Obama’s ‘childish notions’
by Emmanuel Rosen 28 May 2009
TEL MOND, Israel - Last week, one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s advisors referred to Barack Obama’s ideas for resolving the conflict as “childish notions”. This was his somewhat childish way of expressing what many are feeling: Obama is an enthusiastic romantic who attributes minimal significance to historic obstacle, religious impediments and political fixations. To a large extent he is reminiscent of naïve European leaders, who believe in dialogue and goodwill and think that positive energies can eliminate bloody conflicts.
The natural tendency is to disparage Obama and wait for the harsh reality to sooner or later clash with the global king’s overly rosy worldview. The Middle East is a rough region inhabited by stubborn and cynical people. They keep their romance for wars. Embarking on battle is always enthusiastic, devoid of prolonged hesitation, sanctifies risk-taking, and is enveloped by a veneer of heroism and songs of praise.
When it comes to making peace there is always time, the question is always “why yes” rather than “why not”, and there is always a reason to postpone the decision, if possible to the days of the Messiah.
The meeting between Obama and Netanyahu is a meeting between two worlds. On the one hand we see the vision, dream and the look into the future, and on the other hand the caution, responsibility, and attachment to the past. It is only a matter of time before Obama’s critics will start comparing him to Neville Chamberlain.
They will ignore, as usual, the reality whereby the one Chamberlain who erred is countered in history by many examples of compromising and hopeful leaders who were able to bridge differences and overcome wars, bringing peace to the world; the same world that is also filled with tough and responsible leaders who closed their eyes in the face of hope, thereby unleashing ruin and destruction upon their countries.
No Sisyphean and complex negotiations would be able to resolve the Middle East conflict. We can waste long years in seeking creative ways and we can waste long months under the neon lights while engaging in endless discussions behind closed doors. Peace won’t come from there. It will arrive if and when we see the emergence of real leaders on both sides of the conflict; leaders who have been graced with the most important leadership quality: The ability to change direction, go against the current and take tough decisions that may be unpopular; the ability to lead a process rather than be dragged into one.
Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, who secured the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, were like that. Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein, who turned Israel and Jordan into allies without resolving the complex problems of Jerusalem and the West Bank, were also like that. The fear is that Netanyahu, Assad and Abbas are not cut from the same cloth, and the hope is that Barack Obama will be able to elegantly slide into this vacuum.
George Bush proved that it isn’t enough to be the leader of the world’s most powerful nation; other traits are needed in order to take advantage of this power and make history. Obama is showing indications that he may have what it takes. Indeed, someone needs to soften up his naiveté and add a little scepticism to the great dreams, yet it is no less important to have someone who would motivate him not to let up and prevent him from surrendering in the face of despair and the sceptics; the ones who interpret vision and a desire for change as “childish”.
Personally, I would prefer a local Begin and Sadat to be the peacemakers. However, in their absence, Obama looks like a unique and interesting option. He has a dream and, yes, he can. Mostly he can be the responsible adult who saves all of us with his “childish notions”.
article found here:
If one sets aside the word "childish" itself and thinks instead about what it is about his notions that make his 'opponents' call them "childish", is there - or is there not - reason for any optimism now that there are new leaders in both Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv?
Originally posted by FMFIt does not matter what Obama's "notions" are on this subject. There will be no peace between Israel and it's neighbors. No as long as Muslems and Jews both covet the same piece of land. It would be easire to try to mix oil and water than find a lasting peace in the middle east.😏
[b]Obama’s ‘childish notions’
by Emmanuel Rosen 28 May 2009
TEL MOND, Israel - Last week, one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s advisors referred to Barack Obama’s ideas for resolving the conflict as “childish notions”. This was his somewhat childish way of expressing what many are feeling: Obama is an enthusiastic romantic who attributes minimal significa ...[text shortened]... ason for any optimism now that there are new leaders in both Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFThey say that Israel's under the greatest amount of pressure by the US in a decade. That may be true, but it means nothing. Obama's just being a liberal again.
[b]Obama’s ‘childish notions’
by Emmanuel Rosen 28 May 2009
TEL MOND, Israel - Last week, one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s advisors referred to Barack Obama’s ideas for resolving the conflict as “childish notions”. This was his somewhat childish way of expressing what many are feeling: Obama is an enthusiastic romantic who attributes minimal significa ...[text shortened]... ason for any optimism now that there are new leaders in both Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv?[/b]
I wouldn't use the word "childish." Obama is fully aware of how the Israeli government and, indeed, the majority of the Israeli people, feel right now. They are not in a peacemaking mood and they have no one like Rabin to make a breakthrough. It is unrealisitc to expect Israel to make unilateral concessions, for it is well known that nothing will be gained by it. Obama may urge such concessions, but in fact I believe he is in an interesting position where he well knows how unrealistic his exhortations are, but also that he must make public statements that please his base. He has to at least appear to have changed course from his predecessor in office. But I think national security issues are much more complex than most of us, including myself, are in a position to appreciate. We don't have the info.
for example, what is the relationship between Iranian nuclear ambitiion and North Korea? I see a lot of allegations, and I am beginning to find credible the idea that Iran and N Korea are in cahoots.
How did Syria get a nuclear facility the very image of North Korea's built?
Who paid for the Syrian plant?
Is China and/or Pakistan really the source for Iran's missile and nuclear tech? Or is it N Korea? Hawks in Israel are beginning publicly to say it is N Korea. Iranian missiles have been said to compare most closely to N Korea's, not to China's.
How long a fuse do you think there is before the Iranian nuclear issue provokes a unilateral Israeli response?
How long before the N Korean demonstration of succession angst provokes a military response from concerned neighbors backed by the USA?
Do we really think, in light of the spate of Obama's repeated reversals on matters of national security policy, that Obama is going to follow thru on his campaign rhetoric on these issues?
Originally posted by ScriabinWell, if Israel feels like attacking any other country it desires, who is Obama to say anything about it? His only role is ScriabinWorld is to just keep signing the military aid check.
I wouldn't use the word "childish." Obama is fully aware of how the Israeli government and, indeed, the majority of the Israeli people, feel right now. They are not in a peacemaking mood and they have no one like Rabin to make a breakthrough. It is unrealisitc to expect Israel to make unilateral concessions, for it is well known that nothing will be gained ty policy, that Obama is going to follow thru on his campaign rhetoric on these issues?
It seems like the Israelis having failed to convince GW to attack Iran, are now trying to get Obama to attack Iran AND North Korea. What a useful ally Israel is!
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you in favor of US intervention in other countries now?
Well, if Israel feels like attacking any other country it desires, who is Obama to say anything about it? His only role is ScriabinWorld is to just keep signing the military aid check.
It seems like the Israelis having failed to convince GW to attack Iran, are now trying to get Obama to attack Iran AND North Korea. What a useful ally Israel is!
Originally posted by ScriabinThe OP and your post would lead one to believe that Obama is asking himself the obvious question: why is my country supporting these fanatics? Israeli has no interest in peace -- that's clear. Furthermore, Israel's behavior makes them a target for nuclear aggression which could lead to a significant nuclear exchange.
I wouldn't use the word "childish." Obama is fully aware of how the Israeli government and, indeed, the majority of the Israeli people, feel right now. They are not in a peacemaking mood and they have no one like Rabin to make a breakthrough. It is unrealisitc to expect Israel to make unilateral concessions, for it is well known that nothing will be gained ...[text shortened]... ty policy, that Obama is going to follow thru on his campaign rhetoric on these issues?
Does the US want to be any part of that? No, obviously not. So it is highly in the interest of US security to back away from these nuts, and keep backing away as long and as far as possible.
If I were Obama, that's what I would be thinking -- even if not saying it publicly.
Originally posted by spruce112358Israel's denying it has nuclear capabilities, but no one believes them. Why? Israel's unaware that it's under the jurisdiction of international law.
The OP and your post would lead one to believe that Obama is asking himself the obvious question: why is my country supporting these fanatics? Israeli has no interest in peace -- that's clear. Furthermore, Israel's behavior makes them a target for nuclear aggression which could lead to a significant nuclear exchange.
Does the US want to be any part o ...[text shortened]... sible.
If I were Obama, that's what I would be thinking -- even if not saying it publicly.