None of them knew what to do
Former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, President-elect Barack Obama and President George W. Bush
All posed for a group picture in the Oval Office of the White House Wednesday. (White House photo by Eric Draper). It was a very momentous occasion, requested by President-elect Obama and hosted by our current president (OCP). First there was a private meeting at which reportedly, the old heads advised our new president-to-be on how he could avoid being caught in a White House bubble of group-think, and how a President Obama could make it more possible for his people to bring him bad news. At the end there was a dynamite photo-op for everyone, during which these distinguished gentlemen were discussing the current Oval Office rug.
In an escalating Israeli/Palestinian conflict, at the same time half way around the world, there were people working very hard to kill each other . The headlines had been very troubling for several days: The Raw Story: A Norwegian doctor reports that "Israel intentionally targeted civilians*" (1/5/09). McClatchy: "Airstrike kills 3 at Gaza school-UN*" (1/6/08). Informed Comment: "Israel/Gaza Cyberwar and parallels to Abu Ghraib*" (1/6/09). And recently, Informed Comment: "Something Horrible has been Discovered*" (1/7/09) Cole's post linked to The Telegraph/UK headline: "Gaza medics describe horror of strike which killed 70" (1/8/09).
Any talk of the Middle East? One could wonder whether the Oval Office occupants had anything to say in their meeting about how the United States has been forever unable to help generations of these determined combatants achieve a lasting peace. In turn each of these powerful "leaders of the free world" have been singularly unsuccessful as Middle East peacemakers. War-makers, yes; temporary agreements, yes; but peacemakers with permanence, no.
Madeleine Albright's book, "Madam Secretary" recounts a great deal about how hard former presidents have tried for peace. About Carter, elected in 1976, she said,
President Carter was one of our most intelligent chief executives and one who showed a fierce dedication to conflict prevention and individual human dignity both during and after his term in office. He was a proactive President who achieved much in foreign policy, including the historic Middle East Peace Accords at Camp David. . . . Politically, however he was unlucky.
About Bush 41, Albright observed, regarding her work in the Clinton administration in 1997,
People were worried about Saddam's weapons and asking what we were going to do. . . No serious consideration was given to actually invading Iraq. The senior President Bush had not invaded when given the chance with hundreds of thousands of troops already in the region during the Gulf War.
In Albright's Chronology
of her diplomatic work are included these pertinent entries: 11/4/92 -
Bill Clinton elected President. 6/26/93 - U.S. bombs Iraqi intelligence
headquarters in retaliation for assassination attempt against former
President George Bush. 9/13/93 - Israeli and Palestinian leaders sign
Oslo Declaration of Principles. 1/23/97 - MKA sworn in as 64th
secretary of state. 10/15/98 - Middle East talks result in Wye River
Memorandum. 7/11-25/2000 - Middle East summit. 9/28/2000 - Israeli
politician Ariel Sharon visits the Temple Mount/Haram alSharif,
violence breaks out. January 2001 - Last efforts to negotiate Middle
East settlement failed.
"More than meets the eye."
Following shortly after that we saw the Republicans take over. For a
time the Middle East appeared to be quiescent. It was not of great
concern to George W. Bush, until the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. That tragic loss of American life set the U.S. on a path in the
Middle East that largely ignored the unsolved conflict between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. Walls went up, Israel withdrew from
Gaza, Hamas won an election, Ariel Sharon left the picture and tensions
grew. The war in Lebanon happened. In all of these things the U.S.
efforts were absent or made relatively little difference. All eyes have
been on Afghanistan and mostly, Iraq.
President-elect Obama has promised
to turn attention form Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And he is not
talking much about Israel and Palestine, reminding that "we have one
president at a time." At the end of last year an important article
appeared on Steve Clemons' blog, The Washington Note: "Daniel Levy: What Next on Israel/Gaza? Why Should Americans Care?"
(12/28/08). This brilliant thinker asked a number of important
questions that should have prompted some actions or answers from the
Republican administration or former Republican leaders or opinion
makers.
But these are the stories that appeared. From at-Largely came this story, "John Bolton continues to have no clue but plenty of propaganda...*" (1/5/09). See also Think Progress: "Gaza Crisis Means We Should Attack Iran Now#" (1/1/09). And this appeared at ThinkProgress: "Perino: Ground Invasion Will Help 'Create A More Stable And Secure Area' For People Of Gaza*" (1/5/09). AlterNet asks my question: "Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?*" (1/7/08). And now this Happy News -- AlterNet: "Israeli Militants Poised to Resettle Gaza After Assault*" (1/7/09).
I have not listened to the news today. Absolutely everything might have changed. It will not make any difference what the Bush administration does because, as Politico says: "Gaza reshuffles [the] Israeli political deck"
(1/8/09) for Barack Obama. And none of his predecessors in the Oval
Office can tell him what to do, because they do not know. None of them
figured out the magic formula. Perhaps there is none. But one thing
upon which you can count is that our new President will give it his
best. He sees the world with very different eyes than the people in the
picture, and that is a good thing.
Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.
(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)
My "creativity and dreaming" post today is at Making Good Mondays.
Technorati tags: news news and politics president israel gaza middle east
There are so many great minds in the New Administration. But Secretary Clinton may show us something we have not seen in the Office of State for awhile. I can see her making Israel a real focus in that office for the next four years and I think she is going to make it a cause.
Old Justice Douglas, one of my heroes, is so disliked today. But some huge anti-trust case would end up on the High Court docket and nobody wanted to take the time to go through it. Douglas would.
I think Hilary may take this 'file' and really analyze it with a fresh read. I see her getting Albright on the phone along with scores of others and taking on a mess that is 60 years old. Thousands of years old for some.
Once again you make research easy after you do all the work.
January 8, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, thanks for reminding me that the Middle East diplomatic effort will largely be on Clinton's desk, after Obama's lead, of course.
One of the reasons I am so fascinated with this issue is its infinite complexity. For me it takes years of following something to be able to step back from it and get any perspective at all. And we Americans are not really very good at "doing the Middle East" anyway.
It will be interesting to see if Dennis Ross gets involved. He was such an asset in years past, I thought. I learned a great deal about the Arafat years by reading his stuff. But perhaps it is time for a fresh start, by people who have, at the same time, much accumulated wisdom to bring to bear. I agree that Albright will be involved, and rightly so.
Thanks for your kind and very insightful comment.
January 9, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
dickday, I had not looked around at the Cafe and seen the not-too favorable post about Dennis Ross being involved after all. I have never believed him to be JUST an Israel flack. But we will see.
January 9, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I co-sign with dd on benefiting from your research and add my own appreciation.
A small quibble from More Than Meets the Eye:
Bush and Co did not so much ignore the unsolved conflict as participate in a planned withdrawal of the US presence so Israel would be seen as mature and self-reliant. (We didn't withdraw the money, however.) This mature Israel would then project a presence in the Middle East which would give it "greater freedom of action". Greater freedom of action apparently meant such activities as "require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas" in order to secure its streets, and "reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response".
It's all here in the classic A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written by those ever-wrong neocons upon the election of Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister. Juan Cole called the plan "worse than science fiction. Science fiction is coherent and often involves some actual knowledge."
In other words, what looked like neglect was really a feature, not a bug!
January 9, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Between you and Carol, I wont have to surf anymore.
This is fascinating stuff. And the one thing I have trouble discerning, is how would the people who back these neocons make money under policy shifts like this. Is it arms or oil?
There is no principle, without profits.
January 9, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you describe in "A Clean Break . . ." is the most cynical kind of manipulation I can imagine. I keep wondering what happens to peoples' consciences. This feels like bad faith to me, and it makes my stomach knot. Juan Cole could hide his disdain, and rightly so.
Thanks for this very important clarification, seashell. My husband also noticed something "not quite right" about my phrase, BTW.
January 9, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the problem with "A Clean Break" isn't the concept. It would probably be preferable for Israel to kill its enemies while being killed by its enemies rather than negotiating with them while being killed by them.
Problem is, Israel has made too may enemies to kill them all. They don't have enough guns. Or people to hold them. So they can't win. But they can't LOSE either because the United States supports them.
Right now, there is a balance of power, which supports continued killing. If the United States walks away, Israel loses. No more killing. (Actually first LOTS of killing, THEN no more killing).
January 9, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My recommendation:
1. Wet hands under faucet.
2. Pick up soap, rub it between hands.
3. Put down soap.
4. Rub hands together vigorously.
5. Rinse.
6. Dry hands on a soft towel.
We can't solve a dispute between people who want to kill each other by "brokering" peace. They don't want peace. We can prevent ourselves from being tarred with the same brush by not supporting the fools who want to kill each other.
January 9, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always forget to put down the soap. Then I drop the soap.....
January 9, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink