News

Walter Russell Mead says Obama never had the power to deliver freeze on colonies (Why not?)

It looks like the changing public discourse is beginning to affect Walter Russell Mead in the American Interest, but he’s unsure of how far he can go without being “revealed” as an anti-Semite.  He actually says–and this is shocking for him:

I happen to believe that such a freeze would be a smart move on Israel’s part — but what I think and you think isn’t the issue.  It’s what the Israeli government thinks that counts.

 
But no matter the great length of the blog, he never answers: exactly why does the Israeli government see your “smart move” as not so smart?  Aren’t you a super smart Ivy League professor and long time supporter of Zionism?  So, explain it to us!
 
But then he drops some remarkable clinkers–really laugh lines–like:

 

America’s great advantage as a peacemaker flows from our special relationship with Israel.  Israel trusts America more than it trusts any other power; as long as that is true it will be more forthcoming in American-led negotiations than in any other forum.  America can get Israel to make more concessions than anybody else — but that power derives from the confidence Israel has in our backing.  The Arabs value the US because we can get Israel to agree to compromises they can’t get on their own; our special relationship with Israel is not an obstacle to US outreach to Palestinians — it is the key to our ability to work with them.

 
And how about this:
 

President Obama does not and never did have the power to make Israel deliver the total freeze he unwisely commanded.

 
This I can agree with, but how but being just a tad more explicit–why can’t the only true super power make Israel deliver?  Once again, Mead is not at all forthcoming about an issue that isn’t obvious to most. However, when he compares Palestine to Northern Ireland, he has some good insights, like this one:
 

The Northern Ireland peace process held out the hope for better lives for almost everyone involved; many Palestinians do not see a two state agreement with Israel as something that will make their lives better.

 
But how about this mix:
 

The similarities between the Northern Irish conflict and the Israel-Palestine fight are superficial; the differences are deep and profound.  First, both of the nationalist movements in Israel-Palestine are expansionist and unsatisfied.  In Ireland, the Ulster Protestants just wanted to keep what they had; they didn’t want to build new settlements in Dublin and Cork and they didn’t want the restoration of British rule across the whole island. In Israel, there are many people who think that the Zionist task is unfinished until the entire land is redeemed.  On the Palestinian side, there are also many people who think the 1949 boundaries are wrong; they want the whole thing back, not just the West Bank and Gaza.

 
More that needs unpacking.  Including, why are we on one side rather than seeking a meeting of minds/peoples?
Mark Wauck blogs at meaninginhistory.
15 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments