Saner day: Bush with Sharon and Abbas. (Image via Wikipedia)
New Yorker editor David Remnick offers a cold assessment of the question of new settlements in East Jerusalem. Basically, he says, Netanyahu must figure out how to reboot himself as a more reasonable actor in this drama, or risk ever again being able to talk to his Arab partners.
The essential question for Israel is not whether it has the friendship of the White House—it does—but whether Netanyahu remains the arrogant rejectionist that he was in the nineteen-nineties, the loyal son of a radical believer in Greater Israel, forever settling scores with the old Labor élites and making minimal concessions to ward off criticism from Washington and retain the affections of his far-right coalition partners. Is he capable of engaging with the moderate and constructive West Bank leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, and making history? Does there exist a Netanyahu 2.0, a Nixon Goes to China figure who will act with an awareness that demographic realities—the growth not only of the Palestinian population in the territories but also of the Arab and right-wing Jewish populations in Israel proper—make the status quo untenable as well as unjust?
via Obama and Israel : The New Yorker.
There really aren’t many reasons for optimism. Especially if Obama — who has deeply felt, proven sympathies for Israel — is portrayed there as a member of the P.L.O.
Then again, who would have believed health care reform was going to pass…
Follow me on Twitter.
Filed under: Barack Obama, East Jerusalem, Israel, Middle East, The New Yorker, World, East Jerusalem, Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, Middle East, White House
Obama meets this fall with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. (Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife)
Over and over, the smartest people in the room seem to be the good men and women of the International Crisis Group. Consider their crystal clear take on President Obama and the Middle East, from the final paragraph of an op-ed in today’s Washington Post:
The longer the United States remains encumbered by rigid mental habits, the longer it denies itself the means to influence events. Already, Washington has accepted bystander status regarding moves by Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Worse, it can do little to prevent more ominous and increasingly likely developments — a confrontation between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, or between Israel and the Palestinians over Jerusalem– all of which carry serious risks of spillover. President Obama is seldom better — and never more himself — than when he escapes the deceptive comfort of inherited certainties. His administration must start by discarding a reading of the region in which “moderates” fight “militants,” and “moderates” prevail. That vision has no local credibility or local resonance. It has no chance.
via Robert Malley and Peter Harling – Shifting allegiances in Middle East mean opportunities for President Obama – washingtonpost.com.
If you live in a country where booze is legal, spill some on the ground for Chas Freeman and his failed nomination. When you’re done, read the whole piece by Malley and Harling. Then wait for it all to come true: Among other things, the U.S. just named a new ambassador to Syria — filling that post for the first time since 2005. Warning: Don’t hold your breath.
Follow me on Twitter.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Islam, Middle East, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, World, Hamas, Hezbollah, International Crisis Group, Lebanon, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States
October 9, 2009 • 5:25 am
My mind is blown. This feels like a very big deal. When I saw the breaking news banner on the Times site, I actually felt like someone had kicked me. Up almost instantly, the accompanying story says the possibility Obama would win the prize was a surprise until minutes before the announcement. This is history, ladies and gentlemen.
So why give it to a sitting U.S. president? Again, according to the Times, the committee said it “wanted to enhance Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts.” Chief among them, the committee cited the president’s efforts to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons.
Well consider my attention enhanced!
Time will tell, though, if Oslo’s stunning decision to give the award — and the $1.4 million it comes with — will in any meaningful way aid in Obama’s efforts to reach out to other countries, such as our temperamentally unimpressable friends in Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea.
(And what’s he gonna do with all that cash?)
via Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize – NYTimes.com.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama, Nobel, Nobel Peace Prize, Peace Prize, The New York Times