Barack Obama
Remember Those Israeli Settlements?
While we wait to see if Iranian demonstrations turn into full-on civil war or revolution, Marc Lynch investigates the Israeli response to Obama’s settlement ultimatum:
That Israel has quietly made significant changes to the checkpoints in the last few weeks — after ignoring six years worth of Road Map commitments, snubbing Tony Blair and the Quartet’s persistent demands, dismissing the recommendations of the World Bank and other international development agencies, and greatly expanding them even while negotiating during the Annapolis process — suggests that Obama’s tough love approach has actually been the only one able to achieve real results.
But we’re also reaching a crucial moment where the administration must really stand up to Netanyahu or risk seeing its Israel policy fall to pieces. The Israeli prime minister has authorized new settlement construction north of Ramallah. Back to Lynch:
Rightly or wrongly, Obama has made the settlement issue a test of his credibility, and if he backs down then all the progress he has made will wash away instantly. That makes this a pivotal moment, whether or not an Obama administration focused on Iran wants it to be one. Most Palestinians, with their well-earned skepticism of American policy, expect Obama to back down. Most Israelis probably do as well. And that would be tragic….
While Obama’s political opponents berate him over his response to Iran, the first real test of his foreign policy leadership is taking place on the West Bank and almost no one seems to be taking notice.
Talking to the Muslim World
As I mentioned yesterday, Kevin Drum thinks Obama should try to encourage more substantive discourse in the press by granting access to really smart, penetrating journalists — regardless of the size of their viewership / readership. Now we hear that the president has granted his first full interview since taking office to Al Arabiya. And it was an interesting, substantive interview. What we learned more than anything from this interview, is that Obama isn’t coming to the table with some interesting new solutions to the problem. He’s basically endorsing some sort of vague two-state solution. But his approach to the process is in line with the Democracy in America post I quoted yesterday.
One other thing struck me about this interview. Obama emphasizes cooperation, rather than just tolerance. He talks about a Palestinian state whose citizens have freedom of movement, sure, but he also talks about economic engagement. This was a key point in a smart analysis of the situation posted on TPM recently:
They should speak positively about President Sarkozy’s idea of a Mediterranean Union, with Israel and Turkey acting as anchors. Clinton should offer to help organize a start to a regional water carrier to bring Turkish water to Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Israel. There should be talk of an [sic] common market between Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Jones should speak about a bilateral defense pact with Israel and an American naval base in Haifa. The U.S. must get away from the idea that peace means “We give them land, and then maybe they’ll leave us alone.”
Obama has not yet endorsed the initial point of this post, the idea that the Clinton parameters are non-negotiable as far as America is concerned. But I think this goes back to the notion that his approach is more important than his solutions. Coming to the table, from the beginning, with non-negotiable parameters sets the wrong tone. In his interview with Al Arabiya the president drives home the point that as Americans, we aren’t going to fully understand the complexity of the situation. And so first we listen. But we also set our eyes not just on tolerance, peace defined as lack of aggression, but on a vital economic and cultural exchange in the region.
Obama in a nutshell
Democracy in America posted a really smart take on what characterizes Obama’s philosophy. I almost want to repost the whole thing, but I’ll satisfy myself with three paragraphs:
So Mr Obama isn’t original in his conception of government (do what works, not more). Nor is he particularly creative in his thinking of “what works”: he’s a relatively orthodox American liberal. So is there anything original to Mr Obama, or is he a lot of sizzle and not a lot of steak?
To my mind, Mr Obama brings not a big theory of government, but he does have one of governance. He sees that America often gets pathologically bad policy because of the way it makes decisions. Many policies, especially economic ones, are captured by self-interested lobbies. Other policies, notably social policy, come out skewed because in an increasingly polarised Congress, the majority railroads the minority, and the majority’s center is never where the country’s is. And many Americans, frustrated by these first two tendencies, switch off, and a switched-off electorate is no effective check that could help government get better again.
It’s a downward spiral Mr Obama seems to recognise, and to be trying hard to break. He moved to curb lobbies with one of his first orders. He has promised to listen to conflicting opinions, and he has no crusader’s zeal when he talks about divisive social issues. With creative uses of technology, not to mention his skilled oratory, he hopes to reconnect the average citizen to government, getting voters to think about what they want and what they don’t, so they can keep government honest.
Let’s hope it works. But this read on Obama’s vision for America also relates to something Kevin Drum posted a few days ago about Obama’s relationship with the media. Check out Drum’s post for the details (and how he thinks Obama should nudge the press to change their approach). It’ll be interesting to see if the new administration really can change the tone of the conversation. They seem, at least, to be genuinely interested in doing so.
Dropping hints
Josh Marshall tries to read the tea leaves on Obama’s Israel policy. I’m not totally sure what Marshall is seeing here, but I’m assuming it is that by naming Mubarak first, Gibbs is trying to imply that the Obama administration will be more neutral, and hopefully an “honest broker” in the region, as Egypt has tried to be. Of course “more neutral” could mean a lot of things.
The Financial Times notes that many Israelis are nervous about Obama:
A senior Israeli minister has urged his countrymen not to “fear” the new US president, in remarks that highlighted the gulf between Israeli and world perceptions of Barack Obama.
