Blackedward wrote:

---

Cin, what is America's legitimacy in trying to broker any sort of peace deal between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors?

So they might stop blowing each other up?
-Ed

Not what Gandol was looking for Ed. He's asking what gives us the moral authority to try to be a peace broker in the middle east. Short answer would be 1) we're on the UN security council, 2) we have been a long standing ally of Isreal, 3) we've given more in charity to the Palestinian's than most Arab countries, 4) nobody else seems to want to step up to the plate to give it a try.

Time for a reality check, courtesy of Cafu's earlier post vis-a-vis Libya. Our stated policy, for many decades, has been that the US does not negotiate with terrorists. In reality, that statement should read along the lines of "the US does not directly negotiate with terrorists". We have engaged in dialog with the PLO, with Hamas, the Libyans and many others, but not directly. We use third parties that we trust to convey our messages in the strongest terms. Once those negotiations reach a certain point, you can bet that low level state department representatives start sitting in on them. By sitting in, they simply show that the US is starting to be satisfied with the results and continued negotiation/results could/might lead to direct contact between the two parties.

The problem with Obama started when he made the mistake of saying he would negotiate directly (paraphrase from one of his debates). That was contrary to what we've been doing for decades and set him up as not understanding US policy to date. He's since, in his stump speeches, expanded on his debate answer to state that he wouldn't start with direct head-to-head negotiations with heads of state. Just this past weekend, he said that we need to not only talk, but be in a position of power to back up our position. He's got the idea, but that first debate answer is going to keep haunting him unless his people can get more of his views presented on the news.

Obama's mistake, yesterday, was in jumping on Bush's statement like it was a direct shot at him. Could it have been, possibly - I won't dismiss that possibility. A smarter move, by someone who is supposed to be so educated, would have been to reitterate his idea that we need to negotiate from a position of power to ensure that his views are more well known than his debate answer. He's making the mistake, due to inexperience, of letting the opposition define him.