Many people, including Chris Toensing and Mouin Rabbani at Merip and many of the commenters here at JWN, find it hard to believe that Barack Obama’s Arab-Israeli peace diplomacy will be much different than that of the US presidents who have preceded him. Look, I can understand why people who followed Obama’s sometimes pander-y election campaign closely, and then watched him remain studiously silent (“one president at a time!”) while the US-supplied Israeli military rained death and destruction on Gaza’s people for 23 days, might find it hard to believe that the new president truly might be inclined to take up the task of returning the US to a more even-handed role in Arab-Israeli diplomacy– and to take up this task, moreover, as one of his first and seemingly highest priorities upon coming into office.
But I think the doubters are wrong. Or, at the very least, that they don’t have enough feel for the nuance of policy and the possibility– at this time perhaps more than any other in recent decades– of a determined and smart US president undertaking a radical realignment of the US posture back towards a fair-minded and effective peace diplomacy.
I have been following Palestinian-Israeli affairs very closely for more than 34 years now. My first book was a pretty ground-breaking study of the politics of the PLO: It came out in 1984, has been translated into several languages, and has been used as a textbook in universities in both Palestine and Israel. (Remarkably enough, it’s still in print.) I’ve been hounded and harassed by the powerful pro-Israel groups in the US for many years because of the positions I’ve articulated in favor of Palestinian rights, Palestinian humanity, and fundamental fairness… And I can honestly say that I have never seen an incoming US president launch his Arab-Israeli policy with such urgency, sensitivity, and intelligence.
(I wasn’t here in the US when Jimmy Carter came into office in January 1977. I saw him on last night’s Jon Stewart show, talking about his new book, which is yet another tome about “Peace in the Holy Land.” I think what the hugely popular Stewart is doing to rehabilitate the still much-maligned Carter in the US is great. But I don’t think even Jimmy Carter came into office with a Middle East policy that was as powerful and focused as Obama’s… )
To a certain degree, I think the ‘troika’ of Olmert, Barak, and Livni that’s now ruling Israel handed Obama his present opportunity for real change on a plate, when they made their momentous decision to launch an ‘exemplary punitive campaign’ against Gaza back on December 27. Obama and all who work for him are notoriously tight-lipped, so we won’t know for, perhaps, many years precisely what effect the events of December 27 through January 20 had on the president-elect. And remember: those events included not only the Tel Aviv troika’s launching of the reckless, destructive, and ultimately counter-productive war but also the advanced state of panic that war engendered among all of Washington’s allies in the Arab world, and– perhaps equally importantly– the vainglorious and completely arrogant comments that Olmert made publicly about Bush and Rice simply bending to his will. But it seems clear to me that those events likely did a lot to force changes in the policy decisions that Obama would otherwise have taken.
Absent the events of those 25 days we might well have had: Hillary Clinton in charge of all Middle East policy– as had definitely been the message given, back when her appointment as Secretary of State was first announced; Dennis Ross at her right hand as premier ‘interpreter’ and adviser on Arab-Israeli developments for the highest decisionmaker on these issues; and thus, a far more incrementalist and one-sided approach to the diplomacy than we have seen from the Obama presidency thus far.
It’s certainly significant that Obama has now taken this entire portfolio out of the hands of the woman whose main experience of the issue has been as spouse and consort of the endlessly foot-dragging and manipulative Bill Clinton and then as Senator from the deeply lobby-influenced state of New York. And I think what Obama has done with the portfolio thus far has been great: the conveying of signals of very serious intent and commitment “from Day One”, with those phone calls to leaders in the region; the appointment of George Mitchell, and the strong messages of true presidential support for his mission; and most recently, yesterday’s interview with Al-Arabiya.
Sure, Obama has also said a lot in all these encounters that is deeply engrained boiler-plate for any US president to say: about the centrality of his commitment to the security of Israel, and so on, and on, and on. And sure, he has said absolutely nothing about trying to reach out to Hamas in any way, shape, or form.
Hey, just in case nobody noticed this, it’s also important to remember that Hamas doesn’t actually crave a public relationship with Washington, either. Its leaders certainly don’t see that as something that’s in their interests– and in the circumstances you can see why. This fact makes them noticeably different from, say, the Yasser Arafat of 1988, who was quite happy to go down on his knees and grovel, or jump through endless hoops, if he could only win a nod of public support from Washington… But Hamas is different.