The article implies that the ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza were timed so as not to antagonize the new administration. But it seems just as likely that the envasion itself was timed to wrap up before Obama took office. One last show of force while US Middle East policy was a known entity. But perhaps Israel overestimated even the Bush administration’s support:
In a move that was interpreted by some Israeli officials as a sign of coming turbulence with its strongest ally, the US refused to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire after 13 days of war. The Israeli government had urged the US to block the diplomatic move, but eventually managed only to get the US to abstain.
What’s he going to say?
We know at least the broad strokes of Obama’s economic plans, but I’ll be listening closely on Tuesday to hear what he has to say about the situation in Gaza. From an article in Ha’aretz:
“We’ve got plenty to say about Gaza, and on January 20, you’ll hear directly from me,” [Obama] added.
Hopefully we’ll get a substantive idea of what his approach will be coming out of the gate. This preview of his speech, though, doesn’t offer any clues. I’m seeing some hints that Israel’s Western allies, along with Egypt, will indeed be pushing to strengthen Fatah and the PA politically. From the New York Times:
From Sharm el Sheik, the French, British, German, Spanish, Italian and Czech leaders traveled to Jerusalem for dinner with Mr. Olmert, who told his guests that undermining Hamas rule in Gaza depended on strengthening the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, whose power is currently confined to the West Bank.
The Sharm el-Sheikh conference also provided an opportunity to try to shore up the credibility of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. The PA, which was ousted from Gaza by Hamas in 2007, has been largely sidelined during the conflict, and Mr Abbas has faced criticism from Palestinians for not responding decisively to the crisis. He took part in the gathering and addressed the press alongside the European leaders.
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Goldberg thinks Fatah may be sharing intelligence with Israel. If this is true, a joint effort to weaken Hamas politically, along with some pressure on Israel to make concessions, could go a long way. I have a feeling the only way for Obama to gain real credibility with the Arab nations would be forcing Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Whether this is politically feasible, I have no idea.
They bombed what?
So I see that Israel bombed a few things today:
- UN compound hit by Israeli shells, setting its main warehouse for food, fuel and medicine ablaze
- Skyscraper housing international media groups, including the Reuters news agency, hit by Israeli fire
- Al-Quds hospital struck by Israeli artillery, destroying two floors and setting it ablaze
- One of two warehouses used by Red Crescent shelled, setting the building containing relief items on fire
- Jabaliya refugee camp hit. Saeed Seyyam, senior Hamas leader, is killed
I certainly recognize that Hamas encourages this stuff with their own illegal war tactics. But if Obama wants to change America’s relationship with Israel, this war may just provide him with the justification he needs.
Those tax cuts…
Kevin Drum is perplexed by Obama’s apparent good-faith gesture of bipartisanship (including massive tax cuts in his stimulus bill, and then really working to get the support of congressional Republicans). Noam Scheiber sees it as a shrewd trap: give the conservative economic arguments their due, and force the opposition to make unreasonable demands that reveal their true colors. But why couldn’t it be both? If Obama gets strong support for the plan across the aisle, he makes good on his promise to govern as a bipartisan leader. If not, he provides an opening for Senate Democrats to attack the baser motives of their Republican colleagues. Win-win. But then again, maybe Obama’s economic team is just trying to craft good policy.
The Importance of Being at the Inauguration
Nevertheless, even if it is symbolism, the Warren choice strikes me as Obama’s biggest mistake since the election. He’s elevating a conservative religious leader to new heights, giving him stature and credibility, and making his far-right message that much more meaningful when he challenges Obama administration policies in the future.
I’ve heard a lot of liberals make this argument against having Rick Warren deliver the invocation at Obama’s inauguration, but I just don’t buy it. Delivering this invocation is going to give him more credibility than authoring one of the most popular non-fiction books currently in print? Than hosting a high-profile election debate at his church? Than being on all those “most influential leaders” lists published by Time, Newsweek, et al? And of course, you could always make this argument from the other side: by having Warren involved in the innauguration, Obama will carry more influence with evangelicals because it shows he respects their leaders, even though he may disagree with them.
One other factor that is not getting nearly as much attention as it should is that there will be another religious leader at the inauguration (performing the benediction): Rev Dr Joseph Lowery. You can read more about him here, but suffice it to say that he’s no homophobe.
Religious Party
During the election, Obama worked hard to win religious (even evangelical) voters over to the Democratic ticket, and made significant strides, especially among younger evangelicals. Not surprisingly, Obama did this largely by emphasizing his personal relationship with faith, rather than softening his positions on major social issues, such as abortion. As a result, his gains among this demographic came largely from those evangelicals who were already social moderates. Still, the gains were significant, despite controversies swirling around his church and rumors that he is a “secret Muslim.”
Now I hear (via Democracy in America) that some influential conservative commentators have launched a new blog called Secular Right. This trend, it seems to me, is pretty important. To the extent that we can decouple a single political party from its monopoly on the devout Christian vote, we can have a richer discussion of the relationship between faith and public policy in America. For one thing, it opens up space for organizations such as this.
Search
Categories
- Art (4)
- Cities (3)
- Drugs (1)
- Free Jazz Hour (46)
- General (2)
- Intellectual Property (4)
- Photography (1)
- Poetry (6)
- Politics (18)
- Spirituality (3)
- Technology (2)
- TV (1)
- Video & Film (1)
Sites of Interest
Books (via Goodreads)
Photos (via Flickr)
|
