With All The Turmoil There, Why Is Israel Obama's Favorite Target In The Middle East

Jackson Diehl asks the question: Why is Obama so tough on Israel and timid on Syria?:

One of the hallmarks of the Arab Spring has been the emergence of a new and more modest American foreign policy. The Obama administration has insisted on not taking the lead in promoting democratic change; it has declined to act unless not just the French and British but the Arab League go first. It still can’t bring itself to say that Bashar al-Assad, a dictator and implacable U.S. enemy who is using tanks and helicopter gunships to slaughter his people, is not qualified to lead Syria to democracy.

Yet there is one big exception: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On a Middle Eastern front that has remained mostly quiet in 2011, the position of the United States is: a) it possesses a detailed solution; b) action must be taken immediately; and c) it doesn’t matter whether the people concerned — Israelis and Palestinians — are agreeable or ready.

Israel is the one country in the Middle East where Obama has decided not to "lead from behind".Considering the Muslim countries whose regimes shoot their citizens in the street, that might seem a bit odd. Even when it comes to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs, it is Israel that is expected to make concessions--and unilateral ones at that.

Diehl offers a number of answers to why Obama concentrates on Israel:

o Frustration with the Israeli-Palestinian impasse
o Concern that the relative quiet could explode, aiding extremists
o The conviction that the US must first deal with the 'sins' of its clients

Even Diehl does not appear convinced of his explanation. He notes that:

the damage to U.S. interests from a U.N. resolution on Palestine would pale compared to the consequences of an Iranian-backed victory by Assad in Syria or the failure of NATO in Libya. Those crises have not moved Obama to lead.

I suspect that unlike Bill Clinton, whose decisions were said to be a case of the tail wagging the dog--following policies that he knew in advance had popular approval, Obama is looking for projects where he has a high likelihood of success.

What could be easier than pressuring Israel to make the necessary concessions to achieve peace--that supposedly everyone knows what it looks like?

After all, as opposed to the Palestinian Arabs, and the Muslim countries in general, Israel is a democracy--and the advantage of its being a democracy is that its easier to push to make concessions, unlike the Abbas and the Palestinian Authority which are so incompetent and corrupt that they cannot get anything done.

I don't think that is the kind of advantage of a democracy that Natan Sharansky had in mind.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.