Obama, Clinton and Israel

I should probably get around to discussing the Obama national security team, and since this is such a big story I'll go one by one. In general terms, I'd agree with many in this story in being OK with the picks, but there are also some associated concerns.

Hillary Clinton is obviously the most formidable choice. Madeleine Albright is someone she practically shadowed while First Lady, so if you liked how Albright handled the job (and I'm not sure I totally did), you'll like Clinton. While both were greatly competent in their duties, both have tendencies to the right of where common perception thought Barack Obama's foreign policy would go. And personnel does have an effect on policy - someone like Hillary Clinton will not be solely an instrument of the President's will, and how she fills out Foggy Bottom will have impacts for progressives well into the future. Because of the media's obsession with the rapprochement of Clinton and Obama - and their rapport doesn't seem to me to be a problem worth thinking about at all - we're not hearing enough about the consequences for foreign policy from this move. But that's the key question for the world.

Clinton is not only more hawkish than Obama – she’s also more politically risk-averse: disinclined to tackle entrenched interest groups or challenge conventional wisdom. Clinton represents a segment of the Democratic party that spent the years after September 11 fretting intensely over whether Democrats seemed sufficiently “tough” – worried about a replay of the 1970s, when Democratic anti-war sentiment scared off the public.

Obama and his younger supporters took a distinctly post-September 11 perspective, in which insufficient backbone in standing up to Bush’s reckless policies was the party’s primary sin. To many, this was the central appeal of Obama’s candidacy. This important distinction between the Clinton and Obama approaches was reflected in their campaigns: Obama staffers spoke explicitly to me and others about their desire to take advantage of the shift in public sentiment in the wake of the Iraq disaster to move beyond the politics of toughness and enact dramatic shifts in America’s relationship to the world.

For all the speculation about Obama’s offer to Clinton, there has been no real account of the rationale or motivations for his decision – at least not beyond vague, and endlessly repeated, references to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, a profile of the cabinet Abraham Lincoln assembled under wildly different circumstances. The transition team has done very little to outline the substantive agenda it expects a Clinton-led State Department to tackle, and indeed, perhaps the ongoing financial crisis will mean any bold new foreign initiatives will be put on the back-burner.

What is unclear at this point is whether Clinton joining the Obama team means that Clinton has gained faith in Obama’s approach, or that Obama has lost faith in his own. The very fact of Obama’s election would seem to tilt things in his direction: there was a consistent trajectory to their disagreements, and Obama was on the right side – a judgment vindicated by his victories over both Clinton and McCain. It’s not merely that he won, but that winning demonstrates his supposedly “risky” positions were not so risky after all.

That's true of a lot of these picks, and particularly at State. Yesterday Obama said that his team will "help America lead by moral example":

In this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning -- a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges. To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example.

The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that. They share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world.

It's a nice set of lines, and it outlines a sort of consensus between the realistic strand of Bush 41's foreign policy and the liberal belief in diplomacy, soft power and human rights. But the disconnect between the old thinkers on the right side of that consensus and the bold thinking he proposed during the campaign doesn't make a lot of sense. Risk-averse establishmentarians aren't the best choice to enact risky maneuvers, and I don't buy the argument that this gives Obama "cover" on the right to push forward a bold agenda. In fact, it's far more likely that Obama isn't very bold at all, and will slide into the foreign policy consensus despite it being the one issue where he pulled away from it during the campaign.

There is one region of the world where Clinton and Obama can prove that the foreign policy consensus has indeed changed for the better, and that is in the Middle East. The Israel/Palestine question is fundamental to peace in the region, but at this point the overall belief is that very little will change from the perspective of Arabs, Israelis and Iranians.

“Anyone would be better than the last administration,” said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian political analyst. “But I don’t think there will be real change in the Middle East.”

He said Mr Obama’s entourage contained many pro-Israeli politicians and analysts. Any major policy shift would focus on Iraq and perhaps Iran, not the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

“Obama will try to make a big change in Iraq,” Mr Rashwan said, alluding to the next president’s promise to withdraw troops within 16 months of taking office on Jan 20. “He can’t make two big changes in the same area... It would be suicide.”

Politically, I don't think that's true. The withdrawal is being mandated through an agreement with the Iraqis, basically taking that off the table politically. There is space to deal honestly with the Israelis and Palestinians and broker a lasting peace. The question is whether or not the will is there. Clearly Clinton has the perception of being on the Israeli's side in the conflict, supporting the wall along the West Bank and rejecting negotiations with Gaza, and that perception alone is going to harm her efforts. Nevertheless, she has shown a desire to implement big projects, from the ill-fated health care plan to her Presidential run, and fulfilling the legacy begun by her husband is commensurate with the big contribution she wants to implement. This is a major opportunity and J Street is right to press the Obama Administration to make it a priority. As Matt Stoller says.

My sense of the conflict is that, though there are many obstacles to peace, domestic US politics in the form of AIPAC has always been the elephant in the room. There are signs the group itself is moderating, the political environment has become much more favorable for diplomatic work and the Clinton's have the credibility and gravitas to work on a two state solution without worrying about upsetting right-wing Jews.

Clinton believed in Presidential destiny, and not content to just be a Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton can certainly translate this desire 'go big' into another realm by solving the dominant problem in the Middle East. I hope she does.

I think this gets the domestic politics right - my fear is the politics inside Israel right now. Gaza is currently under siege, as the Palestinian Authority and Israel conspire to marginalize Hamas, and the consequences of that move are unpredictable. Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu may become Prime Minister within a month, and while he's running on a campaign for change (he basically stole Obama's website), it's hard to see how you could keep the peace process going with him in power.

I guess there's always the argument that you need a Nixon to go to China, that you need someone with impeccable security credentials on the Israeli side to make a lasting peace. That's one of abiding tragedies of Ariel Sharon's stroke. (It's ironic that Netanyahu, who's got a thin national security resume by Israeli standards, should be seen in that light since verbal and policy aggression are his only real calling cards. But that's another story ...) But Netanyahu is not only the voice of Israeli territorial maximalism, albeit in its current more limited form, he's also fundamentally unreliable person -- a charlatan.

For those of us who are heartened to finally have an administration that realizes this issue is as critical as it is, it's a very disheartening prospect on the horizon.

Netanyahu is promising rapid economic growth in the occupied territories as a precursor to peace, but it's not a new strategy and without an ideological shift it cannot produce results. Palestinians with "full stomachs" will not moderate their beliefs unless they are no longer occupied. It's irrelevant to the peace process.

I fear that Obama and Clinton, constrained by external events, will take the path of least resistance in the Middle East, focus on issues outside the Arab-Israeli conflict, and do little to improve our standing in the region. On the other hand, if they want to signal a "new dawn" in global leadership, they can go to Jerusalem and fight for peace.