Posted on 01/24/2010 6:11:38 AM PST by SJackson
WASHINGTON - The new year is a time for frank introspection and earnest resolutions, and US President Barack Obama engaged in exactly that during an interview with Time magazine at the start of the second year of his presidency.
In doing so, he showed considerable candor as he acknowledged having made mistakes and missteps in his Middle East policy during the last year even as he recommitted himself to the peace process.
But then again, internal reflection is one thing and public confession quite another. Sharing as Obama did raises questions about whether he's learned the right lessons.
For starters, detractors have long labeled Obama as naïve and hubristic; in the Time interview, he seems to echo their assessment.
He told Joe Klein that the political realities confronting Palestinian and Israeli leaders made it harder than expected for them to come to the negotiating table. "I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to [negotiate] when their politics ran contrary to that," he said, adding later that, "If we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high."
It's as though legions of Middle East experts, Arab and Israeli officials and large chunks of the American Jewish community hadn't told the administration exactly that, repeatedly. Acknowledging not having comprehended that reality smacks of, indeed, naivete; proceeding in the face of such advice suggests, well, hubris.
For another, one of the most widespread critiques of this administration's approach to the peace process has been its penchant for declaring in public what should have been whispered in private. The unfulfilled demand of Israel to totally freeze settlements, including in East Jerusalem, is perhaps the most outstanding such example, with many observers suggesting that more closed-door communications would have yielded better results, and it would also not have raised the stakes so high that it became difficult for Arabs and Palestinians to accept anything less than a complete construction halt.
These latest public ruminations, while honest, also might not be strategically helpful. Whose cause does Obama aid, exactly, by acknowledging that his administration misread the situation such that it "overestimated" some of the basics, i.e., the difficulty of the situation and that it is "as intractable a problem as you get"? Does it inspire the confidence, does it command the respect whose lack some have argued made it that much harder for the US president to extract the concessions he sought from the parties?
And finally, one of Obama's major setbacks was his loss of the Israeli street early on last year. That was one error, at least, that the administration seemed to understand and actively attempt to fix in recent months.
Though Obama didn't make grander gestures of visiting Israel or even giving interviews to the Israeli media, the White House did reach out to American Jewry, heavily supporting Israel on issues like the Goldstone report and Turkish shunning of the IDF, and publicly praised the settlement moratorium Jerusalem eventually adopted.
Yet, in two breaths, Obama undermined those efforts, simultaneously sowing doubts about their sincerity.
In the interview, Obama said that for both sides‚ political environments have made it "very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation." This comment ignores Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's calls, from his first Oval Office meeting with Obama in May, for an immediate resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians (who, on the other hand, refuse to sit down without a total settlement freeze).
And worse yet, from an Israeli perspective, he went on to say that, "Although the Israelis, I think, after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures."
In effect - if not his intention - Obama belittled a settlement moratorium which, as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed out, is unprecedented in its scope, not to mention Netanyahu's reversal to endorse a Palestinian state and his willingness to hold substantive talks.
More to the point, if Obama doesn't encourage Israelis for what most see as the maximum Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition can deliver short of Palestinian reciprocation, the public and government will question the utility of further concessions. And they will raise the charge that he still doesn't understand the political realities on the ground in Israel.
It is perhaps no coincidence that Obama admitted a lack of discernment concerning the "political problems" confronting Israelis and Palestinians as he faced a major domestic reversal born in part by a lack of discernment concerning the political problems of his own party.
In the loss of the Massachusetts US Senate seat held for 46 years by Democratic stalwart Ted Kennedy to an unknown Republican state legislator, Obama forfeited his super-majority in the Senate and with it the momentum for passing his signature legislation, health care, as well as the sense of a popular mandate for his policy agenda.
Moreover, his political team's inability to assess and then address the vulnerability of such a crucial seat, which should have been a shoo-in for the Democrats, has raised questions about what else his staff is missing. And what else he's no longer on top of.
These questions are being asked not just in Washington, but in Jerusalem and Cairo and Beirut.
As an Arab reporter said at a rare press briefing White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer held Friday: "Given the increasing domestic problems you're having at home [in the US], how will this impact the foreign policy agenda? There is an increasing sense in the Middle East that this will tie the President's hands, especially on the peace process; you know, that the administration is in a weaker position and has less momentum than when you guys started."
In response Hammer reassured the reporter that the president wouldn't be distracted from the peace process by his political fortunes at home.
"His commitment is not driven at all by the politics of our country," he said. "Don't be distracted by domestic politics; the President certainly isn't when it comes to national security."
Pressed by another Arab reporter on Obama's Time magazine quotes, and who exactly the president held responsible for the current impasse, Hammer said that "this is not an issue of assigning blame to either of the parties." Rather, he said, the course of events needed to be put "in context," and referred to the Gaza war at the start of Obama's term as creating a "difficult situation" that then ended, but was followed by the election of the Netanyahu government.
"You had a new Israeli government, so from the get go it was going to be a challenge to move forward and of course trying to establish talks between the parties," Hammer said.
Still, he stressed, the main point was the White House's continued focus on the peace process.
As Obama said at the conclusion of the Time interview, "We are going to continue to work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren." Happy new year.
For the JP to take anything this man has to say seriously is ludicrous. Any interaction with him is built upon a series of lies and exaggerations intended to convey a false sense of agreement and coordination. Israel fits nowhere in his grand scheme; he’d throw Israel under the bus as easily as he did his grandmother to further himself.
“Does Obama’s candor on naivete inspire confidence”?
...!? No. But his “naivete” about terrorists inspires terrorism.
As educated conservatives, we know from experience and history that when a leftist admits mistakes, he or she is not really admitting a mistake. What they are saying is that they probably could have pushed to the left even harder and faster and that that is what they are going to do in the future.
Candor?!
The guy lies his [censored] [censored] [censoring] [censored] off all the [censored] time, the [redacted] smug faced [censored] dishonest big eared no brained jerk.
/ bad partial joke.
“His commitment is not driven at all by the politics of our country,” he said. “Don’t be distracted by domestic politics; the President certainly isn’t when it comes to national security.”
This is precisely the problem. He’s driven entirely by domestic politics, he’s distracted and totally ignores national security; as Dick Cheney observed, he pretends it doesn’t exist.
First, it is ludicrous that the United States must help broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. The only ‘true’ peace will come when one side is defeated completely by the other.
Second, Obama is clearly naive as he has never faced reality until he was innagurated one year ago. Until now, Obama’s solutions were “theoretical” and worked very well in the classroom. Now those solutions are proved, like most liberal ideas, as incompatible with reality.
Finally, if you want to get into details, Israeli settlements are not the obstacle to peace. It is Palestinian hate and their inability to recognize Israels right to exist. Until that happens, only an idiot would try to negotiate peace.
Affirmative action never works. Just more proof.
So, when he falls on his face, it’s time to redouble their efforts. They never stop and think that they may be wrong or heading in the wrong direction. They are the smartest among us, dontchaknow. Expect this goofball to ramp up the assault on our country.
It’s a danger to our country to trust that much power in a person who hates this country, considers himself to be a citizen of the world, has no executive experience, has no leadership experience and had never had a real job in his life.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
because who does Obama aid, exactly, by acknowledging that his administration misread the situation such that it "overestimated"
Pretty much everyones, other than Americans. I'm sure it's nice to hear the world leader you assessed as an inexperienced egotist acknowledge that he's an inexperienced egotist. Perhaps not that nothing will change, the inexperienced egotist being incapable of learning.
“Sharing as Obama did raises questions about whether he’s learned the right lessons. “
Obama, learn? Obama doesn’t learn. He teaches. He declares. He states that which should be obvious to we benighted, huddled masses. He edicts. As Mark Steyn explains:
“That I do think is a mistake of mine,” the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we’re making a good rational decision here, then people will get it.”
But you schlubs aren’t that smart. You didn’t get it. And Barack Obama is determined to see that you do. So the president has decided that he needs to start “speaking directly to the American people.”
Wait, wait! Come back! Don’t all stampede for the hills! He gave only (according to CBS News’ Mark Knoller) 158 interviews and 411 speeches in his first year. That’s more than any previous president – and maybe more than all of them put together. But there may still be some show out there that didn’t get its exclusive Obama interview –http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-230489-president-truck.html
Moslems will never accept a jewish state on what they consider moslem soil. Those who try will be reminded of what happened to Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel. The Palis are run by the Iranian extremists and no Sadats need apply.
I agree. Hence, peace will only come when one side is truly defeated.
There are two terms about ZerO that should never be used, one the height of absurdity and the other an excuse for the evil in the Marxist.
Agreed, does that make you and I smarter than the POTUS? He served as a Senator for a while, won the Presidency and has watched along with us the "middle east peace talks" since Carter and he didn't know what you stated above?
...during an interview with Time magazine... he acknowledged having made mistakes and missteps in his Middle East policy... detractors have long labeled Obama as naïve and hubristic; in the Time interview, he seems to echo their assessment. He told [partisan shill] Joe Klein that the political realities confronting Palestinian and Israeli leaders made it harder than expected for them to come to the negotiating table... It's as though legions of Middle East experts, Arab and Israeli officials and large chunks of the American Jewish community hadn't told the administration exactly that, repeatedly... one of the most widespread critiques of this administration's approach to the peace process has been its penchant for declaring in public what should have been whispered in private... These latest public ruminations, while honest, also might not be strategically helpful... one of Obama's major setbacks was his loss of the Israeli street early on last year... Though Obama didn't make grander gestures of visiting Israel or even giving interviews to the Israeli media, the White House did reach out to American Jewry, heavily supporting Israel on issues like the Goldstone report and Turkish shunning of the IDF, and publicly praised the settlement moratorium Jerusalem eventually adopted. Yet, in two breaths, Obama undermined those efforts, simultaneously sowing doubts about their sincerity... ignores Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's calls, from his first Oval Office meeting with Obama in May, for an immediate resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians (who, on the other hand, refuse to sit down without a total settlement freeze). And worse yet... Obama belittled a settlement moratorium which, as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed out, is unprecedented in its scope, not to mention Netanyahu's reversal to endorse a Palestinian state and his willingness to hold substantive talks.Thanks SJackson.
0bama and his Democrats are vicious street fighters when it comes to conservatives, Republicans and shoving health care down the throats of the American people. But submissive to Islamic enemies and other foreign enemies like Vladimir Putin and North Korea
Democrats are bored by foreign policy. Democrats hate foreign policy because it detracts and distracts from their domestic agenda of seizing raw power and buying votes via welfare and handouts and give aways.
So numbskull 0bama figured make the Muslims and their terrorists happy by closing Guantanomo, by bowing to their kings (Saudi Arabia), by screwing Israel, sucking up to Iranian mullahs, by delivering a heavily billed speech of conciliation in Cairo. Caving into Islam is what these traitors (Hillary too) call “smart power” and “smart diplomacy”
By doing all the above this takes Islam off the table and lets 0bama and Democrats get down to their real business which is their domestic agenda. That was their game plan
He told Joe Klein that the political realities confronting Palestinian and Israeli leaders made it harder than expected for them to come to the negotiating table. “I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to [negotiate] when their politics ran contrary to that,” he said, adding later that, “If we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.”
_________________________
_________________________
Did this POS really think he could hypnotize and fool foreigners same as he did the American sheeple? I see a big lie here.
All foreigners see here is a weak and stupid president to take advantage of
As educated conservatives, we know from experience and history that when a leftist admits mistakes, he or she is not really admitting a mistake.
___________________
___________________
They always tried to make GW Bush apologize for this or that. GW refused to and was smart to ignore these harpies
You are correct that all Democrat apologies are fake and useless. And they make few apologies anyways. Only when they think the public with sympathize with their aw shucks act, as in >> the poor dear...he meant well
No naivete here; no over estimating ‘situation’. Just gross arrogance imagining that by their own ‘sheer will’ they could run over every dissenting American whom they disenfranchised the day Obama,Inc. laid claim to Americas White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.