starting position”.
    Well blow me down. I was never a believer in this hope and change thing before but now it’s happened before my eyes and on my 3rd favorite website. I am converted.

  8. First time posting here. You have a great site, but if this is “pretty good” as a start…well what can I say. It sounds like “We will starve and bomb Hamas into submission. We will conduct diplomacy through our local puppets, including the no-longer-president Abbas and the illegally appointed Fayyad. They will help us starve Hamas some more.”
    How is that different from Bush? Because George Mitchel will be saying it instead of Condi Rice?
    I never expected much (really anything) from Obama. But it seems some people are desperate for some glimmer of hope.

  9. Israel has been listening to Obama:
    TEL AVIV, Jan 23 (Reuters) – Israel has all but ruled out fully reopening border crossings with the Gaza Strip as long as Hamas rules the enclave or stands to benefit from easing of the restrictions, a top adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said.

  10. and so has Hamas:
    Osama Hamdan, a Hamas spokesman, told Al Jazeera that Obama’s remarks seemed to show that the US viewed the situation through “Israeli eyes”.
    “It seems that Obama is trying to repeat the same mistakes that George Bush made without taking into consideration Bush’s experience that resulted in the explosion of the region instead of reaching stability and peace in it,” he said.
    “I think this is an unfortunate start for President Obama in the region and the Middle East issue. And it looks like the next four years, if it continues with the same tone, will be a total failure.”

  11. In addition
    Obama: “Jordan’s constructive role in TRAINING Palestian security forces …. we must make it clear to ALL COUNTRIES IN THE REGION that EXTERNAL SUPPORT for terrorist organisations must stop” Hmmmn. Who could this be he’s talking about?
    Was there one word in this statement that Bush the Evil would not have uttered? Is there one phone call Bush the Evil would have changed? Is George Mitchell himself not an early appointee of Bush the Evil himself in a long ago and (vain, as was usual) attempt to stop the 2nd Intifada in 2000/1? Hamas suicide bombings and all that?

  12. I think most of us would agree with the above comments. Helena’s post is a definite disappointment. While I think that Helena is usually a little too optimistic and centrist, I generally can relate to her posts; but this is sort of off in never-never land. Obama’s comments are nothing if not grossly disappointing and pale echos of Bush. We had hoped for much better. Helena, where is the “good start?” Are you privy to some information that the rest of us don’t have? I wish you could explain this bizarre post.

  15. For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.
    OK Let takes obama/US rules further and applied to some scenarios around the world:
    The conflict between IRA of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom did that give UK government lunched deadly occupations and atrocities in Northern Ireland?
    Tyrant Saddam with Halabjah the story that taken to sky and used for regime change case, he warned them as they attacked Iraqi army while Iraqi tropes moving and busy fighting long deadly war with Iran,he will punished them if they did not stopping attacking Iraqi army, then he did….so what US and the international community saide about him?
    Sudan fighting the rabbles in south Sudan triing to stop their separatist agenda what US and international community did with Sudan government?
    So Israelis humiliating 1.5 million humans for decades using collective punishment, then starting war demolishing most their homes and killed more than 1000 civilians more wended and injured due to massive madness use of force.
    What US and International community did?

    For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people,


    What we can say here?

  16. Let’s take this move from President Obama towards the Palestian-Isreali issue as positive. We have to give time to his expert foreign policy team to treat this issue legally. I think we should stick to the saying ” wait and see ” for a little time.
    Hafid

  17. Helen, do you not see that these…
    ” Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative’s promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”
    …are chilling words that say, without mentioning Hamas, that Obama is determined to cut Hamas out, no matter what, following up on the vicious Bush-Condi policy of setting aside the result of the recent elections, using both overt economic sledgehammers and covert subversions?
    i’m sorry but that’s nothing like being evenhanded. I don’t like Hamas any more than Obama likes Hamas, but we must deal with them. And we as citizens need to make every effort to persuade this administration to stop it’s foolish and immoral policy of sidelining Hamas.
    What needs to happen is that both Fatah and Hamas and Israel and the US need to talk together. You can’t achieve peace if you won’ t talk.

  18. The Saudis are upset–
    Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, told the UN Security Council that if there was no just settlement, “we will turn our backs on you”. King Abdullah spoke for the entire Arab and Muslim world when he said at the Arab summit in Kuwait that although the Arab peace initiative was on the table, it would not remain there for long. . .Unless the new US administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b122b6-e8c0-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

  19. Everyone has beaten me to it, but this was standard US hypocrisy–bleat about democracy and oppose democracy when it pushes forward someone you don’t like. I don’t like Hamas either, but I also don’t like the Israeli politicians (least of all Netanyahu, the likely winner soon) and can anyone imagine Obama trying to ignore the legally elected government of Israel?
    Helena, what you’re doing is what I’ve seen several left-leaning Obamaphiles do–it’s cognitive dissonance or doublethink. Obama is going against what you’ve advocated, but you want so badly to believe he’s on your side that you stare right at a speech that contradicts at least some of the policies you advocate and you act as though he’s on your side. The evidence continues to suggest otherwise.
    We were told not to worry about the selection of HRC as Secretary of State because what matters is what Obama thinks. Now he picks Mitchell and we’re supposed to think this is the Millenium. Trouble is, Obama has told us what he thinks.

  20. “Obama’s remarks seemed to show that the US viewed the situation through ‘Israeli eyes’.”
    SEEMED to show?! That speech could have come from an Israeli official, or Dennis Ross, or any one of hundreds of professional Israel apologists.
    The more I think about it the more disgusted I feel.

  22. I’m still here. I haven’t been taken over by alien forces. I think it’s worth looking for the good in things… and there are some pretty unprecedented nuggets here, even if stuck into a lot of the old pro-Israeli boilerplate.

  23. I agree with Rozele. There’s been a kidnapping here. Pretty good US starting position? Baloney.

  24. Wow! Talk about a bunch of pessimists who can’t see the forest for the trees.
    Keep up your excellent reporting and sharing of your insights on this divisive and troubling issue. Unlike the above I can appreciate the political complexities and mine fields that must be navigated to reach the other side and at least craft a compromise the parties can live with, if not like. I believe the ‘two state’ solution is on the line. If nothing meaningful can be accomplished this year than that option as a possibility has run its course. That has very serious implications for US diplomacy, posture and interests in the region, as well as many other factors globally driving this administration to take an activist, holistic foreign policy stance on the Middle East, especially the I/P issue that must be addressed in tandem with everything else.

  25. Rfk, yeah, one can see some good things in the speech–I’m glad he’s talking about restoring commerce in Gaza, if he follows through on it. But the boilerplate is there too and it matters. As for minefields, I can see one rather huge one right now–when even people on the left talk about Obama as representing fairness, someone who is a champion for peace, without pointing out all the problems that remain in his outlook, you’re giving him a free pass to blame any future problems on the Palestinians. He’s already doing it, blaming Hamas and not Israel for war crimes and talking about the Gaza War as though it was all about Hamas rocket fire–the Israeli blockade and the Israeli violations don’t seem to matter when it comes to assigning moral blame. So he can sound compassionate in a superficial way and still side mostly with the Israelis. Clinton did this too. Clinton blamed the Palestinians when Camp David collapsed and he had credibility because there were so many people upholding Clinton as the big champion of peace and many still do. I don’t think Obama should be allowed to get away with spouting the usual boilerplate, as Helena calls it, even if you do think he is doing some hopeful things. If he is allowed to lie, he’ll keep right on doing it. Lying about this issue has been smart politics for him, and it’ll be even smarter if even peace advocates give him a pass on it.

  27. I agree, Donald, that Obama should be called out if he falls into boilerplate positions. If Obama didn’t emphasize crimes against Palestinians in his speech, journalists should trumpet that in articles and people should stage demonstrations about it. Take productive action that obliges Obama to be unbiased in his approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
    But most of the posters here don’t want to correct Obama. They want to smash his head in with a shovel and bury him. They won’t even try to make Obama improve foreign policy; they’ve written him off for good and demonized him. At least Helena is open-minded. She writes an article speculating about where Obama could go from this start. And even she’s not protected from lynching; rozele and OscarRomero come in an excoriate her like they were two enforcers of the Cultural Revolution.

