President Obama needs to send Clinton to the Middle East -- and no, I don't mean Hillary Clinton.
Following the failure of the George Mitchell intervention, Obama badly need to have a new Middle East policy in place otherwise he risks the US becoming irrelevant.
It has been clear for some time that neither the Israeli or Palestinian leadership was ever committed to what George Mitchell was doing.
The difference in Northern Ireland was that Mitchell had leaders like Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern utterly committed to his strategy as well as Sinn Fein and Ulster Unionist leaders.
Without that goodwill, George Mitchell might just as well have sacrificed a goat and hoped for more success.
Bill Clinton would be a different kettle of fish however.
No one carries more authority, including Obama in the Middle East.
He is regarded in both camps as the man who barely missed making an historic peace towards the end of his presidency, thwarted in the end by Yasser Arafat who would not make the final leap.
Clinton would likely relish another opportunity to settle the conflict for once and for all.
With Obama's stock rising domestically after the bin Laden killing it is time for him to really focus on Middle East peace, key to the whole region, as his next Mission Impossible.
And Bill Clinton is the only man who can achieve that impossible goal.
18 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.whiteycat | May 21, 2011, 11:44 AM EDT
What do you figure Obama went to Ireland for?Pure PR of course. If there is no photo op and speech time he wouldnt go anywhere. Even his vacations.
whiteycat | May 21, 2011, 11:39 AM EDT
I think it is a good idea as long as Clinton does not want them to go back to 1967. Obuma is supposed to be a forward thinker but everything he does harkens to the past. Clinton was a very good President, it was his zipper that ruined it all. It wouldnt stay up.Of course lying was not good.
AengusOg | May 15, 2011, 09:46 PM EDT
This is a pro-Israel country, do we wish to hear that it was the Israelis that balked at agreement? See transcript of Clinton Senate debate. Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel LAZIO: When the US failed to use its veto, in the UN Security Council [which condemned Israel�s response to Palestinian protests] - that was one of the great mistakes of the last few years, and I spoke out immediately. I�m sure that Mrs. Clinton had a chance to speak with the president about this, to urge him not to use that veto. I would love to know what the context of the discussion was. Q: Did you urge him to use it? CLINTON: That was what I urged my husband to do. He made a different decision
ciarrai | May 15, 2011, 09:08 PM EDT
Good idea.
Bubbastudd | May 15, 2011, 07:35 PM EDT
Nah, Zipper Bill would get caught lifting burkhas, and make matters worse.
seanomelbourne | May 15, 2011, 06:42 PM EDT
Obama should send in the SEALS to arrest the terrorist Netanyahu and demand regime change. I read the brave IDF is killing more children the cowards.
John G. Hogan | May 15, 2011, 03:34 PM EDT
Niall, are you trying to leap frog McAwful???
Towngate | May 15, 2011, 02:53 PM EDT
Niall,a Chara: Since your insane post, the sale of blue dressses in the Middle East has slumped!
Hannah1879 | May 15, 2011, 01:54 PM EDT
Bill Clinton has an excellent reputation with leaders around the world. If anyone could I think he is the right person...not sure tho if it's a good idea.
Nicomax | May 15, 2011, 01:40 PM EDT
Even though Bill C. is one of the best in this area, even he as POTUS could not solve this conundrum. The primary reason is both groups do not want it solved, since once resolved they will drift into insignificance not unlike other small countries the Big Boys seldom discuss.
Chiefjustice | May 15, 2011, 01:33 PM EDT
We should stay out of it..Dosen't make much sense to me, when 99% of the Middle East hates the U.S. Best just stand back and let them have at it.. Then any one in the Middle East, that starts up with us.. Had better just Duck and Cover
Ray1Gordon | May 15, 2011, 12:43 PM EDT
Nonsense. The U.S. cannot solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because Israel and AIPAC control our government and media. No politician from either party has the courage to stand up to Israel and its wealthy, vicious lobby. The best that the U.S. can do is stay out of the way and allow the international community to impose a two state peace settlement on apartheid Israel, based on pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. Nothing else will work.
jdi2269 | May 15, 2011, 11:58 AM EDT
ARE YOU REALLY SERIOUS O'DOWD OR IS SENILITY PREMATURE IN YOUR FAMIL?
NYCsheridan | May 15, 2011, 11:29 AM EDT
"He is regarded in both camps as the man who barely missed making an historic peace towards the end of his presidency, thwarted in the end by Yasser Arafat who would not make the final leap." And why did Arafat not make that leap, Niall? Because it was political suicide. Think that has changed?
colkelley | May 15, 2011, 09:22 AM EDT
Bubba will be happy to go as soon as you point out where the impressionable young women are kept in the Middle East.
colkelley | May 15, 2011, 09:21 AM EDT
Antoman, this is not the 18th Century. Isolationism and allowing the world to collapse around us is not "good politics."
antoman | May 15, 2011, 08:55 AM EDT
America is at war.Its economy is based now on waging war for profit.The wise words of President Eisenhower come to mind.Warning the Government and the people not to give too much power to the merchants of death.Those for whom war is good business.So in saying that should'nt America withdraw its troops and secure its own border before trifling in the borders of foreign country's?
GeorgeDillon | May 15, 2011, 08:20 AM EDT
More baloney from the Clintonista O'Dowd. Clinton already had eight years to bring about a just settlement of this issue. He didn't. Why would he do better now? How has his wife done? We are not one inch nearer to peace than we were years ago. And he shows his kneejerk bias by the demeaning reference to Arafat. What kind of racist thinks that weak nations must take the settlements thrust upon them by strong nations? Arafat made many mistakes, but at least he didn't accept a Palestinian bantustan or Indian reservation, which is what O'Dowd seems to favor.