While everyone in the world is chiming in on what was in and out of President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo yesterday, I wonder why no one is taking his travel agent to task.
That is, how can it be that after such a major initiative – in which the section on the pressuring Israel on settlements gained some of the largest applause – the president didn’t then go to Israel where he could directly take the case to Israelis and Palestinians? After all, President Bill Clinton was wildly popular in Israel (meaning he could push Israeli prime ministers a little more) because he went directly to the Israeli people in talking about the need for sacrifice.
After speaking in the Knesset – Israel could not deny such a request to do so – Mr. Obama could then have gone to Ramallah (another first for a U.S. President; Mr. Clinton went to Gaza City) to speak with Palestinians and say, “You must end all support for terror – physical, financial and emotional. And you must end all incitement against Jews and Israel. You can talk about policy differences, but the vitriolic hate that is endemic to your P.A. controlled media must be halted.”
That could have really kick started the sluggish peace process, giving this phase more than a media cycle or two.
The White House would likely respond that this didn’t happen because Mr. Obama had just met in Washington in the past few weeks with both Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. But that just doesn’t fly. It’s not the leaders who need to buy into his philosophy, it’s the people who will press them up from the street.
So Mr. Obama, you are indeed an extremely bright person who can deliver a great and weighty speech. But this is the Middle East my friend; if you don’t push the personal relationships – and that means getting yourself out in front of the people – it’s going to be more of the same old game.
