Like most people I cannot but be impressed by his charisma and talent, but overall I never really bought in to Obamania and he was not my favorite Democrat in the primaries (I fully recognize I was wrong in my choice of John Edwards, though, since his sex scandal would have lost him the race had he been the Democratic candidate). My basic position on Obama’s Middle East policy during the elections was that he would deliver little different, even if one could hope that he would pick different people to work on it than the ones we’ve had for two decades, and that on the Israel question specifically not only did he fail to distinguish himself (aside perhaps from his speech to Jewish-American in Columbus, OH) but bent over backwards to reassure the lobby, all the while neglecting to highlight its responsibility in the warmongering of the last eight years. (I also found his lack of strong reaction to the economic crisis during the election quite shocking, which is my other major beef with him.)
So basically, I already am skeptical that we will see a fundamentally different US Middle East foreign policy than the Clinton and Bush years, which were not that different apart from Bush’s hyper-militarism (before we had more discreet militarism). I was unhappy about Hillary Clinton being picked as SecState, because I associate the Clintons as one of the worst developments in American politics in the past quarter-century, and did not see the political necessity of appointing his ex-rival rather than a more dour and wonky choice. But I don’t really care that much, think that all of the vapid editorializing about the Arab world expecting change from Obama is complete bullshit driven by a US news framing agenda rather than any Arab reality, and am sadly resigned to yet another administration that will miss the point about the centrality of the Israel-Palestine issue in this region (which every elder American statesman has made for years) and the extremely pernicious impact it has had on the US foreign-policymaking process. I just hope Obama can/will/wants to do good on other issues, such as the environment or healthcare – although I remain fundamentally convinced he’s miss one of the most important issues of our time.
Even so,I was surprised to read this albeit speculative article in Haaretz/a about the Obama-Clinton Middle East strategy:
However, senior government sources in Jerusalem said that the information they have received indicates that the new administration is planning a hierarchy of about five special envoys to various regions, overseen by a kind of “super coordinator,” who would answer directly to the president and the secretary of state.
The sources said that the new policy is part of Obama’s and Clinton’s understanding that all the conflicts in the Middle East and Southeast Asia are to some extent connected to the Iranian nuclear program and withdrawal from Iraq. Therefore, it is important to operate in a number of parallel but coordinated channels to attain achievements on all fronts.
The most prominent name in consideration for the top coordinator post is Dennis Ross, who served as President Bill Clinton’s special envoy to the Middle East. Ross’ name has also come up as a possible senior adviser to Hillary Clinton.
The envoy to the Middle East would oversee the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, negotiations between Syria and Israel and the situation in Lebanon.
Short-listed for this job are Colin Powell, who was President George W. Bush’s secretary of state during his first term; Dan Kurtzer, U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005; and Martin Indyk, who is close to Hillary Clinton and who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1995 to 1997 and from 2000 to 2001.
All conflicts in the Middle East are connected to Iraq and Iran?!!?! If they see it that way, it’s because they’ve decided the priority will be Iraq and Iran, which is to say it’ll be Iran. Fair enough, the Israeli-Palestinian process does appear at a deadlock with inter-Palestinian rivalry and the prospect of a new Netanyahu administration in Tel Aviv. Nonetheless, considering the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, continued ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank, one would think the US could have other priorities on its mind (indeed, since a good part of the US defense establishment thinks it can live with a nuclear Iran, one wonders whether this isn’t an Israeli priority).
It’s also extremely depressing to see the list of names for top coordinator (Dennis Ross – nuff said) and for Middle East Envoy: Martin Indyk is AIPAC’s man and Colin Powell was a failure as SecState and obviously overwhelmed by his bureaucratic opponents. Even with Dan Kurtzer, the most palatable and professional of these choices, we have the slight problem that his brother is an Israeli settler.
