
The President-elect has much more important priorities than a radical change of direction on the Middle East
Excerpt:
The challenges confronting him - put simply, rescuing the US economy from a possible depression and winning wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - won't leave much time for eye-catching new initiatives on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. And that's before he has to decide how to deal with the emerging Iranian nuclear threat.
It's probably reasonable to assume that Obama Middle East policy won't be a carbon copy of President Bush's. And if anything can really be achieved by rhetoric, you can just about guarantee that the new president will achieve it.
But those who think that, at least, a return to the pre-Bush days of US policy may be at hand should remember this.
Mr Obama's administration will be staffed with many veterans of those frustrating years. The Clinton Administration tried about as hard as any government has to produce a settlement - and failed.
With an economy to rescue and American power in the world to be saved, there is unlikely to be much appetite for going down that track again.
For anyone taking Gerard Baker and the London Times at face value, it is important to note that the London Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of amongst other things, the NY Post and FOX. Therefore, anything concerning Israel or even Europe, should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.
I don't expect PE Obama to get tough with Israel. Now should he! I expect him to support Israel and I expect Israel to play fair, perhaps? But then again, all is fair in love and war.
there are rules for war.....................this is not a war. This is placing human beings in a box and taking your shots at them.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |