A Saturday Obama-Bashing From The Times

The NY Times editors picked one of the least-trafficked Saturdays of the year to bash Obama's ineptitude in the Middle East:

We were thrilled when President Obama decided to plunge fully into the Middle East peace effort. He appointed a skilled special envoy, George Mitchell, and demanded that Israel freeze settlements, Palestinians crack down on anti-Israel violence and Arab leaders demonstrate their readiness to reach out to Israel.

Nine months later, the president’s promising peace initiative has unraveled.

The Israelis have refused to stop all building. The Palestinians say that they won’t talk to the Israelis until they do, and President Mahmoud Abbas is so despondent he has threatened to quit. Arab states are refusing to do anything.

Mr. Obama’s own credibility is so diminished (his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent) that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever.

Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no.

They exhort Obama with their Big Finish:

Stalemate is unsustainable.

Hmm - what has the past decade been, if not a stalemate?

Comments

[Sue]

4%? Good grief.

[Gregory Koster]

Yes, it's amazing that a country under the shadow of annihilation could have 4% damned fools.

[Sue]

I bet anduril's Mr. Roth is in that 4%.

[Joan]

But the Democrats still get the Jewish votes in our elections. I always wonder why.

[PD]

Why is it that other countries can see Odorka for what he is so much more clearly that the citizens of our own country?

[glenda]

4%??
let's ask clarice if her Mother is having doubts about Obama, yet...this should tell us more than any article in the Times!!

[hrtshpdbox]

I believe I read recently that GWB's approval rating in Israel was somewhere in the 80+ % range. So, at least there's one place where they get it right.

[bgates]

demanded that Israel freeze settlements, Palestinians crack down on anti-Israel violence

"You on the left, you must stop murdering the children of those on the right. You on the right, I'm not going to let you build a 3rd bedroom over the garage."

his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent

Israeli Arabs by themselves should get that to 20%.

[justonebullet]

"But the Democrats still get the Jewish votes in our elections. I always wonder why."

Stupidity.

[clarice]

Yes, Glenda..She's 90 and the death panel thing is not making her happy. I think the condo commandos also understand finally that Wexler sold them down the river.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Um, a real stalemate is ipso facto sustainable, right? I mean, if it's standing still, why can't it stay standing still?

[E. Nigma]

A stalemate it is, and a stalemate it will remain.
As long as Syria is not a client state of a major power, Egypt still is willing to honor the peace treaty, and Jordan refuses to arm and make war.
These are the front line states that actually border Israel.
And note that once militant and militarized Baathist Iraq has at least moved to the "neutral" column, for now. They have more important problems than figuring how to get at the Israelis.
The Saudis are indolent cowards. The Wahabbis will talk a tough game, but they don't have the determination to make war; they also have too much to lose wrt their large oil fields.
So barring a revolution in Egypt that brings radical muslims to power, or Iran getting a handful of nukes and intimidating/toppling the present unenthused governments in the region, a stalemate has broken out.

[Towering Barbarian]

Charlie,
I think what they are(Presumably!) thinking of is that since war is a sustained contest of will that requires energy to maintain then sooner or later one side (or possibly both?) will collapse if peace isn't made. The classical example of that being sieges sometimes being a matter of whether it's the besieged or the besieger who starved to death first. A stalemate might go as long as a generation or even a century but sooner or later it will break. That said, if this is their meaning then it's unclear to me why they should care so long as it breaks in favor of the side we want to win.

Alternatively, and more cynically, "unsustainable" in this case might be nothing more than Libspeak for "undesirable from our point of view". I've noticed a long time ago that our liberal friends are a lot like Gene Wolfe's Ascians from "Citidel of the Autarch" in some regards in that their language sometimes sounds like ours without actually being that way. Someday, I should try to write a Libspeak/English dictionary.

[Jack is Back!]

To paraphrase that great American philosopher, Eric Holder:

"Unsustainability is not an option."

Also, OT, I posted the LUN photo and story on preceding post. Seems they have had at least a 5 year relationship with The Once. Interesting mix of people. Did I tell you that they are canceling this year's American Idol and giving it to POTUS.