So today is the one-week “anniversary” of Barack Obama’s presidency. In just these seven short days, he’s already started to make a difference. Mitchell is already in Egypt, where he met with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. Arab League head Amr Moussa, and Egypt’s foreign minister and much-beleaguered president are also on his call-list before he heads off for Israel. He is not due to meet anybody from Hamas, though this AFP report says it’s possible he might travel to Gaza.
By the way, the elected (and then besieged and bombarded) Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas has sent Obama a letter congratulating him on his election, which he described as “a day of victory for the human struggle for freedom.” Haniyeh also urged Obama to support the Palestinians’ struggle for freedom and national independence. Interesting…
Anyway, I’ve been thinking through some of what Obama could and should be doing over the coming days and weeks if her really wants to push the Arab-Israeli peacemaking forward in a determined and successful way.
He should:
- 1. Give swift and real backing to an intra-Palestinian reconciliation between Fateh, Hamas, and the other factions. This would be huge turnround from the policies pursued by the Bush administration since January 2006. Bush gave weapons, training, funds, and all other forms of support to Mahmoud Abbas’s Fateh leadership on condition that Fateh would use the weapons to subvert the Hamas government that was duly elected in January 2006. After Fateh and Hamas briefly reconciled February 2007, the US’s key agents inside Fateh subverted that agreement, too and made extensive preparations to mount an actual coup against Hamas in Gaza that spring, as David Rose has documented… The whole policy of bringing Fateh back to power in the OPTs with US-supplied guns has failed miserably. After Israel’s war on Gaza, both Abbas and Fateh are hanging on for dear life. Their only hope for some form of political survival is through a new agreement with Hamas. And Hamas needs Fateh (with or without an extremely weak Abbas) to some degree, too. Fateh or its allies can be the public face that do the formal negotiations with Israel and provide international political cover for Hamas. It remains possible that the Hamas leaders don’t see having such a “cover” as providing them any real benefit. But they’ve given many signals that, on some basis, they would welcome a reconciliation with Fateh. This time, the US should not stand in the way. Indeed, it should give real support to the move.
2. Find a reliable way to communicate quietly with the Hamas leaders. This could be through a government, like the Turkish, Qatari, Swiss, or Yemeni government. It could be through the CIA (though I’m not sure Hamas would be open to that.) Or it could be through private individuals trusted by both sides. But a lot of signaling and brainstorming needs to be done.
3. Re-engage the United Nations, in particular, in high-level sponsorship of the peacemaking. For the past seven years he UN has been in the shameful role of “junior partner” in the Quartet that was established in 2002. But an Arab-Israeli peace that is fair and durable is in the interest of all the peoples of the world. The US has no compelling claim, in 2009, to be recognized as a “uniquely qualified” peace broker. Obama has called, quite rightly, for a new relationship between Washington and the UN, and has sent his closest foreign-policy aide and adviser, Susan Rice, to be his ambassador there. As part of her role, she and the president should invite the UN to bring its considerable powers and legitimacy much more centrally into the peacemaking.
4. Take speedy action to stabilize the Gaza crasefire and start to rehabilitate Gaza. The ceasefire remains very fragile, as we saw already today, and the situation of scores of thousands of Gaza’s worst-hit homeless people remains dire. They must not be used any more as pawns in Israel’s power games! Obama should send a strong message to Tel Aviv that he expects Israel to prolong and strengthen the ceasefire, not subvert it. Also, US and NATO ships have a big presence in the eastern Mediterranean. Why can’t they or non-military US ships be used to convey large amounts of cement and other building materials to points near Gaza’s shores, with final ship-to-shore delivery undertaken by non-military aid agencies in conjunction with local NGOs? The US can take many actions that underline to Israel’s vengeful government that it cannot continue to hold its jackboot on Gaza’s neck.
5. Make some clear and authoritative (re-)statements of American principles on peace-related issues well before Israel’s February 10 elections. These should certainly include statements underlining clear US opposition to any further Israeli investment in the settlement-building project and promising serious financial and political consequences if any additional settlement housing or other infrastructure is indeed built. Other such statement might include statements of support for “land for peace”, for “the non-acquisition of territory by force”, for the need for a cooperative regionwide arms control regime, a shared Jerusalem open to followers of all faiths, and so on.
6. Make clear and repeated statements of the United States’ own strong interest in seeing the remaining strands of the Arab-Israeli conflict resolved. For too long, Washington policy has been dominated by the dreadful Dennis Ross view that “the US can’t want peace more than the parties themselves.” That argument has been used as a major justification for a diplomatic quietism that has been a cover, actually, for continued, very generous US financial and military help to Israel that has completely underwritten Israel’s pursuit of its illegal policy of land-grabbing settlement-building in the West Bank and Golan and its very destructive launching of periodic wars, assassination campaigns, and other acts of lethal physical violence against its neighbors. The US is absolutely not “neutral” between Israel and its Arab neighbors. And now, since the US has 140,000 troops strung out in very vulnerable positions inside Iraq, this matters a lot. The US certainly has its own strong interest in a rapid de-escalation and resolving of tensions between Israel and the Arab world.
7. Restore full diplomatic relations and a good working relationship with Syria as fast as possible. This one strikes me as a no-brainer. The US has had no ambassador in Syria since 2005, and the harsh sanctions that have been maintained on Damascus under both the anti-terrorism policy and the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 have inflicted real pain on Syrian that the country’s people, not surprisingly, resent a lot. Syria will be an essential part of any successful peace diplomacy. It withdrew all its troops from Lebanon in 2005, and maintained intriguing and constructive proximity peace talks with israel for a year until Israel decided to attack Gaza in December. George Bush and his Middle East adviser, Elliott Abrams, worked hard for many years to topple the Asad regime in Syria. It ain’t going to happen. (Asad is actually a whole lot more popular with his country’s citizens than the US-supported regimes in Egypt and Jordan are with theirs.) Plus Asad, unlike say his allies in Hamas, is actually very eager to have a good relationship with Washington.
Let’s see how many of these steps Obama takes by, say, February 10.
All the indications from Israel are that the politicians there are very closely attuned to the signals coming out of Washington– now, as always.
Washington really has been the central lifeline of the Jewish state for many decades now. Now, let’s see how Barack Obama uses that power.
Excellent recommendations all, Helen; thanks. But in re your suggestion that Obama underline US objections to Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, I couldn’t help noting Netanyahu’s statement today that he would support such expansion – which seemed to me a shot across Obama’s bow.
The possible parallel is certainly not exact, but this put me in mind of the JFK-Kruschev confrontation at the Geneva(?) summit in 1961(?), when Kruschev was thought to have bullied and “schooled” a John Kennedy still a bit wet behind the ears. All expectations seem to be that Netanyahu will soon be PM in Israel, and as opposed to Obama, he has had quite a bit of experience in the rough-and-tumble of US-Israeli politics. I also suspect that he’s counting on both the Lobby and the Congress to rally with him if he decides to play experienced hand to Obama’s green-horn. Or is this perhaps where Rahm Emanuel can be expected to earn his spurs?
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
Dear Helena Cobban,
I certainly do not mean to pick a fight with you. You are certainly far more exeperienced with the Middle East than I am. What drives me crazy is not the “what ifs” that you and Juan Cole and other prominent pundits put forth on behalf of Obama, but your repeatedly ignoring the concrete steps he has already taken against the interests of the Palestinians. Things that are obvious to the most inexpert among us. Hillary Clinton is still his Secretary of State regardless who you in the media speculate Mitchell and the others will “really” report to. Rahm Emanuel is Barak Obama’s Chief of Staff. Barak Obama did crawl on his belly like a snake before the AIPAC in the spring, outdoing even Hillary Clinton herself. I am not making this up. These are not hypothetical events that might happen, that I wish would or would not happen. These are real events that have already happened.
1. Give swift and real backing to an intra-Palestinian reconciliation between Fatah, Hamas, and the other factions. This would be huge turnround from the policies pursued by the Bush administration since January 2006. Bush gave weapons, training, funds, and all other forms of support to Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah leadership on condition that Fatah would use the weapons to subvert the Hamas government that was duly elected in January 2006. After Fatah and Hamas briefly reconciled February 2007, the US’s key agents inside Fatah subverted that agreement, too and made extensive preparations to mount an actual coup against Hamas in Gaza that spring, as David Rose has documented… The whole policy of bringing Fatah back to power in the OPTs with US-supplied guns has failed miserably. After Israel’s war on Gaza, both Abbas and Fatah are hanging on for dear life. Their only hope for some form of political survival is through a new agreement with Hamas. And Hamas needs Fatah (with or without an extremely weak Abbas) to some degree, too. Fatah or its allies can be the public face that do the formal negotiations with Israel and provide international political cover for Hamas. It remains possible that the Hamas leaders don’t see having such a “cover” as providing them any real benefit. But they’ve given many signals that, on some basis, they would welcome a reconciliation with Fatah. This time, the US should not stand in the way. Indeed, it should give real support to the move.
Is there any indication that Obama has stopped the flow of arms and material to Elliot Abrams’ Fatah “Contras”? In the abscence of evidence that it has stopped I must assume it continues. Why on earth should Fatah, repudiated by the Palestinian people, “be the public face” that negotiates with Israel? Obama has agreed to the Israeli line to cut Hamas out of existence. He has agreed to allow Elliot Abrams’ Fatah to man the “check points” that allow food and fuel and the other essentials of life enter Gaza… to the “innocent” Palestinians… or not. Those are facts. It even seems to me that Obama is getting us ready to accept US troops in that role. He terms the check points “international”. It seems clear as well that an “innocent” Palestinan in Obama speak is one who has renounced Hamas. The rest starve. Hamas are the “good guys”, in my view Helena. To the extent that there are any good guys on the scene at all after forty-years’ brutalization.
2. Find a reliable way to communicate quietly with the Hamas leaders. This could be through a government, like the Turkish, Qatari, Swiss, or Yemeni government. It could be through the CIA (though I’m not sure Hamas would be open to that.) Or it could be through private individuals trusted by both sides. But a lot of signaling and brainstorming needs to be done.
Find a back-door way to try to lie to, subvert, or placate Hamas leaders while pursuing “formal negotiations” with Fatah. Why? Obama should talk right out loud and in public to the democratically elected leaders of Palestine.
3. Re-engage the United Nations, in particular, in high-level sponsorship of the peacemaking. For the past seven years the UN has been in the shameful role of “junior partner” in the Quartet that was established in 2002. But an Arab-Israeli peace that is fair and durable is in the interest of all the peoples of the world. The US has no compelling claim, in 2009, to be recognized as a “uniquely qualified” peace broker. Obama has called, quite rightly, for a new relationship between Washington and the UN, and has sent his closest foreign-policy aide and adviser, Susan Rice, to be his ambassador there. As part of her role, she and the president should invite the UN to bring its considerable powers and legitimacy much more centrally into the peacemaking.
Surely that would be a good idea. But please remember that the UN and the EU did nothing but hold the coats of the US and Israel while our two countries together starved the Palestinians of Gaza for a year and then strafed, bombed, and shot them point blank while destroying their homes, often after first herding them inside, murdering them or rendering them homeless beggars. The UN and the EU seem perfectly content to avert their eyes and to go along with whatever the US decides is “best” in Palestine.
4. Take speedy action to stabilize the Gaza ceasefire and start to rehabilitate Gaza. The ceasefire remains very fragile, as we saw already today, and the situation of scores of thousands of Gaza’s worst-hit homeless people remains dire. They must not be used any more as pawns in Israel’s power games! Obama should send a strong message to Tel Aviv that he expects Israel to prolong and strengthen the ceasefire, not subvert it. Also, US and NATO ships have a big presence in the eastern Mediterranean. Why can’t they or non-military US ships be used to convey large amounts of cement and other building materials to points near Gaza’s shores, with final ship-to-shore delivery undertaken by non-military aid agencies in conjunction with local NGOs? The US can take many actions that underline to Israel’s vengeful government that it cannot continue to hold its jackboot on Gaza’s neck.
The US purposefully gave Israel carte blanche to murder Palestinians and to destroy Gaza for three long weeks. Not a peep from Barak Obama. Why do you think he will change his position now? And why should aid be limited to cement? Because giving food and medicne would interfere with the starvation regime prescribed by the Israelis? And why intermediary lighters to deliver aid? Are the Palestinians lepers? Will physical contact with them poison American service people? Will some Islamofascist virus infect their brains? Or will they see and report the unbelievable devastation wrecked upon the Palestinians by the Israelis. And take pictures. Ike caught his guys taking pictures at “the Camps” in Europe and he said, and I paraphrase, “Take all the pictures you can, ’cause some day some son of a bitch is going to deny this happened!”
