Tweet
In advance of President Obama’s long-awaited address to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday, the administration appears to be seeding the public-diplomacy bed. I can’t read Arabic, but my friend Marc Lynch can, and here’s how Marc puts it in the course of a longer (and quite valuable) post about Obama’s approach to Israel-Palestine:
General David Petraeus added his voice to the mix in a front page interview in the influential Saudi paper al-Hayat, saying that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would improve American security and weaken its adversaries. (Perhaps the imprimatur of Gen. Petraeus will sway some American skeptics as well?)
Maybe, maybe not. It’s somewhat bewildering that a figure of Petraeus’ stature would be needed to express what ought to be an uncontroversial assertion — a settled Israel-Palestinian issue is a net security positive to the U.S. and a net loss to its enemies — but we are where we are. In The New York Times today there’s a piece elaborating on the administration’s approach to stopping Israeli settlement expansion, which is one of several obstacles to a peace settlement, but according to the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu rejects that American demand as "unreasonable." Petraeus’ interview to al-Hayat will be read as a statement of American intent — though, alas, I can’t read it for its specifics, so perhaps it’s merely a generic statement — and there will be a price to pay in the Arab world if the administration backtracks on the settlement issue.
Crossposted to The Streak.
2 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Glad to have you back, Spencer.
Re Petraeus taking a visible position. First, he’s now CENTCOM, so his “region-wide” view is important to communicate to those in the region.
Second, I think it’s in part a message to the Israelis that there’s no space between him and Obama. If they’re going to try to work wedges in US domestic space to change Obama’s approach, they’ll have to look elsewhere. With some of the most vocal Democratic “Israel supporters” in Congress making noises about settlements, it’s looking increasingly like it’s mostly the neocons and Fox who are left to promote Netanayahu’s agenda.
And if Iran’s elections toss out Ahmadinejad, pro-war-with-Iran voices are going to get a less welcoming hearing. Another factor, perhaps, in Petraeus’ public statement of priorities. See Ignatius in WaPo yesterday.
Actually in this case al-Hayat posted the interview on the English language section of the site http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/22899
I haven’t looked at the Arabic to see if the commentary is substantive different in translation, but it looks like at least the interview is the same material.
I think one thing that’s really worth highlighting is the extent to which Petraeus has been available to foreign media for interviews and comments over the last few months. While Lynch has given the Obama team somewhat inconsistent marks for their public diplomacy efforts, if this represents the beginning of a trend of the military taking a more proactive role in international outreach, that could be a sign of a much more serious commitment with a different face than we are used to.