Obama's policies seen as 'childish' by some Israelis

By Ira Sharkansky

 
Consider the United States, with President Barack Obama trying mightily to break the bonds of lethargy identified with his predecessor.
 
An article in the New York Times describes his handicaps in Afghanistan. President Karzai is not cooperating with American goals of development and reform. Evidence is that Karzai stole the most recent election, and has put in key positions individuals soaked with blood, drug, and financial corruption. Advice from White House and military aides is to try harder. One proposal is for an additional 40,000 troops.
 
The trap is that Obama cannot threaten Karzai without losing face, and confirming American weakness. Karzai has already promised reform, more than once, without delivering. Obama cannot pull out his troops. That would weaken the resolve of Pakistan to work with diligence against Taliban. Without that, where is the war against terror?
 
Obama’s handicap in Afghanistan is costly in American blood. His handicap closer to these fingers is measured in embarrassment.
 
The President included a major effort in the Middle East as well as in Afghanistan under his banner of Change. A few days ago, one of Israel’s respected and moderate commentators called his efforts “childish” on a widely viewed evening program.
 
Remember the speech in Cairo. The President made demands on Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and other Arab leaders. So far there has been hemming and hawing, and assertions by one and all that they cannot take major steps without someone else moving first. While the President seemed to overlook Hamas-controlled Gaza, perhaps in the hope that it would come along if everything else worked, it remains one of the elephants in the Middle East living room. Mahmoud Abbas is too weak to be brave, Benyamin Netanyahu is not enthusiastic about a Palestinian state, and is at the head of a coalition suspicious of Arab intentions. The dominant Jewish population of Israel was also suspicious of Arab intentions and–thanks to Obama–is now suspicious of American intentions.
 

 
A modest giant preserves its power. An assertive giant demonstrates the limitations on its power. Change is a great electoral slogan, especially in the context of a sitting administration whose popular support dropped below the level where it was threatening the survival of its political party, and a vice presidential nomination that came from who knows where.
 
In the year since the election, Change has not shown itself to be a viable guide for foreign policy. Engagement with Iraq, Iran, and North Korea is more apparent than results.
 
The President’s health initiative has passed the House of Representatives. Along the way, however, it has roused a threatening array of protest meetings, e-mails, and the Roman Catholic Church. The Bishop of Providence and Representative Patrick J. Kennedy are in a public dispute on the subject of abortion that tests once against the meaning of “separation of church and state.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/politics/12kennedy.html?scp=1&sq=kennedy%20providence&st=cse

Another face of the administration is causing problems in the District of Columbia. The Archdiocese has issued an ultimatum: either change a proposed same-sex marriage law or lose the social service programs that the Archdiocese operates. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?nav=rss_email/components
 
The initial proposal of 1,000 pages has become a House-passed bill of 2,000 pages. If anything comes out of the Senate and Conference Committee, it will take a while to know who has gotten what, and whether the hopes invested in President Obama are worth anything more than the label “childish.”
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University.
Like other giants, the United States cripples itself when it takes on too much, wanders into areas it does not understand, and demands from allies and supplicants what they cannot deliver.

 

JERUSALEM–You’ve heard of the crippled giant? The image refers to an entity with so much power that its obligations work against one another.