If there is a simple key to what has happened, and what is likely to happen as a result of the dust up surrounding building in Jerusalem and the visit of Vice President Biden, it is a lack of trust.
It is hard to find a serious Israeli commentator who expresses trust of the wisdom of the American administration or its posture vis a vis Israel. Public opinion surveys of Israeli Jews parallel that lack of trust.
Israeli Jews do not trust Israeli Arabs or Palestinians. The violence since 2000 and in response to the withdrawal from Gaza has done its work to reinforce this lack of trust that has older roots.
Palestinians and Israeli Arabs do not trust Israeli Jews; and Palestinians and Israeli Arabs do not trust one another. Israeli Arabs show no interest in becoming citizens of Palestine. Casual suggestions to give Palestine the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem naively avoid the issue of referenda in those neighborhoods.
Secular Palestinians do not trust religious Palestinians, Christians and Muslims do not trust one another, and those with Fatah loyalties do not trust those with Hamas. Serious violence occurred between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza. Members of one extended family do not trust those of other families. Bloody feuds erupt from time to time among Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. The notion of a Palestinian "nation" is a considerable exaggeration.
Israeli Arabs and Palestinians look ritualistically to others to press the Israelis, but there is not a lot of trust among them directed at Americans or other Arabs.
And who trusts Palestinians? Not many Americans, according to Gallup. Or elites in other Arab countries. Think of the Palestinians as the Jews of the Arab world.
Israelis to the right and left of center do not trust one another. Neither the settlers and their friends, nor the anarchists and other persistent advocates of Palestinians rights are widely popular in the large Jewish center of the spectrum. There is little trust between secular Israeli Jews and the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox, both on issues that are internal to the Jewish communities and those that spill over to matters of land and peace.
"Bibi? I don't believe him" was the centerpiece in Tzipi Livni's 2009 election campaign. Her Kadima Party received more votes and Knesset seats than Netanyahu's Likud, but she did not have the allies to form a coalition. Since the election she may have been too quiet in order to preserve her political base. Her party rival, Shaul Mofaz, is finding support among Kadima activists who do not trust Livni to do what is necessary to become prime minister.
People in and around the White House would sign on to Tzipi's slogan. They are probably quoting Bill Clinton, "Who the f--- does he think he is?"
Do Israeli and overseas Jews trust one another?
This is a sensitive question with no clear answer. Probably not as much as they used to. It is common to say that the Lebanon war of 1982 was the watershed, i.e., Israel's first "war of choice" in the eyes of those who opposed it.
Leaving aside what may be the majority of overseas Jews who are apathetic or uninformed about Israeli issues, there are parallel conflicts with the issues that separate Israeli Jews. Diaspora Jews argue about land and peace, settlements, and religion. There is a conflict over Orthodox and non-Orthodox Judaism that overseas Jews try without much success to implant in Israel.
Good signs are the economic development and the spurt of peace that has marked the last few years in the West Bank. Israel's economy is doing better than many others. The shekel has performed well in relation to the dollar and the Euro.
If foreign politicians will keep quiet and pursue the advancement of their reputations elsewhere, the good times in Israel and Palestine (West Bank) may develop further.
But I do not trust my moments of optimism. There are enough fanatics among Palestinians, Israelis, and others wanting to promote themselves, their ideology or theology, willing to destroy the good for their view of Paradise, peace, democracy, or whatever.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Take your pick. Was the announcement of planning approval for the construction of 1,600 apartment units in Ramat Shlomo, in northeast Jerusalem, a case of clumsy timing, insofar as it came during the visit of Vice President Joe Biden, meant to inaugurate the start of indirect negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Or was it a routine step in the planning process, prior to actual construction, consistent with the explicit decision of the Israeli government not to freeze construction within its definition of the Jerusalem municipality.
Whatever you select, it has been an occasion for Palestinians to cancel their agreement to begin indirect negotiations, and has provoked sharp responses from Vice President Biden, the White House and State Department, as well as--so far--leading officials of Germany, Australia, Brazil, and the Arab League.