  28. Donald
    I can understand the sentiments and disappointments concerning the track record of US foreign policy, particularly its last 8 years. But the above complaints and demands are no different from the irresponsible cowboy antics that were once upon a time previously deplored and condemned. Obama is a much shrewder, calculating and smarter politician, which is exactly what I expect to see in a politician I want to succeed in what passes for Dodge City on the Potomac.
    Nor is Obama another Clinton or Mitchell a Ross clone. There are many who desire greatly for Obama and his team to fail and they all aren’t Israelis. Like panthers they are waiting for the slightest misstep, or heaven forbid FUBAR to pounce upon and use to discredit the new president and his administration. Regardless of the empty gestures out of Tel Aviv, Jeruselum and from the Israeli Lobby in the states, appointing Mitchell as envoy has Zionist/Likudnik eyeballs about 5 or 6 inches in front of their faces. And daring to mention Palestinian suffering has some of them reaching for the antacids and bicarbonate soda. Than this upstart has the nerve to tell Israel the borders must be opened to aid, free egress and commerce? Well, that transgression compelled Tzipi Livni to call S/S Clinton and tell her in no uncertain terms just what she thought of that. I’ll bet Hillary was waiting for the call too.
    I would say after rattling the cages of the usual suspects in Israel and the US, a little boiler plate and some nice talk about Israel was a smart and diplomatic thing to do, whether or not he wholeheartedly believes, disbelieves or somewhere in the middle.

  29. Rfk and inkan–
    I’ll happily eat my words if Obama does turn out to be decent on Israel/Palestine. Mitchell is a good choice, but Obama’s own words and his expressed policy commitments are not good. And unfortunately they’ve been consistent for the past few years–he approved of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon and was opposed to a ceasefire back then, for instance, and I have other complaints above.
    There is some chance Obama has good intentions (as most people here would judge good), but if so he’s being very sneaky about it. AIPAC would actually have some legitimate reason for complaint if he starts behaving the way Helena hopes he’ll behave (not that I will sympathize with AIPAC if this happens). Assuming he does do this, I’m not sure his sneakiness up to this point is the best approach. Surely people in the US need to be told that Israel is not the saintly benighted country desperate for peace, the image that is put forward by most American politicians. Obama continues to pander to that one-sided view, which isn’t helpful.
    As for other people here, I don’t know most of them (even by internet standards), but I’m guessing they are tired not of 8 years of bad policy, but decades of bad American policy towards Israel/Palestine, though admittedly Bush II has been the worst of all. The burden of proof is on Obama to show that he’s going to be much better than Clinton, and not just Bush. It’s not that hard to be better than Bush.

  31. That speech is right in line with the Israel line. Hamas is not the elected government of Palestine they are terrorists. And those Palestinians who fail to see that fact will be punished again.
    Obama is not about change. If he were he would have pushed for the Obama Plan, below. He is not a leader he is a follower of orders, and he must be called on ridiculous, insulting toady speeches like the one above when he makes them. He is not going to change, in my opinion, but it needs to made plain that he is a part of the main sequence of the Bush-Clinton continuum. The entire power-structure in the US is mobbed-up and the only hope for a cure is for “we the people” to enact national recall, referendum, and initiative. It is no small undertaking but the sooner we start the sooner it will be accomplished. I see no hope from mannequins like Obama.
    ****
    US Restitution to Palestine
    1. The US Mediterranean fleet will immediately put ashore medics and medical supplies in Gaza, and the Seabees will begin to restore essential Palestinian infrastructure destroyed in the recent holocaust.
    2. The US will work closely with the elected government of Palestine to ensure that the Palestinian people are safe from further attacks by neighboring countries.
    3. The US will call upon all the world’s nations to join a coalition of the willing to solve once and for all the terrible suffering and strife that has plagued the region for decades.
    4. President Obama pledged to ask the US Congress to allocate one billion dollars as “seed money” for the reconstruction of Palestine, including the construction of a four-lane tunnel connecting the Gaza strip on the Palestinian coast with the Palestinian interior on the western bank of the River Jordan.
    President Obama called upon the Palestinian people not to lose hope and to “keep their eyes on the prize”. He pledged that the US would not dwell on the mistakes it had made in the region in past, but would push ahead with his vision of peace for “the land of milk and honey.”
    President Obama said that he would be undeterred by special interests with regard to Palestine. “I am the President of the United States of America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” he said, “and it is in the interest of all the American people that there be peace on earth, everywhere, and especially in Palestine, where so much of our financial and moral treasure has been wasted.”