5. Make some clear and authoritative (re-)statements of American principles on peace-related issues well before Israel’s February 10 elections. These should certainly include statements underlining clear US opposition to any further Israeli investment in the settlement-building project and promising serious financial and political consequences if any additional settlement housing or other infrastructure is indeed built. Other such statement might include statements of support for “land for peace”, for “the non-acquisition of territory by force”, for the need for a cooperative regionwide arms control regime, a shared Jerusalem open to followers of all faiths, and so on.
Israel has spit in the face of the US as regards its “promises” not to build more settlements with US dollars. The thing to do is end the flow of dollars. Threatening to do so is merely the occassion for belly-laughs among the US/Israeli far-right. If you want the settlements to stop, you stop funding them.
6. Make clear and repeated statements of the United States’ own strong interest in seeing the remaining strands of the Arab-Israeli conflict resolved. For too long, Washington policy has been dominated by the dreadful Dennis Ross view that “the US can’t want peace more than the parties themselves.” That argument has been used as a major justification for a diplomatic quietism that has been a cover, actually, for continued, very generous US financial and military help to Israel that has completely underwritten Israel’s pursuit of its illegal policy of land-grabbing settlement-building in the West Bank and Golan and its very destructive launching of periodic wars, assassination campaigns, and other acts of lethal physical violence against its neighbors. The US is absolutely not “neutral” between Israel and its Arab neighbors. And now, since the US has 140,000 troops strung out in very vulnerable positions inside Iraq, this matters a lot. The US certainly has its own strong interest in a rapid de-escalation and resolving of tensions between Israel and the Arab world.
Dennis Ross is a member of Barak Obama’s team.
7. Restore full diplomatic relations and a good working relationship with Syria as fast as possible. This one strikes me as a no-brainer. The US has had no ambassador in Syria since 2005, and the harsh sanctions that have been maintained on Damascus under both the anti-terrorism policy and the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 have inflicted real pain on Syrian that the country’s people, not surprisingly, resent a lot. Syria will be an essential part of any successful peace diplomacy. It withdrew all its troops from Lebanon in 2005, and maintained intriguing and constructive proximity peace talks with israel for a year until Israel decided to attack Gaza in December. George Bush and his Middle East adviser, Elliott Abrams, worked hard for many years to topple the Asad regime in Syria. It ain’t going to happen. (Asad is actually a whole lot more popular with his country’s citizens than the US-supported regimes in Egypt and Jordan are with theirs.) Plus Asad, unlike say his allies in Hamas, is actually very eager to have a good relationship with Washington.
Good idea.
I think that 1 and 2 constitute embracing the status quo, 3 and 4 would be great if they happen, 5 and 6 are words only “actions” and may be undertaken or not with no effect, and that 7 is a good idea.
But I have noted the areas in which Obama has already done the opposite of your suggestions. Why do you not jump all over him for that? Do you think if you don’t mention it he’ll somehow be embarassed by your silence and not do it again? I think he will take your silence as license to continue more forcefully in the same vein. Barak Obama’s house is full of Neocons and Neoliberal retreads. I realize that you are apparently desperate to think that “the times they are a-changing”, and maybe they are. But I don’t see it. I think things are getting worse and the more “benefit of the doubt” you allow these people who are doing things that are not in our interests or the interests of the people around the world long oppressed by our country the worse they will get. The thing to do is cut through the bull immediately and demand “change we can believe in”. As advertized.
I mean I hope you and the other Pollyannas are right. But there’s too much hard evidence that you are not, for me. And I am astounded at the kid glove treatment that Barak Obama is getting from so many people who truly do know better. Tinker Belle will live or die no matter your wishes, hopes, or dreams.
Forty and more years ago, although not particularly aware, it was apparent to me that the deal the “Palestinian terrorists”, for that was their place in the nomenclature of the media of the day, were getting a raw deal according to everything I was brought up to believe in. And it was apparent that most other ordinary people thought so too. But the policy went down because “money talks”.
