Obama's Blueprint For 'Change' In The Middle East

I got an email from Jerusalem One--a copy of a post entitled Obama, Israel and The Muslim World.

Obama, Israel, and the Muslim World

Change was the central theme of President-elect Obama's successful campaign for the presidency. Unfortunately, neither candidate presented the American public with their positions on issues facing the American Republic. Now, the question that begs for an answer is "What Change will President Obama advocate when he formally takes office"?

While there has been some speculation of what new foreign policy initiatives may be in store The Center For American Progress is systematically making public the policy prescriptions that Obama's brain trust is presenting to the President. The Center For American Progress is an invaluable resource for people interested in what policies an Obama Administration will promote. The Center was founded and is presided over by John Podesta who is heading up the Obama transition team. On Sunday, Podesta told Chris Wallace of Fox News that he believes that Obama was given a real mandate for change.

Now Podesta and Obama's think tank have posted chapters of a book they have compiled for the Obama transition team. It is titled Change For America.

Read the whole post.

Here is what the actual document says about Israel:

Engage the Middle East Peace Process

During the first year of the new administration, the new president should go to the Old City of Jerusalem and give a speech reaffirming America’s commitment to the absolute security of Israel and to the creation of a viable Palestinian state that can be home to millions of Palestinians willing to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors. With support from European and Arab governments, the new president should announce his willingness to engage personally in serious political, economic, and diplomatic efforts aimed at reaching agreement between Palestinians and Israelis that will result in a viable state for the Palestinians and genuine security for the Israelis. This affirmation should be accompanied by a pledge to convene, during his first six months in office, an international summit in a neutral location.

Neutral location? How about Annapolis?

The problem with the above paragraph is that it describes a situation that does not exist:

With support from European and Arab governments, the new president should announce his willingness to engage personally in serious political, economic, and diplomatic efforts aimed at reaching agreement between Palestinians and Israelis that will result in a viable state for the Palestinians and genuine security for the Israelis.

This assumes that Europe and the Arab governments have any interest in "genuine security for the Israelis": based on the reaction in Europe to the Security Fence, checkpoints, and cutting off supplies to Hamas terrorists which are then used against Israel--it is clear that what Israel considers security and Europe considers security are two very different things.

Even if there was an agreement on Israel's security, what will Europe's reaction be when Palestinian terrorists start firing Kassams at Israel?

Can you say Sderot?

Bottom line, when it comes to Israel's security, Europe is unreliable--and let's not even start talking about those Arab 'governments'.

This document continues:

This effort should be seen as beginning in the early days and weeks of the new administration and at its inception should involve the president personally. Responsibility for following up should lie with the secretary of state, the national security advisor, and the assistant secretary for Middle East affairs. Given the various other demands on the president’s foreign policy team, the president should consider appointing a senior American diplomat who is experienced, knowledgeable, and known to the region as a full-time presidential envoy with the authority to speak for the government of the United States, and routinely to interface with all the interested parties, including with members of a support group of outside governments.

Not much here that is new--or successful in the past. Again, the Secretary of State will be involved, and we all know how highly the State Department thinks of Israel.

The section concludes:

This envoy should be supported by an interagency team tasked to provide the diplomatic, economic, military, and aid support needed to achieve success. The new administration cannot wait until the seventh or eighth year to make progress on this front.

Yeah, that sounds about right: 'economic, military, and aid support' for the Palestinian Arabs; diplomacy to make sure that Israel goes along with it. And of course, the admonition not to wait--why wait to get a feel for the situation when you can just continue the previous artificial solutions that can be imposed on Israel?

The post by One Jerusalem notes that the document suggests that the President:

should give a speech in a major Muslim capital - perhaps in Cairo or Beirut or Jakarta - that rejects the clash of cultures, that pays respect to mainstream Islam, and that calls for a new era of dialogue, understanding and tolerance.

This smacks of trying to be all things to all people in the region--how is the US supposed to call for "a new era of dialogue, understanding and tolerance," while at the same time securing real security for Israel, when the Arabs will call for putting pressure on Israel as counterweight to years of Bush's alleged favoritism for Israel?

I especially like the idea of President Obama making such a speech in Beirut--while in Lebanon maybe he can meet with the terrorist head of Hezbollah, Nasrallah.

If this document really reflects what Obama's people are intending for the Middle East and Israel, these people are intent on making the same mistakes as previous administrations--with a president whose true feelings about Israel are unknown.

So much for Change.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.