Now one might put this down to the idea that these are the only acceptable names to Israel, which largely calls the shots with regards to US peace process policy, at least since the first Clinton administration. But it also shows a staggering lack of imagination: in all of the talent pool of Washington, DC, these are the only men one can think of for the job? Where’s the change we can believe in, Mr Obama?
In the light of his election, I could not help but feel a swell of pride as he stood there delivering his speech in Chicago. I also felt immense joy as his wife, a talented and proud black woman, stepped into the White House and the contrast couldn’t be any more stark; here a woman worth her salt shaking hands with two lilly-assed. all-grinning white people who have become the symbol of everything wrong and despicable in this world.
Frankly, I was surprised by my own emotions. I am not American (although my education is) nor am I white or even black. I am an Arab and have endured the snickering and blatant ugly racism of Europeans, young and old. Whether bluntly stating how ugly I am or laughing at my name (to name the most harmless of stories), it all seems like a page out of a bad southern novel. All what was/is missing were the red-neck accents, which Saxonians and bloody Germans in general compensate for very well.
When Obama got elected my past pains emerged and got the better of me. Pride was accompanied with a strong sense of being vindicated in this corrupt culture.
Yet, I am not a romanticist. It was apparent that he is not a closeted leftist (as if they were any better) and merely a centrist at best. The crimes we have seen in these past years against Arabs and “Muslims” will continue unabated only under a different banner and with an paralleled finesse. It is suddenly “the other” calling the white man’s shots now.
My 2 dinars.
I agree at being highly disappointed by these choices for middle east envoys and advisers – my only hope in this regard is that he strikes me as an extremely intelligent man with generally well thought out policies – I am hopeful that if he recognizes that his approach is not working he will be able to change it. He will be better in this regard than the “stay the course no matter what” mentality of Bush.
Hmph. Well, we both know where we disagree about BO and Edwards (ack!), so no need to repeat that argument. Probably others will.
Personally, I would rather have seen Richardson or Kerry as Sec. of State, but Hillary Clinton was not a horrible choice (though her record on the Middle East is abysmal, and she is, at the end of the day, bidan).
But I agree that Dennis Ross et al would be horrible choices, and particularly worrying if the envoys sidestep whatever moderating effect the professional bureaucracy at the Dept. of State might otherwise have.
The best of that lot would be Colin Powell, though it’s hard to imagine him taking orders from the likes of Hillary Clinton, and for that reason I don’t think he’ll get the job. I know you’ve never forgiven Powell for his performance at the UN and for his insubordination on gays in the military. I agree that if he was going to be insubordinate, it would have been better to have been insubordinate on Iraq. But he’s a loyal soldier, steeped in ideals of patriotic service, and I can easily imagine him not wanting to deal a serious blow to the government by resigning as a whistle-blower when the country was at war.
I still have huge respect for the man, and view him as another casualty of the Bush administration (along with John McCain, millions of Iraqis, and the rest of us).
God save us from the likes of Ross and Indyk. I never had the audacity to hope that BO would change US policy on Israel, that the man was somehow a closet lover of Edward Said. If he is, his ambition and his political pragmatism were always bound to trump his better angels (to borrow a phrase he likes). But there’s bad, and there’s really bad. BO seems to be opting for really bad on the Middle East.
Staggering lack of talent in DC” = ? Who said it was about talent, rather than connections? DC is exhibit A in that regard.
To be the optimist (apparently I haven’t been in the Mid East long enough): the US priority in the ME now should be the question of Iraq, which is (in large part because of our mistakes) tied into the question of an Iran that could be nuclear. Getting out of Iraq intelligently means freeing up lots of money and manpower that could then be directed elsewhere. So it’s possible to think that Iraq/Iran could be the necessary precondition — and thus their priority — for getting involved elsewhere.
Also, perhaps even though the people being appointed to the Israel/Palestine issue don’t have the best ideas, at least they have weight in DC and they could thus maybe be more effective as getting stuff moving again because Israeli and Palestinian governments know that the negotiators do carry the full support of the US government and can’t be brushed aside or ignored as Condi seemed to be. What they get done won’t be ideal, but even at this point getting stuff moving and getting people talking again would be the first step in the right direction (and getting stuff moving is a particularly important role for the US to be playing especially with Netanyahu in the Knesset).
Thoughts?
How can we expect to see anything new from the same moldy cast of characters? Makes you long for James Baker, the salty dog. Who on Obama’s team hasn’t drunk the prevailing Israel/Palestine Kool-Aid?
I am no fan of Hillary, but remember she was a NY senator, so no surprise she took a hardline pro-Israel approach; it’s the most Jewish constituency in the US, isn’t it. As a secretary of state her tune might be a little different. Perhaps. I think you need in the state dept someone tough, and close to the president, to get anything done. She’s tough alright, but whether the Obama-Clinton thing will work is still unknown. .
As for Obama: I think generally his heart is in the right place, but that doesn’t count for much. On this, Ali Abu-Nimah’s article “How Obama learned to love Israel” is really worth reading http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
Assuming that a two state solution is still feasible in Israel/Palestine (in my view, it isn’t), one would need sustained pressure on Israel, and an overture towards Hamas, without this the negotiations would not even start. In the current climate, and with this crew, it isn’t going to happen.
But the world will change much over the next four years. Obama and his people will have only limited influence over what happens.
But do I see Obama saying anyt
Supposing a two states solution was feasible in Israel/Palestine,
sorry for poor editing.
great post, but what exactly are you refering to when you say:
“Like most people I cannot but be impressed by his charisma and talent”
When has Obama ever show any special “talent?” Sure, he is a smart guy, but where has he done anything that really distinguishes him as a “talented” guy? If you took someone with the same exact CV and background, would you suggest that they are qualified to be the editor of a major newspaper? Or a university? I think the answer is absolutely not. Perhaps he will show us this “talent” but he has not done much to distinguish himself up to this point.
Jim, on the talent, I think it gets far too easily dismissed the amazing campaign Obama ran. It should incredible degree of skilled strategy, consistent effort, grassroots mobilization, managerial talent, and infusion of new ideas. Sustained for over a year and a half. Frankly, if nothing else in his life proved his skill and talent, that should have laid all doubts to rest, an amazing achievement that shows he is more than up to the job from a pure talent/skill perspective.
All that said, his Mideast choices are garbage and reflect no imagination, totally agree with most of what was said above. I am of the strong belief that during the Obama Administration (especially if it becomes an 8 year one), the failure of the two-state option for Palestinians and Israelis will become too big to ignore. How Obama adjusts to that (fresh blood/ideas or fudging it and kicking it down the road to the next guys), will say a lot about him.
In the meantime, I’ve been reading a biography of Lincoln (“Lincoln” by David Herbert Donald, good book) and really can not help but be struck by the amazing similarities in strategy even if not temperament between Obama and Lincoln. Lincoln never wanted to be pigeonhold by radicals or conservatives within his party and went out of his way not just to hew a middle path, but to make it clear he was the ultimate arbiter of decisions. He also tended to fudge and push issues down the road until forced to make the big strategic choice, which more than once brought him to the brink of political collapse. He also appointed a lot of political rivals (the now well-known “team of rivals” approach Obama studied and emulates), very much showing the thinking behind the Clinton choice. Not sure that’s really such a sensible approach, as Lincoln seemed to have succeeded despite it, not because of it. Of course I guess one could argue that in so doing he was better able to manage sapping rivals rather then get the ground taken out from under him, who knows. Lincoln obviously made a lot of the right choices in the end and then stuck by his guns against opposition, geez I hope Obama can do the same, but on the Middle East, it’ll require a virtual American political revolution.
Jamal,
Lets look at the campaign. I think some of the campaign stuff is a bunch of hype.
