Obama earned leadership points
By Wayne Dawkins
When President Obama in a May 19 speech urged a renewal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks – and also said the narrow 1967 Israeli boundaries was an element of the talks– his vision was a surprise to many people.
But contrary to the sound bite media reactions, Obama – with a big assist from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – knew exactly what he was doing. The changing, unsettled and malleable ground of a handful of Middle Eastern countries offered a rare, once-in-a-century opportunity to achieve peace and stability for Israel among potentially moderate Arab and Islamic neighbors.
Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave Obama an icy lecture inside the White House the next day as the cameras rolled, the Israeli p.m. acknowledged the president did not say anything that was crazy when he referenced the pre-1967 borders May 19.
A veteran Washington correspondent on PBS’ “Washington Week with Gwen Ifill & National Journal” provided clarity.
Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times said: “Armistice lines of 1949, if you want a different – a different date to work off – have been the basis of negotiations since at least the Clinton administration. Everybody involved in this knows that. President Obama wasn’t saying Israel has to go back to those [pre-1967] borders. He said you start with those borders and you make adjustments to them. OK. That’s actually been de facto U.S. policy. But no president had explicitly said it before as U.S. policy as the starting point that was sort of written in gold, and Netanyahu didn’t like that because he wanted to hang on to that as kind of a bargaining chip, even though it’s a bargaining chip that he’s given away, that his predecessors have given away, he wanted the right to take it back. So he wasn’t happy about that phrase.”
However, by Tuesday, Netanyahu was amenable instead of angry. During his address to a joint session of Congress, he said, “I’m willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it’s my responsibility to lead my people to peace.”
With Hosni Mubarak deposed in Egypt, the Israelis’ left flank is exposed. Clinton – the former presidential adversary turned blessing of the administration – had worn herself out in March and April crisscrossing continents to meet with the new leaders of the “Arab spring,” as Jonathan Alter explained in the June edition of Vanity Fair magazine.
Obama and Clinton see spectacular opportunities to reshape foreign policy in the Middle East. Inertia is not an option.
The American man or woman on the street may have been perplexed as to why the president was taking such a substantial risk, but his choice may not be that huge a risk. Republicans running to relieve him of his job had given the president plenty of wiggle room and enhanced credibility based on their inept antics of recent weeks.
Donald Trump the blowhard imploded yet he stormed away and claimed victory. Newt Gingrich self-destructed and he is trying to resurrect his campaign. Others, i.e. Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin, are still playing coy, or Mike Huckabee has said, no thanks, I’d rather make money at my lucrative media gig.
Give the president bonus leadership points for pushing the Middle East peace talks despite his plate being full with the fragile U.S. economy and the war on terror.
History on steroids over in the Middle East left Obama no choice but to act.
- wdawkins's blog
- Login or register to post comments