After noting sundry imperfections of Obama's Jerusalem speech, Peter Beinart declares it on balance "a great, even profound, speech,"
because Obama rejected the Jewish right’s endless rhetoric about Israel having "no partner" ...
because Obama asked Israelis to "look at the world" through the eyes of a Palestinian child ...
[and] because Obama challenged the core narrative of Netanyahu and his American supporters: that Jews are the world’s permanent victims, licensed by their fears to worry only about themselves.
There's an ascending importance in Beinart's list, although the remarkably reasonable Beinart would probably concede the legitimacy of others' reordering. Not to put too fine a point on this, but Bibi Netanyahu's "core narrative" of exclusive self-worry is, in one or another fashion, at the core of every nation's foreign policy and bargaining positions. Iranians are permanent victims, Russians are permanent victims, Venezuelans are permanent victims, indeed we Americans are eternal victims of a world that just doesn't understand how divinely exceptional we are.
To me, what trumps Israel's conceit is Beinart-Obama's rejection of Israel's loose "partnerless" rhetoric, not only because of the extraordinary risks taken by certain Palestinian leaders in pursuing peace, but because of the stupendous, 65-year-old costs of the United States' lonely support of Israel, which has been a strategic nightmare and geopolitical thorn of the first order.
What fraction of a second would Israel consume in abandoning the U.S. as a strategic "partner" if it believed abandonment were in its national interest? Trick question. U.S. administration after U.S. administration has begged, cajoled, pleaded with Israel that it stop doing just that; that it halt its sprawling, illegal, hegemonic settlement program that persists in gutting the chances for an Israel-Palestine peace agreement and thus a more solid basis for U.S.-Israel friendship. Follow-up question: Israel's response to our Judeo-Christian prayers? Answer: Up yours.
Finally, in the middle of Beinart's listed mix there's Obama's humanitarian request that Israelis "look at the world" through a Palestinian child's eyes, which are permitted to see nothing of life's bountiful opportunities. Among the Israeli people, of course, empathy is no more alien than it is to Obama. But to too many Israeli leaders, empathy is a weakness, which is their greatest weakness--but the child's liability.
The first question to every other country on Earth and to everyone in our federal government should be, "What's in it for the United States?"
Why is anyone in the U.S. disappointed by our president not showing up in a foreign country with a workable, detailed peace process in hand for two other countries?
As does every Miss America contestant, I hope for world peace. I really do.
Obama's unarticulated doctrine for foreign policy seems to be level-headed and practical.
Disable our enemies, as in Al Qaeda (Afghanistan, drones and so forth).
Protect our ability to conduct international commerce - shipping lanes and such.
Take advantage of cost-effective opportunities to promote more noble causes (Egypt, Lybia) and avoid actions that are not cost effective (Syria).
The last one seems cynical. I think it is wise.
Now, where do the Israli-Palestinian peace talks fit into all this?
Obama's speech stated the obvious and arguably the profound. Israel and the Palestinians will have peace when and only win both of them acknowledge the legitimates needs and rights of each other. Until then, Obama will stand back, verbally support legitimate rights and needss and (for whatever reasons) continue to have Israel's back at all times.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | March 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM