The New York Times is at it again. In an article about President Obama's mild criticism of Israel's plans to build more settlements in occupied Palestine, the newspaper said:
Despite their efforts to build mutual trust, Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu seem to keep talking past each other. On Tuesday, they were worlds apart in symbolism as well as substance: the president voiced his criticism of Israel while on a visit to Jakarta, capital of the world’s most populous Muslim country.
On examination, this paragraph -- in what purports to be a news article -- is quite astonishing. Here's the implication:
* The Muslim world is a bloc, which by its very nature, its essence, opposes Israel.
* If you want to promote peace in Israel/Palestine, you don't encourage this Muslim bloc by "criticizing" Israel while you are in the "capital of the world's most populous Muslim country."
And just exactly what was Obama's incendiary statement, uttered in the enemy capital?
When asked in about Israel’s plans for 1,000 housing units for a contested part of East Jerusalem, Mr. Obama said, “This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations."
President Obama’s error (a common one in lawless America) is to focus on peace-making (a voluntary activity in which Israel is little interested) and forget about the enforcement of international law. In short, his priorities are exactly backwards.
But how can an American president seek to enforce the law (i.e., to require Israel to repatriate the settlers (the people), dismantle the wall, dismantle the settlements (the buildings), lift the siege on Gaza, and provide Gazans with sufficient potable water?
It’s easy but unlikely. The president can publicly state that, at this time, he is not preparing for re-election by fund-raising (and leaves that to the Congresspersons and the parties); that he is no longer a designer or promoter of legislation (save for use of the veto); that he declares himself free of all pressures from lobbyists, corporations, etc.; and that he will limit his activities as president to doing what the Constitution set out for him to do — administer the laws, command the armed forces, conduct foreign policy.
Then, as a matter of conducting foreign policy, he can work with the UNSC (or UNGA if there is obstruction in UNSC) to craft sanctions-with-teeth to require Israel to remove the settlers and settlements and wall and siege. Roughly, he can seek to resuscitate UNSC 465 (1980), but with enforcement measures built in. He can also make speeches here and abroad suggesting that trade boycotts and the like are appropriate measures to bring Israel to law-compliant behavior.
Will it happen? No. Politicians are egoists and cannot so easily forgo hopes of re-election. But it could happen. In principle, an American president could act merely in the roles set forth in the Constitution. free of party and faction, free of lobbies and money.
I recommend it.
it’s brilliant, pabelmont.
Carole Tavris (? either Tavris or Harriet Goldhor Lehrer) have written extensively about anger, its uses and management. A key concept I learned from their writing is, “interrupt the dance.” If someone is engaging in a conflict and attempting to draw you in, instead of trying to stake out a stronger or cooler or smarter or sharper argument, refuse to engage; step outside the frame; walk away, emotionally & psychologically as well as, if necessary, physically.
Obama leaving Bibi hanging in the wind.
I like it (anger DOES demand some satisfaction).
These Ashkenazi preacher’s know their audience is as white as they are.