No. But the position of the left who has attacked him unmercifully is that YES he should have.

The following is why I have hope that if the US keeps its damn nose out of the process that there is actually hope to get things done in this region.

In a statement published in Egyptians newspapers on Monday, Zaki affirmed that Egypt has been exerting efforts to achieve calm between the Palestinians and Israel in an attempt to avail fit climate to launch negotiations on the track of the peace process between the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Israel.
He added that Egypt rejects any military operations that give a pretext for Israel to escape the deserves of the peace process, adding that simultaneously rejects any endeavors by some Palestinians to rise tension on the Egyptian- Palestinian borders.

Ya see? Left to their own devices these people just might find a way to achieve peace without the help of the United States. And as RS50 there points out, Israel and Egpyt did indeed begin the process and required only some minor help in getting the thing done.

People want a different approach to the middle east. Mine is different. Keep the HELL out of the way. I suspect these people can actually find a way to make peace work on their own. They are after all. Adults.

Just as we do not help Germany negotiate treaties with Cambodia I feel that we have as a nation failed to cope with the empty nest syndrome. Israel is a grown up nation that should be able to deal with her friends and enemies without the US holding her hand.

I just feel that it is time for Israel to stand up and be counted and when this happens. When they really have to be accountable for their deeds and actions that they just might come to terms with the true need for peace in their time.

In response, I tell you, that I spend a lot of time and energy – A LOT – debating and trying to educate those who go too far in blaming Israel for everything,
That;s why it really gets me where it hurts when you claim I'm one of them.

I would also caution against assuming that they are necessarlly all a defined part of the Left in overall politics. I've encounteresd isolationists of different party affiliations, some libertarians, and also some religious people of undetermined political affiliation.. Some are just anti-semitic., and those are definitely not either party loyalists. I don't see much point in lumping them all together with one political tag.
—————————–
Part of the trouble with asking your type of hard questions is that, dealing with the future as they do, they can not have equally hard answers.
Could GWB tell you a year before 9/11 exactly what he would do as a consequence?

All one can do is get a general gauge of his philosophical approach and his grasp of world and domestic conditions. The time to ask specific questions is when speciic proposals are offered or actions taken.

A serious, case for the more hawkish political position can and has been made, by others, without resorting to rhetorical gimmickry or emotional melodrama. . I could even run through the legitimate arguments oppposing my own postion myself, most of which I respect, btw, even when my conclusion comes out on the opposing side
However, when Hitler is brought in to falsify someone else's postion, I know the discussion is out of ratinal bounds, and it would be a waste of time to do so.

On the sujbect of friends and allies, the US has just learned the hard way how easy it is to lose friends and allies and the support they can offer. To repair the damage, diplomacy can be helpful. There are times when HOW something is said can be more imporant thatn WHAT is said. It can mean the difference between gaining support and creating resistance. and animosity.

So, when a 'hands off' policy is suggested, I would caution that getting what you wish for may not be what you intended. Just how distant, in all ways, would yoou want those hands to be?

It's because I see signs of support waning that I feel so strongly that Israel needs to pay attention to winning friends and influencing people. instead of assuming that support will always be there for the taking and on demand..

Lashing out at every one who has a different opinon on how best to support Israel is not a good way to strengthen support.

The rallying cry for the far left is that “If only we'd asked more questions.”

The rallying cry for the far left is that “If only we'd asked more questions.”

The rallying cry for the far left is that “If only we'd asked more questions.” I cant stress this enough.

Then we might not be in Iraq. Well the next president is on the horizon and I want to ask those hard questions however just like the Bush supporters of 00 and 04 hard questions are met with name calling and repeated use of talking points to hide the fact that “they hadnt thought that far ahead yet.”

while I believe the US involvement should be more robust.

You are correct in my position that I believe that one of the main obstacles to peace in this region has been the United States and its insistence upon Linkage. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that as a super power we are responsible for all the worlds conflicts and that somehow only “WE” can fix things.

This is wrong. We have been meddling in the Middle East since 1950. Mostly out of a need as the USSR brought to their side nearly every country in this region out of the absolute hate for all things Israel/Western/USA. The USSR is gone now and Israel is a big girl now.

I believe that the real failure of our policy with regards to Israel and the Palestinians has been our need to be smack dab in the middle of it. Once again we have a president who wants to dive into it.

His base is the progressive left who really want to punish Israel and believe that Israel is totally at fault.

So I think the two things together do not bode well for my hands of approach nor for Israel no matter how many weak cases that are made for Barak the Zionist.

On this, “He brings to the table a predisposed need to protect Israel when perhaps she needs a bit of prodding and she needs to make a concession or two in order to move the peace process along.” I don't think the one (need to protect Israel) is diametrically opposed to the other (Israel needs to make concessions to move the peace process along).

I'm certainly of the mind that the second- concessions on the part of Israel are necessary- to achieve peace.

The role of Obama- or any American president- involved in the peace process is to be a mediator at the very least. Perhaps there are things the US can give (not “give up”) to further the process, such as commit troops (short term) for security guarantees. Though I'm not sure how welcome the US would be in this particular aspect (providing troops).

And lastly this, “…American President conceding to the Muslims or the Arabs or the Palestinians that which is not his in the first place.”

that totally makes sense on an intellectual level and I agree. But without a concrete example I can't really address this… I think the assumption behind this is that Obama (or other president with the same proclivity) will give something that he thinks we are able to give whereas other people may feel that the US doesn't have that right to give it. So if the president actually gets to that point, wanting to give something that isn't ours (in the view of some people) then we can have that discussion. But that discussion will be whether “that thing” is really the US's to give.

So Neocon, I think our biggest (and most substantial) disagreement is the extent of US involvement in the peace process- if I understand your comments you believe in a “hands-off” approach while I believe the US involvement should be more robust. I can certainly respect that view of yours- I'm not claiming my way is the right way and that yours is wrong. Until there is actually a sustained peace we won't know what has actually worked.

But I'll tell you that if the next president takes an approach more like mine and little headway is made in the process, then I'm all for trying your approach.

Thanks again.

Neocon, I can't answer it but I think it's clear that for Israelis to feel secure (and to be realistic about the whole situation) that both the Arabs and Israelis (and whoever else has an interest…) will need to negotiate.

Actually the idea of giving up lands does not concern me. I am the first one who will say that if the people of Israel are willing to give up this or that for their security then I say good.

There is a movement within Israel that is not unlike the progressive left here in the United States. Peace at any and all costs. They focus on failures. They decry those who reject peace at any price as obstructionists who want real estate.

They use this quote quite often. David Ben-Gurion told us that if he were only able to meet with Arab leaders, he would have brought us peace in his time. Sounds pretty familiar to the Americans who thought if he could just talk to Hitler all would be set straight.

So while I do not find Israel faultless or lay all the fault at the Palestinians feet my question about Barak Obama is even more valid in this context.

If in fact he is the Zionist he is portraying himself then he brings to the table nothing that is new or unique or different. He brings to the table a predisposed need to protect Israel when perhaps she needs a bit of prodding and she needs to make a concession or two in order to move the peace process along.

If indeed she does need poking and prodding then the USA needs to keep the hell out of the process and let Israel and her adversaries deal with peace in their own way and then we do not have an American President conceding to the Muslims or the Arabs or the Palestinians that which is not his in the first place.

Neocon, I can't answer it but I think it's clear that for Israelis to feel secure (and to be realistic about the whole situation) that both the Arabs and Israelis (and whoever else has an interest…) will need to negotiate. No one will get everything they want, but I think if the Israelis have a safe homeland then there are certain things, perhaps even territory, that they will need to give up. As distasteful as that may be to many Israelis, that trade off may be worth peace. Otherwise if no side wants to give up anything then we'll have a forever war in the Middle East.

I would like to say I find the whole situation very complex and I don't pretend to understand it or to even have the answers, or even one answer to one little piece. I do know that if there is to be peace then everyone will have to give up something.

Thank you for your version of why Israel should be punished Runaism. Its pretty similar in appearance to Chriswww's and shows the thinking of the progressive left who support Barak Obama.

They do not believe he is a zionist. They believe he will ultimately make Israel pay for their transgressions.

But thanks Runaism. You and Chris have done a fine job outlining why the progressive left endorses Barak Obama and why this article in the Atlantic is suspect at best.

Well no the old bait and switch tactic which worked so well on the conservatives for the last 5 years does not work on me Runny. What I offered was a postulate and asked for clarification. I did not offer mine nor did I offer the Neocon, Paleocon or the Liberal or the progressive version of how the middle east or the world for that matter should be run.

The ops contention is Obama is a Zionist.

Obama is either a Zionist and is firmly in the Israelis camp or he is not and therefore he is willing to negotiate up a mean streak perhaps at the expense of Israel.

Zionism is about Israels right to feel secure.

How can a Zionist bring peace to the middle east? That is a simple question. It really is. Why can't anyone answer it?

The importance of what Obama said in the interview does not lie in specific proposed actions. The importance lies in clearly identifying the goal (Israel's right to a secure homeland) and a recongnition of the complexities involved in achieving that goal.

We can argue until kingdom come about imagined future develpments, but we have to start with a clear, realistic vision.
Our issues with race are complicated.
The path to Israel's future is complicated.

That's an excellent place to startt.
It's much better than the 'they'll greet us with flowers' pretense about Iraq.

I keep wondering about how much more united the country might be today regarding Israel, Iraq and the entire ME if we weren't forcefed these cartoon scenarios in black and white.

With the best of intentions, force can not be avoided and should not be avoided when it's the only tool available. But going into battle without calculating in the negative consequences is just plain foolhardy (the kindest word I can find for this kind of zealotry).

The dilemma for Israel is that every time it builds a new settlement for the sake of its futrue, it simultaneusly feeds the forces wanting to wreak vengenace on Israel.
The only way this cycle could be utterly broken, in terms of tNeocon's scenario, is for Israel to decisively destroy the Arab world. Looking at the map, that doesn't seem likely to happen. In the meantime, as long as there is Arab memory, the sense of humiliation will be alive, festering and waitng to erupt in more violence to avenge wounded pride.

In this kind of stale-mate, a mechanism for defusing the self-perpetuating nature of the conflict presents the only rational, logical choice. That means contact and communication.
Thrust and parry, negotiating and the potential of force, calculating the consequences and backlashes – all of that is part of defusing the self-perperuating element.
Most importantly, it requires understanding the enemy and what motivates him. Terrorism is a sympton; it does not expalin the disease or prescribe a cure.

No, there is no guarrantee of success, no more than a military victory is a guarrantee of ultimate success. (Iraq, anyone?)
If we are thinking about the long term future , we need to be sophisticated, and smart , using every tool availabel to best advantage to further the ultimate goal of peace and security and avert a disaster in Isrel's and our own future.

Funny that you should mention that. After I put up my first reply I was thinking just that, wondering who's the cart and who's the horse. And it's true we don't know who you are and perhaps Krauthammer did get his ideas from you. Thanks for pointing out that we shouldn't always make assumptions.

This statement, “If that is so then for the purpose of this discussion how is Obama the Zionist going to have anymore luck with anyone in this region when it is precisely Zionism which is the freakin problem in this region.”

Before tackling a problem I think it's very important that the person who wants to manage the process actually understand the reality as it is. Otherwise we end-up forcing our views and solutions on a situation that will only add fuel to the fire rather than actually solve any problems. Such as our approach to Iraq which only created more problems than solved.

Obama may not have a complete roadmap on this, but I think that just shows he is honest about the process. He knows that he needs the support of many different and competing groups of people to solve this problem. If he were to make promises right now, it's just like Bush claiming that the Iraq war would be over within weeks and wouldn't cost the US very much. And let's not forget that the line was that the US would be welcomed as victors.

Obama's strength is that he does understand the situation without trying to bend it to fit his own notions.

Is Obama perfect? No. Can Obama succeed? I don't know. But he does have a good start.

Aside from mischaracterizing, repeatedly and continuously, the nature of negotiations and diplomacy, this also mischracterizes ME mentality.

Negoitations, btw, are at the very core of Arab culture, beginning with bartering at the market place and all the way up to tribes negotiating with each other for a common cause, and they are adept at identifying common causes. .

What this scenario lacks, and what disqualifies it from a fully reasoned argument, Is an appreciation of the role of pride and humiliation. It is these elements that drive perceptions and consequent actions in Western civilization as well (nationalism), but they are most likely to turn violent among the humiliated whose pride has been wounded. Viiolence becomes particularly appealing when it is perceived to be the one and only way to bandage wounded pride and avenge humiliation. The ME is not really all that different in the basics of human nature; it is different only in the specifics of historical experience.

If Israel and the United States can trade those things for security and peace, wouldn't it be cheaper than continued war and death?

If you were an Arab nation in the Middle East, would you sit idly by while your adversaries built nuclear arsenals?

If you were a Palestinian, would you sit idly by while you were pushed off your land?

Try to look at things from both sides Neocon. We've tried it your way for eight long years, and it hasn't made anyone safer or brought us closer to peace.

I really didnt want to respond to this but of course this shows that Chris as a supporter of Barak Obama wants Obama to

1)Contain and disarm Israel.
2.)Force Israel to flee the west bank
3)Israel to stop building settlements.
4.)Give up the golan heights.

In other words…..notice a pattern here. Israel must concede and give up everything including disarming.

Sorry I actually thought you could follow my logic here. I see that I was in error.

So let me try it in simpler form so that its a bit easier to grasp.

1.) In this region. In the Middle East. If you are a friend of Israel then you are suspect by the nations that inhabit this region.
2.) If you claim that you are a staunch Zionist which is the root of all problems in the middle east then you are even more suspect in this region.
3.) If you come to the negotiating table as a staunch defender of Israel and an Avowed Zionist then your chances of negotiating anything are dim at best.
4.) Now as Barak Obama claims “He will launch the most aggressive foreign policy initiative in this region in quite some time” and “will negotiate with anyone, anywhere, anytime”
5.)But whats the point if he is such an avowed Zionist unless he is not so avowed at all, but rather is the typical politician who tells the people what they want to hear, not what is really in his heart.

Or his plans.

As Israel newspapers themselves claim……Barak Obama is the candidate least likely to be friendly to Israel and is and has been such a concern for Barak Obamas campaign that they recognize such on their website, have set up a blog in Israel and now the Atlantic Article in which he claims to be this all great Zionist.

Great. But Zionist are hardly in the good graces with those who seek the destruction of Israel

If you are a friend of Israel, by that very definition it sets you as an opponent of the Palestinians.

That's where you're gravely mistaken. Thanks for saying so though. It shines a big light on the errors in your thought process.