Vice President Biden "boiled" in his response, according to media sources. He said that the action could escalate violence throughout the Middle East, and might endanger American troops in Iraq.
Why not Afghanistan, as well?
Someone in the State Department said that Israel's demand for tougher sanctions on Iran will now fall on deaf ears.
Perhaps this is the opportunity for the American administration to blame Israel for several of its predictable failures throughout the area.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying that he did not know about the decision until the planning authorities announced it. He criticized Interior Minister Eli Yishai for the timing. Yishai also pleads innocent, and points to the independence of the planning committees that report to his ministry. From somewhere down in the ministry comes the explanation that the announcement was a routine announcement, and not meant to embarrass anyone. Ministry officials say that there are perhaps 20 planning approvals for projects throughout Israel announced each day.
Ramat Shlomo is a neighborhood designed for, and populated by ultra-Orthodox Jews, many of whom support Yishai's SHAS party.
A day prior to Biden's visit, Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced the construction of 221 apartment units in Beitar Illit. This is a town for ultra-Orthodox Jews located outside of the Jerusalem municipality, close to the Palestinian cities of Bethlehem and Hebron. Insofar as it is in the West Bank, Beitar Illit falls within the responsibility of the Defense Ministry. Although this approval is an explicit exception from the temporary freeze that the Israeli government accepted for the West Bank, it did not provoke the nastiness of the responses toward Ramat Shlomo.
While some insist that Israelis must recognize the special sensitivity of Jerusalem, others say that sensitivities must go in both directions. That is, Muslim must recognize Israel's special concern for Jerusalem, and be prepared to compromise on the Temple Mount as well as other sites. And just as Arabs may live in Jewish neighborhoods, Jews must be able to live in Arab neighborhoods.
Expressions of regret for the timing have come from the prime minister and the minister of interior, with both reiterating government policy to continue building in Jerusalem. The banner headline on the front page of Ha'aretz is that there are plans at various stages of formulation for a total of 50,000 apartment units in areas of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinians.
Also on the front page of Ha'aretz is a report of a supermarket ad campaign, with individuals made up to resemble the photos of the people said to be Mossad agents who killed a prominent Hamas operative in Dubai. The message is that merchandise will be liquidated by low prices.
Some of you may remember Alred E. Neuman. What Me Worry?
Who's mad?
* The current Israeli government for flaunting the tolerance of the international community.
* The American administration, for thinking it might force the Israeli government to accept Palestinian demands.
* Americans and others, including Israelis mostly to the left of this government, who think that peace between Israel and Palestine is only a matter of agreeing to one or another detail, and that the underlying issues of Palestinian rejectionism and Israeli insecurity are not important.
Or all of the above.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
A bit of whimsy may keep us sane.
Let's say there was no politics: no prominent figures intent on putting their name in the history books by demanding action to solve the insoluble.
The status quo in the West Bank, if it continues for some time (let us say a few years) might continue to allow economic development and provide Palestinians a reason for keeping the peace. That, in turn, might increase Israeli willingness to trust their cousins and give peace a better chance.
Might the Israelis express that trust by agreeing to withdraw some settlements?
That is a tough one after the Gaza experience, but let's say maybe.
And what about Gaza?
That's also a tough one.
Would continued blockade with a minimum of supplies weaken Hamas and produce a situation where that bit of crowded misery would sign on to a theme of peaceful coexistence.
Perhaps if we ruled religion as well as politics out of the picture.
One should never say never. Life will go on even after we cease writing, reading, and doing everything else.
Unfortunately, our whimsy cannot change reality.
Both religion and politics are in the picture, as well as nationalism for those who claim to be secular yet feel their hearts beat faster at the prospect of ethnic glory or insult.
Current efforts by those who claim to aspire good seem likely to make things worse.
My candidate for the greatest source of bad is sitting in the White House. His aspirations drove key parties further apart by insisting on a settlement freeze, and now is pushing them even further apart by forcing them to separate rooms for "indirect" negotiations via his mediator.
Neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli parties can resist American pressure to start some kind of negotiations but American pressure cannot force them to do what their constituencies will not permit.
So the day before the announcement of indirect negotiations the Israeli government announced the approval of new construction in one of the settlements. "Indirect" negotiations set back Israel-Arab relations to the early 1970s, and provoke religious and nationalist Israelis, on whom the prime minister depends for staying in office.
Palestinians also have their politics, nationalism, and religion. So they are insisting on the achievement of what the Israelis say they cannot provide. The Palestinian leadership (West Bank) is saying that it will not agree to direct negotiations until there is a total settlement freeze as well as Israeli acceptance of several other non-negotiable demands. Bibi is saying that he will not go to direct negotiations until the Palestinians recognize Israel as a "Jewish state."
Not only is there an impasse, but recent events have set the stones athrowing. In the past, that has been a prelude to suicide bombings, which have led to the destruction of Palestinians and their economy.
Who is to blame?
All the key politicians, with the Israelis and Palestinians pushed by their religious and nationalist extremists, and the Americans pushed by their fantasies of accomplishing what has eluded previous attempts, with the same ideas, over the course of decades. One can go back to 2008, 2000, 1967, 1949, or the teens and twenties of the twentieth century to find Jews and Arabs willing to go along with one or another division of the land, but coming up against others not willing to go along.
Obama and his advisers have succeeded in radicalizing Palestinian demands (settlement freeze as condition of negotiations) and have pushed Israeli religious nationalists to pressure Bibi, with the result that he loses control over his hyperbole (national heritage sites), which provokes Palestinian stone throwing, which can lead to Hell in a hurry.
And there is Gaza. It is in the hands of religious extremists, with several groups claiming affiliation with Hamas squabbling over who can be more extreme, and other extremists fighting Hamas with more than verbal jousts.
Can there be an Israeli-Palestinian agreement without Gaza? The White House has not indicated how that could be done.
May it do better in the reform of American health care.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Another round of high level visits and photo opportunities. Defense Minister goes to Washington. Vice President comes to Jerusalem. Special envoy arrives as well, hopefully to declare the onset of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Not direct negotiations, in order to protect Mahmoud Abbas' reputation, but indirect via American mediators.
Pressure on Israel to avoid something preemptive with respect to Iran? Or high level discussions of what it will take to keep Israel out of that fray?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that 9-11 was engineered by the United States to give it an excuse for invading Afghanistan.
The Chinese are saying that it is not appropriate to impose sanctions on Iran. Diplomacy is the answer. Russia opposes an embargo on (its) arms sales to Iran. Ranking Americans say that sanctions should not be so harsh as to harm Iranian civilians. The US and its western partners are bargaining about what Iranian banks--if any--should be on a black list.
Should Israel go ahead with an operation, likely to bring a rain of missiles on itself from Iran and Lebanon, produce an escalation that shuts down Lebanon and maybe Syria, brings in the United States and produces a grand regional something or other, maybe even let the N-thing out of somebody's bag? Or let the Holocaust denier, who declares Israel's imminent demise, and says what he does about 9-11 continue to develop his own weapons of mass destruction?
Somewhat lower on the scale of apocalypse is an upturn in Palestinian protest. For the first time in years Palestinians on the Temple Mount threw stones on Jews praying below at the Western Wall. So the police went onto the Mount to stop them. Then Palestinian religious and political figures accused the Jews of violating their sacred space. A mile or so away, thousands of Palestinians and their Israeli supporters protested court decisions allowing the expulsion of Palestinian squatters from residences owned by Jews.
Should there be no rule of law when Palestinians claim preference? Or is it simply unwise for Jews to provoke unrest by moving into areas heavily settled by Arabs? And unwise for Bibi to put Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs on a list of national monuments? What about the Arab family living in our apartment house?
As long as the United States refrains from imposing serious sanctions on Iran--either unilaterally or as part of a coalition--one can expect that the same coalition partners that pressed Bibi to put Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs on the list of national monuments will press him to refrain from any concessions to the Palestinians. With every stone thrown against Jews in East Jerusalem, that pressure will increase.
Things are connected.
You've heard of a conundrum?
There are several of them intertwined.
