"It really is the people's seat, and on Tuesday the people of Massachusetts took it back.
"But in electing Scott Brown instead of Martha Coakley to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate, the Bay State's voters did more than hand the GOP its most improbable and thrilling come-from-behind victory in a generation....And they did more than prove that no political party has a permanent lock on any state's electoral loyalties.
"They also gave President Obama and the Democratic left a blessing in disguise -- if only they are wise enough to recognize it.
"Brown ran explicitly against Obama's polarizing domestic agenda -- especially the radical health-care overhaul that the president has made his No. 1 priority...
"Politically, ObamaCare has backfired. No president in the modern era has ended his first year in office with disapproval ratings so high. Much of the goodwill with which he entered the White House has been squandered, and any effort to try to force the health bill through Congress now would drive what's left of that goodwill right over a cliff.
"But that isn't going to happen. Brown and the voters of Massachusetts have killed ObamaCare for good. In so doing they have given the president a priceless second chance to adjust his political course, move toward the center, and deliver at least some of the bipartisan cooperation that was at the heart of his once-enormous appeal..."
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6851/a-blessing-in-disguise
~~~~~~~~~~
What I wait to see is if the Obama "readjustment" will affect his push for the "peace process": if he will be too busy attending to domestic matters to give it his attention now, or otherwise think better of it.
This is particularly relevant right now as Mitchell will be here tomorrow.
Aluf Benn of Haaretz believes, with some good justification, that the political dynamics following yesterday's election will work in our favor:
www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=Aluf+Benn&itemNo+1143891
~~~~~~~~~~
Word today was that Abbas was asking for a "short term" (three to six month) total freeze on all building, including in Jerusalem. This was supposed to be a face-saver for him and allow him to come to the table.
I find this interesting because it suggests that the reports I received last week-- from sterling sources with a great deal of inside information -- regarding the fact that Abbas has decided to simply declare a state unilaterally, and thus is not even thinking of returning to the table, may turn out not to be correct.
Speculation: Could it be that in his present political bind Obama will be far more reluctant to back a unilateral move by Abbas then he once indicated he would be? Is this slow-down time?
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu held a press conference this evening and forthrightly rejected any notion of freezing construction in Jerusalem, even informally.
Abbas had suggested that if this face-saving "gesture" from Israel is not forthcoming (and it isn't), then there might be shuttle diplomacy, with Americans moving between Jerusalem and Ramallah. The PA would provide the US with specifics of what it was demanding: '67 lines with a 3% exchange of land possible. There has been no comment on this either from the US or our government that I am aware of.
~~~~~~~~~~
But Netanyahu said something else at the press conference, as well:
"We are surrounded by an ever-growing arsenal of rockets placed in the Iranian-supported enclaves to the north [Hezbollah in Lebanon] and to the south {Gaza]...We cannot afford to have that across from the center of our country.
"In the case of a future settlement with the Palestinians, this will require an Israeli presence on the eastern side of a prospective Palestinian state."
He is alluding to the Jordan Valley, and an Israeli presence on the eastern border of a Palestinian state to block bringing in of rockets and other weaponry that could endanger us. This is the first time that he has made such a demand specifically.
He is absolutely correct, of course, that such an Israeli presence would be necessary. But making this a requirement for negotiating a state more or less guarantees that there will be no negotiations. And in point of fact, there should be none. With all of the myriad other reasons why not, this fact alone makes formation of a Palestinian Arab state not a good idea.
~~~~~~~~~~
I was fascinated to see a piece by Yossi Alpher in today's Post, called, "The peace process will resume, but why?" Alpher's orientation is to the left, and he has been a staunch supporter of the formation of a Palestinian Arab state.
But in this article, he writes, "Regardless of whether the end result is a unilateral, bilateral or multilateral process, without a functioning Palestinian state apparatus there can be no two-state solution."
What is more, he observes, "There is little...prospect that Abbas will succeed in bringing Gaza and Hamas back into the fold of a single Palestinian partner for Israel. Hence he can negotiate only on behalf of the West Bank. But Gaza won't go away."
Alpher does not address the fact that a "single Palestinian partner" that included Hamas would actually be no partner at all, but he does come part way in recognizing the futility of imagining that a "two-state solution" can be negotiated now.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, maybe Abbas will come to the table, and maybe he will not. But even should he sit at the table, there will be no meaningful negotiations. This much is clear.
Now we wait for Mitchell's visit. And, as time allows in upcoming postings I would like to look at Fayyad-Abbas tensions, and Egyptian-Hamas tensions -- all of which play into the broader dynamic.
~~~~~~~~~~
Posts
