The Associated Press reports that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Morocco on Sunday for meetings with Arab leaders to discuss Middle East peace, but that “her shuttle diplomacy produced no sign of a breakthrough.”
The AP article indicates that Israeli settlement activity is the determining factor for Clinton’s failures. It quotes Palestinian spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeneh as saying, “There can be no excuse for the continuation of settlements, which is really the main obstacle in the way of any credible peace process.”
The AP failed to note, however, that many of the Arab leaders that Clinton met with are themselves responsible for the “atmosphere” of “failure” that reportedly lingers in Marrakech. Indeed, many of these leaders – including the Moroccans – recently sent delegations to the Annual Conference for Boycotting Israel, held on October 20 in Damascus, Syria. Only Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman held out. This is hardly a breeding ground for diplomacy.
The popularity of this year’s boycott conference, coupled with the current diplomatic impasse, yields several important observations.
Most obviously, the good offices of Morocco are not at all good. The Kingdom cannot in good faith foster diplomacy between the Palestinians and Israelis while simultaneously pursuing a boycott that would blacklist Israel and Israeli products in the Arab world.
Second, the wide participation of Arab states in this conference demonstrates the failure, to date, of President Barack Obama’s Middle East strategy. The President appealed to these countries in his June speech in Cairo, asking them to play a leading role in rekindling peace by making gestures to Israel. They have clearly rejected his request. This is critical because the Palestinians will not even consider diplomacy until most of the Arab world urges them to do so.
Finally, the Palestinians are ostensibly rejecting diplomacy over an issue that should be determined during diplomacy – settlements. Their obstinance can be traced directly to a grave error committed by Obama, who began his presidency seeking unilateral concessions from Israel on this issue – without a negotiated agreement. While the President has since reconsidered this untenable position, the Palestinians have dug in their heels, hoping that the President will again change course. In other words, this is a stalemate the White House could have easily avoided.
Hillary Clinton’s failures in Morocco are not hers. They are the result of earlier missteps by the President, and an Arab world that is sending mixed messages about its role in Middle East peace.
14 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Damn – already 10 months, and no solution to the Middle East problem?
What a failure!
2 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Ahh – a title change! While only time will tell if the Obama Admin is really “lost” on Mideast Policy, at least that rollback is a more reasoned appraisal than already declaring it a failure.
3 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 2:46 pm
When Obama tossed the settlements issue to the Palestinian side, he made the same mistake that Carter made in expressing a desire to see Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. All in a bid to make America appear to be more neutral in the Middle East debate by tossing Israel under the bus… once again. Obama is Carter’s 2nd term.
I’m sure that Obama wants Middle East peace. I’m certain he’d like it before the Nobel Peace Prize is handed over to the first president without a peace portfolio.
The Obama Administration’s inability to enlist muslims and arabs in peace concessions is telling. I’m guessing that the Apology Tour I will need to be followed by a more intense, more leftward Apology Tour II. Maybe the Obama could do the call to evening prayers from a minaret in Marrakesh? I’m sure he’s got a bevy of cameras and correspondents at the ready to record. Hey, if Michael Jackson can comeback from pedophile prosecutions to stage a tour, why not the Obama? Apology Tour II: More Intense, More Drama, More Obama.
4 ProfNickD // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm
You know I don’t particularly like Hillary Clinton — ok, she’s awful — but I think its grotesque that she (and all other females in the diplomatic corps) have to wear the hijab. Why we think that these 7th century primitives can ever be convinced to treat other nations in a civilized manner is beyond me.
5 LFC // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm
MI-GOPer said… When Obama tossed the settlements issue to the Palestinian side…
It’s a given that settlement expansion has to stop for any talks to be successful. Just as talks could never be successful if the Palestinians keep lobbing rockets into Israel. (That’s assuming the West Bank and Gaza negotiate together, which I don’t think they will.)
That being said, I don’t think any of it matters. I am a complete pessimist when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian talks. The Israelis won’t give up on any significant number of settlements, and the Palestinians won’t give up on “right of return”. A successful peace can’t be negotiated with either of these demands intact. And that doesn’t even bring Jerusalem into the mix, which is an intensely religious symbol for both peoples.
I still think that one day Israel will wall off the Palestinians behind the defensible borders of their own choosing. And to be blunt, I wouldn’t blame them a bit.
6 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm
When Obama tossed the settlements issue to the Palestinian side
You mean, when Obama spoke up in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 446?
Once upon a time, Republicans were actively justifying the invasion of a sovereign nation on the basis of their non-compliance with UN resolutions.
Now those same people are criticizing Obama for simply stating that a nation has a responsibility to comply.
7 LFC // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Once upon a time, Republicans were actively justifying the invasion of a sovereign nation on the basis of their non-compliance with UN resolutions.
“There’s no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
– John Bolton, Permanent US Representative to the UN Under George W. Bush
8 Independent // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:53 pm
i think someone in the comment section has been spending too much time at democracynow or the democratunderground or huffingtonpost if they think that bush went to the un for any valid reason beyond crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s so that world opinion wouldn’t sway against us as coalition forces freed 29m people from a tyrannical and murderous and treaty-breaking dictatorship that seized power in a bloody military coup.
suggesting that the us relied up the un for anything other than a forum to state our case and prevent the 3rd world opinion from undercutting our efforts is both naive and revisionistic at best. at worst, intellectually dishonest but apropos for the democracynow mindset.
9 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Independent:
National Security Advisor Condi Rice on Fox News, February 2003:
Rice told Fox’s Snow that U.S. and British diplomats continue work on another draft U.N. resolution to authorize the use of force to disarm Iraq. Rice said the White House would accept such a resolution if in fact it affirms the obligations the Security Council undertook in U.N. Resolution 1441, which calls for full immediate, unconditional and active Iraqi disarmament and elimination of weapons of mass destruction. However, she said that the Security Council must make clear that its resolution will not be “serially abused” as Iraq has done over 12 years.
“We don’t want a Security Council resolution if it is only a delaying tactic,” Rice said. “We believe that we have all the authority necessary under 1441 and several other U.N. Security Council resolutions to impose serious consequences on Iraq if necessary.” Resolution 1441, according to Rice, “simply states” that if Iraq fails to comply with the Security Council obligations then it will face serious consequences.
…
Rice the United States has allowed the inspections to go forward in the context of 1441, but she said that resolution also talks of a “final opportunity to comply.” She stated that sooner or later, and “we believe sooner,” the Security Council will have to say that Iraq has not taken that final opportunity, and this country and its coalition partners will have to act. Rice repeated what President Bush has been saying: that a “coalition of the willing” has been preparing and is ready to go.
10 Independent // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:45 pm
balcones, thank you for making my point. i forgot that madam secy rice was concerned about the un action being a basis for further delay and obstructionism by saddam and iraq.
throughout the lead-up to war –or as you call it the unprovoked “invasion of a sovereign nation”– bush and his team were being blistered in the media and on the world stage for engaging in “cowboy diplomacy” on iraq. nevermind the treaty violations. never mind the attacks on us aircraft in the no-fly zone. never mind a mistaken effort to secure a dirty bomb for terrorist use. never mind saddam’s efforts to target our former president and other world leaders for execution or assassination.
in case you forgot, the un wasn’t the central feature you seem to want to portray it as now. france, germany, new zealand and canada were strongly opposed to the invasion of iraq. a gallup poll in feb 03 showed 63% of americans wanted bush to find a diplomatic resolution to the problems caused by iraq’s failure to come clean on wmds. remember the rally in rome? maybe 3m people demonstrating against a war in iraq. remember similar events in other capitals?
in 1998, the us adopted a formal policy that the goal in iraq was to remove saddam. it took guts and leadership to do what the un couldn’t do in a hundred years. those war hawk neo-con republicans didn’t rely on the un; that’s just spin after the fact. i recall bush badgering and demanding the un act or america and her allies in the free world would with or without un support.
i can’t believe that this long after the invasion we still have liberals trying hard to defend an armchair quaterback position of second-guessing hind sight. but you could be the classic textbook definition of that exact thing. it’s amazing.
what next? mr clinton didn’t have sex with “that intern”?
11 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 6:04 pm
i can’t believe that this long after the invasion we still have liberals trying hard to defend an armchair quaterback position of second-guessing hind sight.
Democracy doesn’t put the public in the role of being armchair quarterbacks.
In a democracy – we are like the team owners.
And when a team owner realizes that the head coach constantly puts together really bad game plans, makes bad gametime decisions, and doesn’t properly prepare his team – he fires the coach.
If you didn’t notice, that’s what the American public did last November.
12 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 10:09 pm
BlankHead blathers: “If you didn’t notice, that’s what the American public did last November”.
Bzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong.
Americans elected a president who promised to shrink the deficits, end the war in Iraq promptly –not plan to keep 50,000 troops there for 10-12 yrs, stop the bank bailouts, seek meaningful environmental initiatives without massive costs, fix the economy, stop the foreclosure implosion, regulate Wall St, bring back bipartisanship, end political bickering and divisiveness, work with the French & Germans and Brits to bring added military forces to Afghanistan, rebuild America’s cities, end racism, repeal DADT, not add to the tax burdens of anyone making less than $250k/yr and reform health care without resorting to a “radical takeover” of the industry.
At least that’s what Americans thought they were electing.
And you missed the point, again, sigh. It wasn’t the American public that is armchair quaterbacking… it’s liberals according to Independent. I agree.
Nice try at attempting to include yourself in that mix of the american public but over 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative, BlankHead, 36% moderate and the balance “liberal” like you. Or hadn’t you heard? Maybe an adjustment on the tinfoil hat would help you get better reception, BlankHead? May I hold your Kool Aid while you make the adjustment?
13 balconesfault // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:02 am
lol – given that Obama did not pledge much of what you’re ascribing to him, it’s hard to answer in detail.
Shrinking the deficits in the midst of a major economic crises is idiocy.
Obama has stated that he still intends to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. Do you have something to back up your 10-12 year claim?
He never said we would stop bank bailouts.
He spoke about the need to pour a lot of money into environmentally sound energy technologies, both as part of his energy strategy and his stimulus plan. I have no idea where your “without massive costs” claim comes from.
“And we can do it, but we’re going to have to make an investment. … And that’s why we’ve got to make some investments and I’ve called for investments in solar, wind, geothermal.”
Oh – so he hasn’t fixed the economy yet. How long did it take Reagan to bring down unemployment again?
He pledged to take steps to stem the foreclosure implosion – there is no promise to stop it.
It would be good if Congress brough bills on finance to the President faster – but they’re moving. in the past two weeks, bills have been moving out of the committee, including a bill to reform credit-rating agencies, a bill to require most hedge funds and private-equity funds to register with the SEC, and a bill to create a new consumer financial-protection agency. There’s a bill moving through committee for creation of the Financial Services Oversight Council to monitor systemic risks. Our financial regulatory system wasn’t dismantled in a day … it will take a little time to rebuild it.
Obama began calling out to the Europeans to increase their committment to Afghanistan even before elected President. The problem there is that just as the French and Germans recognized a stinker of a war in Iraq, all of Europe now recognizes that Afghanistan is not worth fighting anymore.
Bipartisanship is a two way street. A lot of the delay in implementing Obama’s agenda can be laid at the feet of his attempts to practice bipartisanship, in the face of a Republican Party whose primary objective (as acknowledged by many here) is not to improve legislation being proposed, but to delay it for as long as possible to try to make Obama look ineffectual. There is no Ted Kennedy in the Republican Party who can cross over to work with Obama on a difficult issue – the rest of the party would not follow.
End racism? Really?
Obama cannot repeal DADT. When Congress finally does so, he will sign the bill.
Obama did pledge to not raise taxes on those making less than $250K. And?
On healthcare, he clearly stated: If you don’t have health insurance, you’re going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Sen. McCain and I enjoy as federal employees.
Maybe that’s why you don’t like Obama. You don’t actually listen to anything he says?
14 Independent // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:05 am
“At least that’s what Americans thought they were electing. And you missed the point, again, sigh. It wasn’t the American public that is armchair quaterbacking… it’s liberals according to Independent.”
that escaped the deficit attention of balcones, migop. along with his lame excuse that obama didn’t make any campaign pledges, made no political promises -which is completely false on balcones part… but, like all good liberals, when balcones can’t employ the truth, he’s going to spin it as a defense. i remember many of those promises and when i went into the polling booth, that’s what we thought we were getting. still no meaningful wall st regulation. massive deficits that will choke the economy dead. failure with our allies. no plan to end the war in iraq. no plan to win the war in afghanistan. tax hikes coming like the plague. corruption in congress and the white house. enemies list and divisiveness that continues to kill compromise. power politics exercised for the vanity of an imperial president. greater racial discord, not less. and a health care reform proposal that makes central a policy he labeled “radical” during the campaign.
migop, balcones and his peers can’t respond with truth and facts; they’re all about the spin.
not to address all on your list of broken barack promises, but just take balcones’ defense on repealing the don’t ask policy in the armed services. balcones lamely argues the president can’t do it, it takes congress. well, there are lots of legal scholars in the gay community who say he can do it with leadership and effectively gut the policy without congressional action.
but then that requires leadership and, as corzine now knows, obama and leadership can’t be used in the same sentence.
i think you’re still wrong, balcones; as do many others here.
You must log in to post a comment.