Suggestions welcome.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Not everything is the stuff of high drama, invasion or stealth, blood, bodies, and claims of decisive victory. There are also statements and actions, coming out of government departments, legislative committees, what may be chance remarks, and programs on public radio and television.
In neither the big or little episodes is there usually anything close to final victory or defeat. Life and politics go on, countries tend not to disappear, no matter how dramatic the deaths or the insults.
What is important?
There may not be a clear answer.
Ambiguity is a work of art.
Recent bits of the less dramatic sort in international politics have appeared in the United States, Britain, and Israel.
The larger conflict at issue is the "war against terror." We must admit that "war" and "terror" are both fuzzy concepts, but it is possible to convey some meaning without parsing those terms to death.
One cluster of events appears to be slaps directed against Turkey, most likely as punishment for its government's approach too close to the lines pursued by Iran and Syria.
The ammunition employed is the so-called genocide against Armenians in the context of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps 1.5 million Armenians died as a result of forced expulsions, starvation and other brutality.
Until now, the governments of the United States and Israel have stood with the Turks, and have used their powers of persuasion against condemnation or even publicity of Armenian claims. Official reluctance still may be the policy. Reports are that the Obama administration urged members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to avoid any condemnation of genocide, and the vote in favor was a close 23 to 22. It is still not clear if the measure will reach the full House. The Bush administration succeeded in keeping a similar committee resolution from reaching the House floor in 2007, when it was concerned with the loss of Turkey's cooperation with its policies in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/europe/05armenia.html?scp=2&sq=armenian%20genocide&st=cse
In what looks like a flick in response to a slap, Turkey's prime minister has condemned the committee vote, and recalled the ambassador to the United States for consultation,
If the issue gets any bigger it may delay what appeared to be moves of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, including the definition of the border between the two countries.
Israel is making its own tiny contribution to the "confrontation of symbols," which appears to be a few degrees lesser in intensity than "a war of words."
One "salvo" comes from the Anti-Defamation League, not Israeli but a cousin. It announced that it considered the killings to be genocide. Another, closer to the Israeli establishment, is a program on public television that describes the killings as the Armenian Holocaust. The senior broadcaster of Israel broadcasting moderates the program. He has a wide public following, and is known from the somber way in which he condemns evil by the tone of his voice.
Officially the Israeli government is acting like the American government. President Obama wants Congress to stay away from the issue, and President Peres has told the Turkish prime minister that Israel has not changed its position, i.e., that Turkey and Armenia should resolve the issue among themselves in a dialogue. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/897273.html
Not likely that the Turkish government will be quick to moderate its posture with respect to Iran, Syria, the Palestinians, and Israel. We will never know if less than decisive actions in Washington and Jerusalem lead Turkey to do anything serious to prevent cooperation at the levels where things count in the actions of military and economic bureaucracies.
Another weapon in Israel's arsenal against Turkey is tourism. The southern coast of Turkey is the vacation spot of choice for middle and lower income Israelis and others. Prices are low, the hotels are glitzy and the souvenirs plentiful. Labor unions organize group packages for their members. During the month that includes the Passover holiday, there will be more than 80 charter flights from Tel Aviv to Antalya and other airports in the resort area.
There was more traffic prior to the uptick in tensions, and there may be fewer if the tensions worsen. Promoters are flogging vacations almost as cheap on the coasts of Greece and Bulgaria.
Another front in this conflict via impressions comes from the British government. It is pondering with some seriousness a change in the law relevant to "political" arrest warrants. The prospect of being detained has kept former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, and maybe even Colin Powell from visiting Britain. Officials want to curtail the right of an individual to obtain a writ of arrest from an ordinary judge. One proposal is for a high ranking body, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, to take over responsibility for prosecuting war crimes and other violations of international law. Key figures, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown worry about the damage to Britain's standing due to the capacity of political activists to obtain warrants that limit the visits to Britain of the mighty, including some invited for consultation with leading officials. However, the issue is sensitive, there is an election coming, so deliberations will be delayed. Ms Livni and Mr Powell may postpone their travel plans yet again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/04/gordon-brown-tzipi-livni-arrest-warrants-change-law
Meaningless tempest is a tea pot?
