Leon Hadar clarifies his position for me, which I seem to have misrepresented somewhat:
I'm all for Obama
getting involved and trying to impose a solution. In 1992 I published a article
in Foreign Policy magazine, America And Israel: Reforming Israel-Before It's Too
Late, which
applauded Bush I for pressing Israel on the issue of the settlements and the
Palestinians. And believe me that your pals at AIPAC didn't like it. And in
general my view is that the U.S. should take steps to "normalize" its
relationship with Israel (again, a piece I had in The Washington Post
in the early 1990's was titled: "The U.S. and Israel: Is it Divorce Time?"
) My recent piece in the WPJ is just an attempt to be real about what is going
to happen about the many constraints that are going to operate on the Obama
Administration. I'm a realist and try to tell people what I think is going to
happen as opposed to what should happen. (I think that Rashid Khalidi made
similar observation in a recent interview with Haaertz).
In fact, I published another piece
two days ago http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-should-take-other-road-to.html#links "Obama
Should Take the Other Road to Jerusalem" which calls on him to embrace
an activist diplomatic approach. But at the end of
the day, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who will have to make a deal
and "de-internationalize" this (blip) conflict that is getting on everyone's
nerves. At times, it seems to me that Jewish peaceniks, not unlike the neocons,
derive some psychological and perhaps other rewards through their never-ending
peace processing, not unlike social workers whose career depends on the
perpetuation of poverty. It will be great if Obama makes it peace happen. But
even if he doesn't, I believe that the decline in American power is going to
lead to a gradual disengagement of the U.S. from the Middle East and indeed to a
more "normal" relationship with Israel. When that happens, many Israelis will
look with a certain nostalgia to the days of U.S. "pressure" as opposed to the
more benign neglect approach towards the Middle East that Washington will then
adopt (while the New York Times — if it will still be around — will
not be covering Israel as though it is a borough of New York City).
