Call White House, Ask for Barack: The Line Is Disconnected

In a November 8, 2009 New York Times op-ed entitled, "Call White House, Ask for Barack", Thomas Friedman writes:

"The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has become a bad play.

. . . .

Indeed, it’s time for us to dust off James Baker’s line: 'When you’re serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack. Otherwise, stay out of our lives. We have our own country to fix.'

. . . .

Today, the Arabs, Israel and the Palestinians are clearly not feeling enough pain to do anything hard for peace with each other — a mood best summed up by a phrase making the rounds at the State Department: The Palestinian leadership 'wants a deal with Israel without any negotiations' and Israel’s leadership 'wants negotiations with the Palestinians without any deal.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1

This op-ed didn't seek readers' comments, and even if it had, I've been blacklisted by The New York Times, and my comment would not have been posted. Of course, I could send an e-mail to Friedman and tell him what I think about his op-ed, but notwithstanding the fact that we met in Lebanon many years ago, he has never thought fit to answer my messages. So let me sum up here, in a single undiplomatic word, what I have to say about Friedman's op-ed: Bull!

Has Friedman's adulation of Obama blinded him to a foreign policy characterized by appeasement of tyrannical regimes (Iran, Venezuela, Sudan) and the enfeeblement of friends (Israel, Honduras, South Korea, Japan, Poland, Czech Republic).

When Obama stepped into the White House, among his first diplomatic initiatives was a demand to freeze Israeli "settlements". No attempt was made to distinguish between isolated Jewish pockets in the West Bank and the land adjacent to the western entrance into Jerusalem from which snipers could isolate the city. (It was only a few years ago that sniper fire paralyzed the Jerusalem community of Gilo.) No consideration was given to the problems involving the areas surrounding Ben Gurion Airport from which a shoulder-held missile could bring down a 747. And no concomitant demand was made upon Fatah to recognize Israel's right to exist.

A two-state solution? Absolutely. A return to the 1967 borders? No way. Some territory will need to be traded with the Palestinians to allow both sides to feel secure and whole. In fact, this is what both Prime Minister Barak and Prime Minister Olmert proposed to the Palestinians, but each in turn was spurned by Arafat and Abbas. Will this now be the starting point for negotiations involving the Netanyahu government? No, because in the Middle East, negotiations involve bargaining. (Try buying a carpet in Istanbul: you will need to threaten to walk out of the store at least twice before reaching an amenable price.)

So what did Obama accomplish by immediately announcing that Israel must halt all settlements without asking for an immediate concomitant recognition by Fatah of Israel's right to exist? Is it any wonder that this diplomatic naiveté (or something worse having its roots in leftist ideology) emboldened the Palestinians to demand a halt to all "settlements" without any acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist?

Moreover, the next confrontation is not going to be a Palestinian/Israeli affair. Rather, Israel is bracing for a two-front battle with Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and Tel Aviv is now within missile range from both north and south. Tom Friedman would have Obama also ignore this threat? The repercussions involving U.S. abandonment of Israel in the face of Tehran's drive for Middle East hegemony would affect U.S. relations with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, all queasy over Obama's overtures to Ahmadinejad.

Is it time, as Friedman would have us believe, "to dust off James Baker’s line: “When you’re serious, give us a call"? It would appear that another of Baker's lines has already been dusted off and polished by certain members of the Obama administration: "F%ck the Jews!"