MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
A last-ditch American effort to head off a Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations faltered. President Obama tried to qualify his own call, just a year ago, for a Palestinian state. And President Nicolas Sarkozy of France stepped forcefully into the void, with a proposal that pointedly repudiated Mr. Obama’s approach.
The extraordinary tableau Wednesday at the United Nations underscored a stark new reality: the United States is facing the prospect of having to share, or even cede, its decades-long role as the architect of Middle East peacemaking.
Even before Mr. Obama walked up to the General Assembly podium to make his difficult address, where he declared that “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N.,” American officials acknowledged that their various last-minute attempts to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with help from European allies and Russia had collapsed.
American diplomats turned their attention to how to navigate a new era in which questions of Palestinian statehood are squarely on the global diplomatic agenda. There used to be three relevant players in any Middle East peace effort: the Palestinians, Israel and the United States. But expansions of settlements in the West Bank and a hardening of Israeli attitudes have isolated Israel and its main backer, the United States. Dissension among Palestinian factions has undermined the prospect for a new accord as well.
Finally, Washington politics has limited Mr. Obama’s ability to try to break the logjam if that means appearing to distance himself from Israel. Republicans have mounted a challenge to lure away Jewish voters who supported Democrats in the past, after some Jewish leaders sharply criticized Mr. Obama for trying to push Israel too hard.
The result has been two and a half years of stagnation on the Middle East peace front that has left Arabs — and many world leaders — frustrated, and ready to try an alternative to the American-centric approach that has prevailed since the 1970s.
Comments
The biggest problem Obama has is how he views himself. He see's himself as a white guy with black skin. Where as everyone else see's him as a black guy.
Except the right wing who see's him as "That damn n****".
Which has a lot to do with is failures on nearly all fronts.
by cmaukonen on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 10:14am
He views himself as a white guy with black skin??? What?
It isn't a particularly creative nor meaningful analysis, in fact is sloppy and happens to be a plagiarized line from Michael Moore and Bill Maher.
Why not clarify yourself c, this is how you view him because Michael Moore and Bill Maher told you to view him this way. Because the reality is, you simply have no idea how he views himself, unless of course you now claim to read minds.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 10:56am
Thanks for this. Besides being politically incorrect, which many people don't care at all about, such characterizations are lazy and provide no useful insight. If they were only slightly more precise they'd be examples of begging the question: He does X because he views himself as white. How I do know he views himself as white? Because he does X (which he does because he views himself as white). It's a hat trick: lazy, insulting, and useless.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 11:16am
I have always thought of Obama's skin color as a disguise or like Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. It keeps people from seeing what is really there. Imagine for a minute that he was "white" (grey, pink). If that were so... do you think he could have run for president with only three years in the Senate?
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 12:59pm
Sure*. As you've noted many times, he's a good speaker. Abraham Lincoln got elected after serving only 2 years in the House of Representatives.
*That's not to suggest that his skin color didn't help him with many constituents. It also hurt him with many constituents, as well.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:15pm
Abraham Lincoln was more than a couple of good speeches read off a teleprompter. It was the Lincoln-Douglas debates that made Lincoln... the transcripts of those debates: Lincoln speaking on his feet, toe to toe with one of the greatest speakers of the day, debate, after debate, intelligent, nuanced, on the most important themes of the day, that electrified the country and catapulted him to prominence. It is frivolous to compare the two men and I'm sure you never would do so, if not for Obama's "invisibility cloak".
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 2:16pm
You can be "sure" all you like, but if by "invisibility cloak" you mean "skin color", you're absolutely mistaken. I find it interesting that you think the only way someone could like his speeches is because of the color of his skin. Rightly or wrongly, I was taken by Obama when I heard this retort to Australian Prime Minister Howard. It wasn't the last speech of his I enjoyed. Sadly, his governing has not lived up to his speeches.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 2:31pm
Another difference with Lincoln... and its not a question of color, I think MLK would have made a great president... no matter what Jackie thought.
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 2:45pm