There are lots of those in international as well as domestic politics.
It is not always easy to know what is going on.
Israelis who may be in the know say that they are not all that concerned about the tempests raging around that incident in Dubai. Lip service, they say, expressed by officials objecting to the use of their country's passports, and even by Dubai personnel who would rather have Israeli business people coming to their little place than Palestinian killers.
None of this is new.
Bava Kama is the Tractate of the Talmud that deals with damages. One of its discussions deals with when it is permitted or forbidden to injure a person or property when the individual to be injured asks that the act be done. The rabbis warn that not all statements are serious. Some are sarcastic, and must not be honored. (Chapter 8, page 93a)
One has to listen and read about the words and deeds of adversaries and others, look beneath the surface, and judge their meaning and significance. It may not be easy.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
One of my Jerusalem friends supplies me with another piece of the Jewish mosaic by talking about his youth in Mashhad.
Mashhad is a sizable city and religious center in the northeast of Iran, where the Jewish community was given a choice of conversion or death in the 1830s. Some died in the pogrom that accompanied the decree, some moved away, and most accepted Islam outwardly, but continued to be Jews at home. A century later the Jews of Mashhad began to live more openly. Nonetheless, the Mashhadis I have met carry deeper scars than those traceable to my having to sing Christmas songs and recite the Lord's Prayer in Fall River.
Israeli Jews from Muslim countries, and their children, tend to be on the hawkish side of the hawk-dove spectrum. Some of this may derive from lower than average levels of income and education, and the populist element in right of center Likud. Some also derives from residual feelings of discrimination, and being forced to leave their homes, typically with few if any possessions. While there are well known intellectuals and politicians from these communities who speak out prominently from the dovish sides of the spectrum, it is not difficult to find individuals willing to talk about family suffering, as well as their distrust of Palestinians and other Muslims.
One should not exaggerate the impact of these communities on Israel. We are not talking about the residents of refugee camps subject to regime incitement for more than six decades. Although Israel's poor "development towns" continue to have a disproportionate share of "Oriental" Jews (as well as migrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia) Jews tracing their families to the Middle East have moved throughout the country and into every sector of the economy and politics. So many of them have married Israelis whose families came from Europe, North or South America as to render the categories of "Sephardim," "Oriental," or "Jews from Asian and African backgrounds" increasingly elusive for social research.
My Mashhadi friend responded to one of my recent notes where I mentioned the Palestinians' creation of an ownership tale for what has long been described as Rachel's Tomb. He urged me to write about how the Muslims have created similar fabrications about the importance of Jerusalem. "What do they mean about the third holiest city in Islam? I grew up hearing that Mashhad was one of the holiest cities. Muslims who visit Mashhad call themselves Mashhadi. I've never heard of a Muslim who visits Jerusalem giving himself the Arabic name of this city."
I responded by recalling my own visit to Samarkand. The tour guide described it as the "third most holy city in all of Islam."
No doubt that Muslims have touched up the status of Jerusalem (al Quds--the Holy City), largely in response to the Jewish presence. However, the story is not a simple one. Jerusalem does figure in the writings associated with Mohamed, and the city was an important focus in the struggle against the Crusaders. The Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque have been on the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount since the 7th century, and the main shopping street in East Jerusalem carries the name of Salah al Din, the Kurdish warrior who led the fight against Crusaders in the 12th century.
The Muslims never made Jerusalem anything more than a provincial town during the several regimes that ruled until the British conquest in the 20th century. Baghdad, Damascus, Ramla, Nablus, and Gaza were more important. During the 16th century, Jerusalem's population was less than 5,000. The city was a miserable place with garbage and dead animals in the street, and widespread disease when Europeans and Americans began building churches and hospitals in the 19th century. There has been a Jewish majority since the late 19th century. When the Jordanians controlled the Old City and other neighborhoods from 1948 to 1967, they invested more heavily in Amman.
Voltaire said that History is the lie commonly agreed upon. Napoleon softened that to history as accepted myth.