  32. That speech is right in line with the Israel line. Hamas is not the elected government of Palestine they are terrorists. And those Palestinians who fail to see that fact will be punished again.
    Obama is not about change. If he were he would have pushed for the Obama Plan, below. He is not a leader he is a follower of orders, and he must be called on ridiculous, insulting toady speeches like the one above when he makes them. He is not going to change, in my opinion, but it needs to made plain that he is a part of the main sequence of the Bush-Clinton continuum. The entire power-structure in the US is mobbed-up and the only hope for a cure is for “we the people” to enact national recall, referendum, and initiative. It is no small undertaking but the sooner we start the sooner it will be accomplished. I see no hope from mannequins like Obama.
    ****
    US Restitution to Palestine
    1. The US Mediterranean fleet will immediately put ashore medics and medical supplies in Gaza, and the Seabees will begin to restore essential Palestinian infrastructure destroyed in the recent holocaust.
    2. The US will work closely with the elected government of Palestine to ensure that the Palestinian people are safe from further attacks by neighboring countries.
    3. The US will call upon all the world’s nations to join a coalition of the willing to solve once and for all the terrible suffering and strife that has plagued the region for decades.
    4. President Obama pledged to ask the US Congress to allocate one billion dollars as “seed money” for the reconstruction of Palestine, including the construction of a four-lane tunnel connecting the Gaza strip on the Palestinian coast with the Palestinian interior on the western bank of the River Jordan.
    President Obama called upon the Palestinian people not to lose hope and to “keep their eyes on the prize”. He pledged that the US would not dwell on the mistakes it had made in the region in past, but would push ahead with his vision of peace for “the land of milk and honey.”
    President Obama said that he would be undeterred by special interests with regard to Palestine. “I am the President of the United States of America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” he said, “and it is in the interest of all the American people that there be peace on earth, everywhere, and especially in Palestine, where so much of our financial and moral treasure has been wasted.”

  34. Helena,
    Can you blog about the Gaza event at Georgetown, or perhaps add a bit more here in the comments section? Was there a good turnout, both on the panel and in the audience? Were there any smart proposals for how best to strengthen Obama’s “change” agenda on the Palestinian issue?
    Discussants here in the comments section raise a number of good questions about these agenda issues for Obama. Pressing for change is important, but as DJ points out above, it is not enough to change the low standard W set over the last eight years. With Hillary in the State Department job there is a huge risk of retreating back to the 1990s, pre-Geneva, pre-Taba, and even pre-Camp David. Change on this front should be more radical. Was that the mood among people at the Georgetown event?
    I agree with you it is important to see the glass half-full with regard to the new administration. Obama has been in office for less than five days. But unless American supporters of justice for the Palestinians find ways to strengthen Obama’s “change” agenda, and be prepared to answer the stonewalling campaign of the Israel lobby, if necessary through subterfuge and other tactics which the Lobby typically uses, then there is unlikely to be forward movement in the next 4-8 years.

  35. When it comes to the Palestinians Obama’s idea of change can be summed up as “not as bad as Bush, not as good as Clinton”.
    If this is “change”, show me something else, please.
    I can’t see the glass as “half full” when it has, at best, gone from completely empty to a few drops of stale, polluted liquid at the bottom. Even in the face of three weeks that horrified most of the rest of the world (and abruptly ended, quite “coincidentally”, hours before he became President), Obama cannot find it within himself to make a hint of a suggestion of a criticism of Israel. This does not bode well for the future at all. It’s hard to see it getting better from here.

  36. As we all take an ultra-fine-toothed comb to Obama’s choices and statements searching desperately for whatever miniscule crumbs we can glean to convince ourselves that change is coming, perhaps we should consider the significance of the fact that we need to search so hard to find what we want so desperately to see.

  37. My view is that we don’t really know what Obama’s position on the Middle East is going to be. So far his actions since inauguration seem pretty liberal – closing Guantanamo, permitting stem-cell experimentation, declaring that Iran has to be negotiated with. Enough to worry the Israelis. To the extent that I am beginning to feel apprehensive that some may feel that an immediate termination is in order. Biden would be a much better president for Israel.
    If Obama survives that particular feeling, it has to be said that, whatever he thinks, pro-Israel statements have to be made. Otherwise it is immediate destruction of his presidency. If he really has other views – and I’m not claiming that he does – he has to wait, and assert them slowly.
    The idea that Iraq has to be returned to its people is positive. The idea will evolve, and finish by a quasi-complete withdrawal. The Iraqis desire a complete withdrawal, the US wishes to retain bases. That will finish with Balad being retained with a small garrison. By the way, I find it particularly heinous that it should be Balad that is retained – though I think it probable – as it is located as it is located on top of the few most fertile lands of Iraq. At least the British were polite enough to locate their Habbaniyya airbase in the desert.

  38. “The idea that Iraq has to be returned to its people is positive.”
    It is also just talk, and it is accompanied by him steadily moonwalking away even from the use of the word “withdrawal”. Now it’s reduced to wanting his commanders to discuss the possibility of a “drawdown”.
    And I find it interesting, Alex, that even you are now talking about a “qausi-complete withdrawal” – as if there were such a thing. Either the U.S. withdraws or it does not withdraw. There is no such thing as quasi-complete.
    Oh yes, and Commander-in-Chief Obama has achieved his first kills. Yesterday three of his missiles hit a house in Pakistan killing 18 human beings, including apparently, several children. Way to go, Obama! That’s real “change”, all right.
    As for his statements about Israel and Palestine, plus ca “change” plus la meme chose.

  39. Make that 22 human beings killed by Commander in Chief Obama’s missiles. They are claiming that four of them were Al Qa`eda members.

  40. Oh – and speaking of Richard Holbrooke, isn’t he the one who oversaw the shipment of the arms the Indonesians used in its illegal invasion of East Timor, and then used to massacre one third of the population?

  42. He said, “The idea that Iraq has to be returned to its people is positive.”
    She said, “It is also just talk, and it is accompanied by him steadily moonwalking away even from the use of the word ‘withdrawal’. Now it’s reduced to wanting his commanders to discuss the possibility of a ‘drawdown’. ”
    Regardless of whether one agrees with either combatant, it should be recognized that both of them are doing business at the same old address, not discernibly perturbed by Planet Obama. Unlike pretty well everybody else in sight.
    Happy days.

  43. I am disappointed by Obama’s speech which was the pattern of the previous hypocritical US governments stance. Welcome to the dull singing band Mr new president. There will be no change as you have repeatedly promised in your presidential campaigns. The dull song is always sung unchanged:
    America is committed to Israel’s security.
    America always supports Israel’s right to defend itself .
    Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.
    It’s the occupation stupid! It’s the culprit of the long unresolved conflict. Israel is the evil party simply because it is occupying the Palestinian lands and democratically elected Hamas is merely struggling to free their lands from Israel colonialism just like any other countries would do in the past to free themselves from colonial powers all over the world, because Israel only understands the language of weapons. Look at Palestinian-Israeli absurd negotiations in decades, which have fruited nothing but more and more of illegal Israeli settlements occupying more Palestinian lands that were ignored by the US past governments without even any pressure ever to Israel.
    Yes, then, it is a bad beginning indication for Obama Administration and if he continues following this pattern then it’ll end up a total failure for his efforts in resolving the Mideast conflict. It’s pathetic and sadly the bloodshed will continue and history will not forget that the US is always the obstacle to the just resolution. What a black hole in history as Erdogan, Turkish prime minister put it.
    And Helena, you too, have disappointed me by saying “pretty good as a starting US position”.

  44. Either the U.S. withdraws or it does not withdraw. There is no such thing as quasi-complete.
    That is precisely what I have always said, and I was much criticised by Don Bacon for having said it.
    However there is the issue of a figleaf. I should think that’s where it will go in 2011. Something which allows the US to say it is still there.
    You know, Shirin, both you and Don Bacon talk as though Iraq is the only problem the US has. And as though no other world crises which require US troops will happen before 2011.
    I’m glad I don’t live in the US, otherwise I too might end up thinking the US is omnipotent.

  45. I see Obama is a realist (irony alert)
    Obama aims for oil independence
    though I imagine you all have your own versions of that speech. I maintain now, as you know I have for some time, that it is only possible to describe many Obama attitudes as simply not up to speed on realities. He ought to be but he isn’t. I prefer that over the cynical explanations.

Comments are closed.