The New York Times editorial page took a surprisingly harsh stance against President Obama's progress on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. The Times' editorial page has been consistently supportive of all things Obama since he became a candidate for the presidency.
The Times says, "We were thrilled when President Obama decided to plunge fully into the Middle East peace effort. He appointed a skilled special envoy, George Mitchell, and demanded that Israel freeze settlements, Palestinians crack down on anti-Israel violence and Arab leaders demonstrate their readiness to reach out to Israel. Nine months later, the president’s promising peace initiative has unraveled."
I would say this in Mr. Obama's defense: the Middle East peace process has unraveled for every president since the late 1940s. All of them want to solve the problem, but all of them fail. Mr. Obama will be no different.
The Times continues, "Mr. Obama’s own credibility is so diminished (his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent) that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever. Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no. Most important, they allowed the controversy to obscure the real goal: nudging Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks."
Part of the problem here is that the Palestinians are divided, and Israel knows it. The power lies with Israel, and Netanyahu sees no reason to cave to demands from the Obama administration, especially when Palestinian rockets continue to target Israeli towns.
The Times concludes: "The president has no choice but to keep trying. At some point extremists will try to provoke another war. and the absence of a dialogue will only make things worse. Advancing his own final-status plan for a two-state solution is one high-risk way forward that we think is worth the gamble. Stalemate is unsustainable."
I disagree. Stalemate is sustainable. It's not pretty, but it's been sustained for more than 60 years so far, and we're still counting. And for what it's worth, the extremists who try to provoke another war will likely be Palestinians.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 18
it would be a good idea to remember that the Palestinians since AD 70 till 1946 is what the Jewish folks were called.
Maybe there will be three states but only one country. The Jewish folks won this country in the 1967 war and it appears that they won’t be giving it up anytime soon.
I think it's great the the NY Times is questioning anything Obama does. That's promising.
One US president, arguably the one considered the symbol of presidential failure, DID accomplish something there and that was Jimmy Carter. He removed via his Camp David Accord the threat to Israel from all Arab nations except Syria. That was no mean accomplishment and while it wasn't perfect, it cleaned up the chessboard over there considerably.
Any formal national policy as such would result in the same treatment Syria gets. Because they don't do so, Israel is more tolerant of stupidity by Hezbollah until it gets too gross. They also deliberately avoid contact with Lebanese government forces which is lucky for the Lebanese.
I won't disagree its not a strange critter but that unique blend of French influence/background, very large Christian minority, and a very large part of the population that really wants peace make it far less a problem for Israel than most of the region not covered in the Camp David Accord.
I also do not dispute that Lebanon is "less" of a problem.