So whatever the truth to the claim that Jerusalem is one of Islam's holiest cities, or that Rachel Tomb is really Bilal ibn Rabah mosque, there are many who will accept and act on those beliefs. Tour guides in Samarkand and Mashhad will continue with their descriptions. Tempers about Jerusalem and other sites will rise and decline with events. Muslim politicians will incite their followers when they need an issue, or when Jewish politicians are careless in how they make a point about their own claims.
Currently the concern is not so much with historical accuracy, as with the possibility that speeches and stone throwing will develop into something more serious. A resident of Jerusalem should not say that history is unimportant. Only that the details do not depend on what really happened.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Several of my Internet friends have ridiculed my concern with American health policy, and several have ridiculed my dismal assessment of Palestinians seeking statehood.
Nonetheless, I will reiterate the importance of both issues, and emphasize some commonalities that provide useful lessons about politics. And while many view politics as not a fit topic for conversation, I insist again that it is the essence of civilization. Political maneuvers and deals may offend the delicate, but they are the best way to deal with disputes that get to the public arena.
What is most prominent in bringing together the politics of American health and the politics of Israel-Palestine is the intense involvement of Barack Obama.
I have praised his Cairo speech about the Middle East, and his proposal to expand health care for Americans. Both were well crafted efforts to deal with serious problems, using the leverage available to the leader of the world's most powerful country.
As Obama's efforts have gone forward, he has demonstrated that he does some things very well, but more important things very badly.
The Cairo speech demanded from Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs what seemed able to resolve a conflict that had defied numerous earlier efforts at peace making.
What is crucial to politics, however, is not the grand idea, but how the follow-up deals with the numerous problems of implementation. If those problems did not exist, there would be no need for the grand idea. Ordinary people can conceive of what might be done, but genius consists of knowing how to defuse the land mines created over the years by hostile actions and distrust.
Obama's grand idea about the Middle East made both Israelis and Palestinians suspicious. Numerous Arabs said that he was arrogant shortly after they applauded politely. He flubbed badly when he gave Israeli naysayers an ideal target by demanding a freeze on Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem. A politician claiming religious sensitivity should have recognized the centrality of Jerusalem going back to the Biblical origins of Judaism. Then when he backtracked and praised the Israeli prime minister for doing less than what he had demanded, he alienated whatever support he had from the Palestinians. Now the two sides are further apart than at any time since 1993, when they first agreed to negotiate.
The President's record in health is similar. Initially there were good ideas to expand coverage, move against the worse abuses of insurance companies, and reign in costs.
Patriotic Americans continue to claim that no country has better health care, and that all residents can go for treatment to a hospital emergency room.
Facts are that the United States scores so poorly on longevity and infant mortality that no efforts to find reasons in social problems can account for the dismal record. It is the only wealthy democracy that does not assure access to basic care for all its citizens. Access to emergency rooms for those already severely ill or injured does not make up for what is missing.
Those who trumpet the quality of American health care sound like deranged individuals saying that everyone else is crazy.
When actually submitted for Congressional deliberation, the proposal of a thousand pages provoked more fears and suspicions than it soothed. Now it is said by some to cover 2,400 pages and by others 2,700 pages. Whatever the size, there are at least as many reasons to oppose as to support.
A public encounter between the President and Members of Congress, billed as a way to find a common path, is being reported as a confrontation. "By day's end, it seemed clear that the all-day televised session might have driven the parties even farther apart." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/health/policy/26health.html?hpw
Could the President have been challenging the Republicans, and setting them up for defeat at the polls?
His adversaries are salivating at election returns from Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, as well as pointing to the lack of accord on health between Democrats in the House and Senate.
For Obama to qualify as a good president, he must go beyond successful lessons in rhetoric, and learn more about implementation.
A major test will come with mid-term Congressional elections in November. By 2012, it may again be the national economy on everybody's mind.
And you cannot beat somebody with nobody. If tea-party conservatives think they can win with Sarah Palin, it may be the best news a Democratic candidate has received since John McCain chose her as his running mate, or since an earlier generation hoped that Barry Goldwater could defeat Lyndon Johnson. Unless Barack Obama comes to look too much like Jimmy Carter.
Politics is not for those who are overly certain.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