Ok it was disciplined. Sure. Ill give you that. But in a year that every possible advantage was going for the Democrats (bad economy, people tired of 8 years of Bush, Mccain picked an idiot as VP, etc) what did Obama do? He won 52-46.
Thats not very decisive, all things considered. And if Hillary had ended up winning the Democratic Nomination I think its pretty likely that she would have registered similar numbers. So before we talk about how talented Obama is, lets just acknowledge that whoever won the Democratic nomination probably would have pulled similar numbers.
And Jamal, what gave you the slightest indication that Obama would change any US policy in the Middle East? There certainly is very little, if any, evidence of that from his speeches during the campaign?
Jim, I’m not disagreeing one bit on Mideast policies, I think he’s picked lousy people and made lousy statements. His policies, while not neocon crazy militant, sound more like a turn-of-the-last-century throwback to White Man’s burden (what was that ridiculous thing he said about wanting poor Muslim kids to look up to the US Blackhawks and see hope instead of fear – never occurred to him that maybe they’d like to look up and not see foreign occupiers at all). I expect little to no change on Mideast policy from him unless forced. If forced, I perhaps leave a little lingering hope that he might have enough sense to make some positive changes, but he’s saddling himself with lousy advice that will make it that much harder even if (big if, I readily admit) he is so inclined.
I’ll absolutely stand by my impressions of the campaign though. He took down the Clinton machine methodically and (as you say) with discipline to win the nomination. He raised more money than anyone ever before not by schmoozing with more billionaires than the next guy, but by reaching out to and energizing a mass grassroots that no one else even came close to matching. He provided steady leadership at the helm of an inherently frenetic organization and process. And remember, modern US presidential campaigns are huge organizations, so it’s just incorrect of anyone to state that he has no major managerial experience. I am to say the least, very impressed on this point. Not that I think it means anything to the question of his Mideast policies where I agree, he’s echoing numbskull dead-end views on Palestine-Israel, he seems to have no sense of just how big the mess he’s inheriting in Afghanistan/Pakistan is (not that anyone really seems to have grasped that), he’s readily and willingly picking up the Iranian nuclear fetish, he’s quickly going into obfuscation mode on ending the Iraq war, he generally remains in the militaristic US Mideast tradition even if in a less overt way than Bush, etc., etc., etc. The man has opportunity, talent, and skill, but for the Mideast, he’s not getting off on the right foot or showing any terribly hopeful signs that he really understands the real core issues. I hope all that intelligence picks up on those errors, but I’m not holding my breath, the American political system is all to often a strangling python around sensibility and it takes a real Hercules to fight against it.
Obama got most of his money from Wall St types. Do you think they gave it to him because they bought into that change and hope propranda? Or maybe is it because they see him as a guy who little experience at the national level, who, is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds him. Ie, now that he is in debt to Wall Street, the Wall Streeters are going to expect a relatively free hand from the President?
I think this is devolving into an off-topic threadjack. So I’ll just finish with these brief points: (1) I suggest having a good dig the campaign fundraising stats at opensecrets.org (2) I know some of those Wall Streeters, I work next to one who is probably worth half a billion and who couldn’t despise Bush more or admire Obama more even though he knows he’s likely going to take a bigger tax hit under Obama. Nor is that an uncommon sentiment among the wealthy Wall Street crowd I’ve heard from either. (3) I will say again, I remain dismayed at Obama’s Mideast choices as the original post pointed out. The 2-state paradigm is dead, Clinton and Bush have helped finish it off, and no one in the Obama Administration seems to be making any preparation for the day after or for acknowledging the way we feed not just that conflict but the autocratic power structures of the region more generally. Here’s hoping something better emerges, but if Dennis Ross or Martin Indyk are appointed to anything other than State Department janitor, I’m not holding my breath.
no matter the situation now, israel is bound fall. obama cannot bring peace between them. one thing that people dont realize is the fact that there are also muslim countries that ve nuclear capabilities and it is just a matter of time. let israel continue to bomb innocent boys and girls the world is waiting.