Israel Matzav

Rigidly consistent?

Washington Post op-ed page editor Fred Hiatt wonders if President Obama has become too rigid to bring about peace in the Middle East (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad).

The guiding principle of foreign policy for Obama the candidate was engagement: the notion that by embracing the diplomacy that Bush supposedly had neglected, Obama would restore U.S. standing in the world. Where Bush had lectured and bullied, Obama would embrace alliances, international law and a more realistic acceptance of America’s declining relative power.

The thesis has had limited success. There have been diplomatic achievements with Russia, and a peaceful election in Sudan, but little or no progress in key targets of administration engagement: Iran, Burma, North Korea, Israel-Palestinian peace.

Still, when the people rose up in Iran, Obama seemed reluctant to disturb the possibility of negotiating with the ayatollahs. In Egypt, the administration was reluctant to give up on a partner who had promised to help in the Middle East peace process. In Syria, it seems reluctant to give up on a dictator who might someday promise to help in the peace process. In Libya, Obama’s commitment to a modest U.S. role has taken precedence over winning a war he hesitantly entered.

There’s virtue in consistency and danger in wild swings. Bush’s with-us-or-against-us epiphany proved unsustainable in a complex world, and his insight that Arab dictators, although allied with the United States, were feeding the terrorism that threatened us did not translate into a workable new policy toward the region.

But there’s danger in consistency, too — of failing to seize opportunities that unexpectedly present themselves. The Arab Spring could all go wrong or fizzle, but it could also prove comparable in import to the fall of the Soviet empire. You’d hope to see America doing everything within its considerable power to nudge it in the right direction, even if that requires a change in course or a shift in ideology.

Hiatt's right that Obama is too rigid. But here's the problem: The only Middle East issue with which Obama came into office with a stance was the one that said 'Palestinians good, Israel bad." That's variously been summarized on this blog as Obama's belief in the 'fierce moral urgency' of a 'Palestinian state,' his promotion of his father's anti-colonialism, and his perception of Israel as "an aggressive, Western imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish to be free." Obama has not and will not reconsider any of those positions. His worldview is as rigidly consistent as when he made the speech in the picture at the top of this post, and he's not even willing to consider how much of that 'suffering' was self-inflicted or inflicted by the 'Palestinians' leaders. And that's why he will never bring peace to the Middle East.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: anti-colonialist, Barack Hussein Obama, fierce moral urgency, imperialism, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:58 PM