JERUSALEM (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made a surprise pre-dawn visit to Jerusalem's Western Wall on Thursday, at the end of a trip aimed at showing his strong support for Israel.
Hoping that something truly interesting would emerge from Senator Obama's just concluded visit to Israel and the West Bank, I waited until now to comment. But the truth is that not much happened. Nothing the candidate said or did could demonstrate to anybody on any side of the conflict in the Middle East, how an Obama presidency would affect the futures of Israelis, Palestinians or those who support them.
So as he leaves the region, I am left with the same nagging question that I always have in assessing Senator Obama -- has he once again managed to create lots of heat without shedding any new light, or has he managed to enter one of the world's most enduring conflicts in a way that built new confidence with both sides, while positioning himself to play a more constructive role in ending it? I hope it's the latter, and some of the responses to his trip indicate that it might just be the case.
The Hawks on both sides are already flooding the world with e-mails about the dangers of an Obama Presidency. On the Palestinian side, according to the New York Times,
there have already been cries that he slighted Palestinian President Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, by failing to spend as much time with them as he did with Israeli political leaders. Those same individuals are angry with Obama for not demanding an immediate end to the building of all Israeli Settlements.
Then from Paul Eidelberg, President of a Jerusalem-based think tank and a columnist for The Jewish Press, I got the following:
"I am issuing the sternest warning possible to my fellow Jews as well as all
Americans who love their country and their brothers and sisters in Israel.
Never in my lifetime has there been a Presidential candidate so utterly clueless
about the importance of the State of Israel and the need for the U.S. to stand
with her.... (withdrawal from Judea and Samaria) will trigger a flow of arms into these areas that will result in every city and military base in Israel to be within range of even the most rudimentary Arab missiles. When that happens I don't believe Barack Obama will defend Israel."
Mr. Eidelberg's conjectures about a post-withdrawal West Bank may, or may not, be correct. But they are conjectures, not facts, even though he presents them as such. And his belief that Barack Obama would not defend Israel is not even supported by the "facts" he presents! Like the Paelstinians above, he is trading in fear and rhetoric rather than fact.
The fact that the more extreme voices on both sides have been made uncomfortable by Senator Obama is quite promising for everyone else. And we should all take note of two items from a recent opinion piece in the Israeli daily, Ha'aretz if we want to make progress away from those extremes. In the piece, columnist Bradley Burston makes a number of observations some of which are not so helpful. But these two are not to be missed.
First, is that all who hope to influence the situation in a positive way must be guided by: "Compassion, compassion, compassion. Why? Because, the problem here is not that one side is right and the other wrong. The problem here is that both sides are right."
Second, look upon the unexpected as your only hope. Be open to the last thing they (in the region) expect...The unexpected happens here more often than anyone suspects, and it may be your only opening for creativity and positive mediation.
Whatever one makes of the Obama trip, and whoever becomes the next president, these are good rules to live by anywhere, but especially for anyone hoping for peace in the Middle East.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Hmmm ... lots of heat & smoke ... from Obama and the responses ... where are the real "peace makers" as Jesus said we should be ... just asking questions ... I at this time don't have any answers except "hate," in any form, is unproductive and only muddy's the waters ... You don't have to like or agree with someone's action(s) or policies but we do have to show humility and love for them ... Ok ... enough preaching ... I'm out of here ... Blessings on one and all ! ! !
I remember the Kennedy-Nixon debates of the 1960 election. I thought Nixon's positions were better. Poor Dick, he didn't let them use make-up on him. Kennedy did. JFK won on his looks.
Now it seems to me we have another young senator, with even less experience than Kennedy, who has become the media darling and a hero to the under 30 set. Obama delivers a great speech. I bet if he were to repeat Hitler's speeches, people would still love him. (No, I'm not comparing Barak to Adolph.) My point is the man seems to have said little of substance.
Barak's real life experiences are limited. At least Kennedy served on a PT Boat in WWII, was in the US House from 1947 to 1953 and served in the US Senate from 1952 to 1960. By comparison, Barak was a lecturer, a community activist (whatever THAT was, he didn't punch a time clock or submit time sheets.) a state legislator and has served a partial term as a U.S. Senator. Who among you would hire this person to run your corporation? Yet you would place him in the White House?
WAKE UP!
oops, typo, JFK was elected to the senate in 1952 AND 1958. He served there from 1953 to 1960. Sorry.
Senator Obama, I pray for him daily he has an uphill battle to climb,for and with some people who don't have a clue, not only do he has to deal with the majority and the minority because.... he is half of one and the other. One thing we don't know is whats in his heart. How wise of him to take the advantage of the wailing wall before he left. To deal with the wiles of the evil ones he gone need G.D and Jesus. Think about the mess he has to CLEAN-Up. Together we stand divided we fall.
The messianic/cult connotation is crude and in bad taste to say the least. The messages of 20 years might have been in the interest of self-restoration rather than to instil hate.Why do we wworry about hate when we know that hate is more toxic to the hater. Who has the time or the energy for it on the face of the Armageddon?
As for me and my house, we have found our man in B-A-R-A-C-K with or without a C!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.