Is Hillary the next Kissinger? Are the neocons trying to undermine her?

Here is Daniel Levy, who knows what’s going on in the Obama administration (why else does Steven Rosen attack him and try to elevate Dennis Ross?), writing at Foreign Policy about Obama’s game. Not a word here, my friends, about Gaza or Goldstone; it’s about Hillary as Kissinger…

Speaking of which, it’s interesting that Bill Kristol reported a couple weeks back that Hillary was resigning. Trying to sandbag her, huh? Levy:


President Obama’s message today continued to emphasize key themes — the urgency of achieving a two-state solution, his personal engagement and commitment, and why this is an American national interest. Starting on day one, as Obama did, rather than in year seven as his predecessor did, has its advantages. It allows one to invest several months and even to reach an impasse in order to make a point. I would argue that this administration is determinedly and inexorably moving this process toward a moment of truth that may take another several months or more to arrive, but arrive it will.

…More than that, in fact, one can expect the existing modus operandi to continue, with most of the serious talks and negotiations taking place on three parallel axes of dialogue: American-Israeli, American-Palestinian, and American-Arab states. Most of that will be via the continuous shuttling of Mitchell and his team, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who is more keenly involved in Middle East peace efforts than is often acknowledged) and President Obama being deployed as and when necessary…

If there is indeed a strategy here, and I at least think one can be discerned, then it is heading towards the presentation and active promotion, at the appropriate moment, of an American plan for implementing a comprehensive peace. America will have to recognize that it is dealing on the Israeli and Palestinian sides, for all their differences, with two deeply dysfunctional polities. The parties simply cannot do this of their own volition, and this is too important for them and for America for it to be left to the mercy of the vicissitudes of their respective domestic politics. America will have to create the incentives and also the disincentives.

It is not a question of wanting this more or less than the parties themselves. It is about who is best placed to carry this effort over the finishing line — and only determined American leadership with international support can achieve that. Senator Mitchell frequently talks about his 700 days of frustration in Northern Ireland and one day of decisive, break-through success.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Gaza, Israel/Palestine, Neocons, US Politics

{ 2 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Citizen says:

    I don’t know how much Hillary is involved, but otherwise Levy’s take is accurate in my opinion.

    • RE: “I don’t know how much Hillary is involved…” – Citizen

      FROM SPENCER ACKERMAN, 09/19/09: They say you shouldn’t blog on Rosh Hashana, but this is how I celebrate my sweet new year. And in any case, in a section of thisWashington Post profile of Hillary Rodham Clinton that deals with Clinton’s occasionally undiplomatic language as secretary of state, there’s an indication of very sweet new years to come. The particular context here is on Clinton’s no-wiggle-room statements on rejecting any Israeli settlement construction:

      “It’s been against the backdrop of that very strong statement that we’ve been moving,” she said, vowing that “we will end up in a place that no Israeli government has ever gone before.”

      That brought a smile to my face. At her Brookings speech yesterday, Clinton spoke with real emotion — I mean the timbre of her voice got deeper and she got louder — about being “very patient and very determined” to get to two states, a goal the administration will “never give up.”

      SOURCE – link to attackerman.firedoglake.com