I have never accepted this as the way it has to be in the United States of America. It does not have to be this way. Things can change. I believe in change. Nothing would make me happier than to see Barak Obama effect that change. But everything he has said or done convinces me that he is just another guy who wants to be President. Like Bill Clinton. An empty suit. A triangulator.
An alternative view on Obama and his “new” Israel policy, by Noam Chomsky:
Obama on Israel – Palestine, by Noam Chomsky
You do us all a terrible disservice when you continue to claim that Obama will be substantially different from Bush. There is absolutely nothing other than tea leaf reading to suggest that he will be. In fact, I think indications are that we will be deeper into war in the middle east, before this year is over, than we ever were under Bush.
For example, Obama’s refusal to talk to Hamas is precisely the same as Bush’s policy. Without direct talks, any negotiation is meaningless. This has been demonstrated again and again, with Israel, because Israel finds a way to squirm out of any deal that isn’t ironclad.
Oh, and Obama didn’t just belt out boilerplate about Israel. You and other pundits almost seem to deliberately miss the fact, the plain and undeniable fact, that Obama spontaneously goes far beyond Obeisance to Israel that can be claimed to be politically necessary. Promising Jerusalem to Israel, for example, is something no one else has done, to my knowledge. Calling Israel’s security “paramount” is flatout treasonous, in principle, as something said by the Head of State of the United States. It’s something Olmert should say, not Obama.
Why is it important for us to get our heads out of the clouds, re. Obama? Because we will never have even a chance of pressuring him to do the right thing as long as we delude ourselves that he will because he’s such a great guy. Obama has demonstrated again and again that he is guided by his marvelous nose for the way the political winds are blowing. We’ve had plenty of evidence of where that leads his nose when it comes to Israel’s hardliners (read, “war criminals”) and their supporters/enablers in the US.
No Change Coming With Obama
‘ Press TV: And these three foreign envoys… some people are expressing optimism about George Mitchell’s position as Middle East envoy.
‘ Richard Holbrooke… Dennis Ross is being talked about as an envoy for Iran.’
Chomsky: Well Holbrooke has a pretty awful record…
‘ George Mitchell is, of the various appointments that have been made, he is the most decent let’s say. He has a pretty decent record. He achieved something in Northern Ireland, but of course, in that case there was an objective.
‘ The objective was that the British would put an end to the resort to violence in response to IRA terror and would attend to the legitimate grievances that were the source of the terror. He did manage that, Britain did pay attention to the grievances, and the terror stopped- so that was successful.
‘ But there is no such outcome sketched in the Middle East, specially the Israel-Palestine problem. I mean, there is a solution, a straightforward solution very similar to the British one. Israel could stop its US-backed crimes in the occupied territories and then presumably the reaction to them would stop. But that’s not on the agenda.
‘ In fact, President Obama just had a press conference, which was quite interesting in that respect. He praised the parabolic peace initiative, the Saudi initiative endorsed by the Arab League, and said it had constructive elements. It called for the normalization of relation with Israel, and he called on the Arab states to proceed with those “constructive elements,” namely the normalization of relations.
‘ But that is a gross falsification of the Arab League initiative. The Arab League initiative called for accepting a two-state settlement on the international border, which has been a long-standing international consensus and said if that can be achieved then Arab states can normalize relations with Israel.
‘ Well, Obama skipped the first part, the crucial part, the core of the resolution, because that imposes an obligation on the United States. The United States has stood alone for over thirty years in blocking this international consensus, by now it has totally isolated the US and Israel.
‘ Europe and now a lot of other countries have accepted it. Hamas has accepted it for years, the Palestinian Authority of course, the Arab League now for many years [have accepted it]. The US and Israel block it, not just in words, but they are blocking it in actions constantly, (this is) happening every day in the occupied territories and also in the siege of Gaza and other atrocities.
‘So when he skips that it is purposeful. That entails that the US is not going to join the world in seeking to implement a diplomatic settlement, and if that is the case, Mitchell’s mission is vacuous. ‘
And that, Barak Obama, being a well-informed, bright, and intellectually agile man, is exactly the reason he is so much more dangerous than a bull in the china shop like George W Bush. And why his pronouncements, unlike the gibberish that poured forth from Bush, can fairly be expected to forecast his intentions exactly.
Cleverly, his pronouncements include enough noise together with the signal for the faithful in denial to latch onto and clasp to their bosoms. Barak Obama is a very, very dangerous man.
Only one quibble regarding Hamas Helena.
It seems quite clear that they would have no problem with good relations with the US – but only on the basis of this being a meeting of equals.
JFL is headed in the right direction, of course, but he goes to conspiratorializing extremes, and of Prof. Chomsky in that respect there is no need to speak.
The true Key to All Obamatologies is easy enough: the Palestine Puzzle simply happens to be way, way down the list of things that BHO cares about.
So let the serious student repeat to herself ten times before breakfast, “Cook County is a long way from salt water”!
Happy days.
JFL is headed in the right direction, of course, but he goes to conspiratorializing extremes, and of Prof. Chomsky in that respect there is no need to speak.
The true Key to All Obamatologies is easy enough: the Palestine Puzzle simply happens to be way, way down the list of things that BHO cares about.
So let the serious student repeat to herself ten times before breakfast, “Cook County is a long way from salt water”!
Happy days.
Obama skipped the first part, the crucial part, the core of the resolution [the international border], because that imposes an obligation on the United States.
Even Bush mentioned borders:
“Well, part of the plan is for people to see a better life. And the other part of the plan is for there to be a clearly defined state so it’s no longer just a two-state solution; it’s “here’s what the borders will look like, here’s how we’re going to deal with the refugees, here’s how we’re going to deal with the different, complicated issues,” so people could actually see and analyze, do I want this, or do I want what’s happening in Gaza, for example? And given that choice, I’m confident, having met a lot of Palestinians and know the Palestinians fairly well, about how people just want peace. They want their children to grow up in peace and they want to be able to make a living.”
Interview of President George W. Bush by Al Arabiya TV, 5/12/2008
I’m not saying that Obama dislikes the Palestinians. Hell, if they had the kind of cash for campaigns that their opponents have… he’d love ’em! Just like he loves their opponents.
Hey, it’s politics. Someone has to suffer and die so Obama can stay in power. Too bad it’s the Palestinians. Some of Obama’s best friends are Palestinians, I’ll bet. If they only had more cash…
Hey, he didn’t invent the game, ya know?
He’s just playin’ it. Like everybody else.
Don
Surely the fact that Bush ‘mentioned’ borders etc. in a such a vague vacuous way doesn’t cut the ice.
Those that would want to carve the occupied territories into unviable ghetto-like cantons (keeping all the Israeli settlements and their joining corridors intact – plus a bit!) and calling that a ‘two state’ solution, would be happy to endorse and even parrot such empty weasel political-speak.
But I think the doubters are wrong.
TIME will tell who are WRONG. No longer than 4 years….
Let not forgot Obama his selective staff first of all WH chief of staff and others its not coincidence selection..
Finally read this from Israeli official about Obama:
Barack Obama is a “true friend of Israel” who identifies emotionally not only with the state, but also with the people of Israel, a senior official in Jerusalem said Tuesday.
Referring to hints about Obama’s Muslim connections, the senior figure told Ynet that “his last name, Hussein, is completely meaningless.” Speaking on the historic day that saw America’s first black president sworn in, Israeli officials stressed that they are familiar with the incoming president and with quite a few key figures in the new US Administration.
“Our advantage is that we have become familiar with many of the new Administration’s members during joint activity spreading over 10-15 years,” a foreign ministry official said.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3659548,00.html
I’m afraid that I agree with Helena on this one, even though I usually find her too optimistic (not always a bad thing). Words are important, but it is actions that matter in the final analysis. Israel has mouthed shibboleths about peace and two states for years while its actions have all been about war and apartheid.
Obama has many things on his plate right now. First and foremost is the economy. It makes no sense to antagonize the Israel lobby controlled Congress on Israel when their help is needed on the economy. While the plight of the Palestinians is a primary concern for many of us, the reality is that this issue is not the preeminent problem facing the US right now. The problem has festered for over 40 years now (60 really) and while it hurts the US in world opinion and other ways, there are other , more important issues. We can survive kicking the can sown the road a few more years (many Palestinians will not, however).
To use an old, tired cliche, it takes a long time and distance to turn around a big ship. A smart politician takes the time to marshal support, both public and private, before embarking on a radical change of course.
True, Obama has not yet said anything that Bush could not have said, and the odious Dennis Ross has not been ostracized,and the duplicitouos Hillary is Secretary of State, etc., but this is only week one. If, two years from now, the US does not have a significantly different middle east policy then Helena will have been proved wrong, and it will be time for progressives to call for a reckoning. In the meantime, I suggest that weakening Obama by having his progressive base desert him at this time is not in our interest. Pressure, yes; but desertion this early, no.
Jack, well said here: I suggest that weakening Obama by having his progressive base desert him at this time is not in our interest. Pressure, yes; but desertion this early, no.
Desertion is melodramatic, Jack. I’m not going to oppose or support Obama’s stimulus package because of what I think of his Israel/Palestine position. I might support one and oppose the other.
JFL mostly speaks for me, though I think he overstates it slightly. The fact that Obama picked Mitchell might be a hint that he really intends to be evenhanded, but then there’s all the boilerplate which contradicts this , boilerplate which Obama has been putting out consistently since 2006.
If Helena is right and Obama secretly agrees with her on the I/P conflict, then what he needs are Obama supporters who loudly criticize him every time he says something stupid about this issue. I get the sense that leftist Obamaphiles believe that if we only keep talking as though Obama agrees with us, it will somehow magically ensure that he really does.
JHM’s use of the “conspiracy theory” dismissal is just lazy namecalling. Any time politicians say one thing while secretly planning on doing something else it’s a type of conspiracy. Do politicians do this? Yeah, they do, once in a while. In fact, if Helena is right about Obama then he’s engaged in a conspiracy himself, hiding the fact that he secretly agrees with her POV and plans to be much fairer to the two sides than anything he’s said in public would indicate. And maybe he is doing just that. I wouldn’t rule it out. In the meantime, though, I plan on criticizing him when he says or does something stupid.
Wow, what a chorus of cry babies. The Arabs have now a president middlenamed Hussein who announced the closing of Gitmo whose occupants not the Arab nor the Eurocowards want to take back, goes on Arab TV before he even speaks to the American people and shamelessly begs for common ground with the retrograd world of US haters, undemocratic tribal societies, ruled by Sharia and honor killing justice, and both the Arab world and this sorry board think it is not enough.
I get it, to really get along with Arabs one must father a son from an Arab spouse and name him Tarek. And one must ideally get along with the other three wives.
Sorry guys, no apologies from this proud taxpayer.
The Arabs have now a president middlenamed Hussein
This is absolute Rubbish statement people keep telling about Obama.
So what Hessian, David or Benjamin whatever name that meaning less first and last, he is US citizen he is a black man and he chosen to be president after a lot of screening and checking don’t be foolish don’t you?
Salah, as you must know, only Americans are obsessed with Obama’s middle name of Hussein. Last year I spent one month in the Middle East and everyone I talked to, including the people in the street whom I asked for directions, wanted to talk about the election, but not one of them brought up Obama’s middle name as in any way meaningful.
Americans cannot easily separate the meaningful from the significant, so they get excited about someone’s middle name. Arabs are more sophisticated in these matters than our friend Titus.
PS Titus, Al Arabiya is a Saudi-family-owned American mouthpiece. You did not notice how obsequious the interviewer was toward Obama? You did not notice him virtually falling out of his chair with eagerness to agree with everything Obama said? Why, he treated Obama just the way Al Arabiya used to treat Bush, and Condi, and the rest of the Bush regime when they would come to be interviewed.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
Salah, as you must know, only Americans are obsessed with Obama’s middle name of Hussein. Last year I spent one month in the Middle East and everyone I talked to, including the people in the street whom I asked for directions, wanted to talk about the election, but not one of them brought up Obama’s middle name as in any way meaningful.
Americans cannot easily separate the meaningful from the significant, so they get excited about someone’s middle name. Arabs are more sophisticated in these matters than our friend Titus.
PS Titus, Al Arabiya is a Saudi-family-owned American mouthpiece. You did not notice how obsequious the interviewer was toward Obama? You did not notice him virtually falling out of his chair with eagerness to agree with everything Obama said? Why, he treated Obama just the way Al Arabiya used to treat Bush, and Condi, and the rest of the Bush regime when they would come to be interviewed.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
Correction: Americans cannot easily separate the meaningful from the insignificant.