Having reached the, for me anyway, reasonably logical conclusion that, given the facts, Obama's '67 borders speech lent credence to impression most objective observers already had of his administration not being a huge fan of Israel nor a sympathetic witness to its opinions on what a realistic approach to the unending problems of the Mideast should look like - and judging that it really doesn't matter if this antipathy is willful or the toxic runoff of incompetence since results are same [although long term liabilities may be different, so maybe it does matter, just not now] - having concluded that, the question becomes is this a good or bad thing concerning prospects for peace and stability in that lovely corner of the world?
Liberals believe Israel is the problem - they believe this because Israel and the how of both its creation and survival represent the expression of a type of power that does not comfortably conform with a liberal world view or a liberal conception of human nature - whereas on the other hand the Palestinian 'plight' fits very neatly into liberal notions of victim-hood that lie at the very heart of the incumbent sentimentality of their ecumenical idealism. Therefore it makes perfect sense to the liberal academy that Israel should be forced into concessions - that's as easy a formulation for them as, say, believing that of course the rich should be heavily taxed [Michael Moore even went so far not long ago to opine that the wealth of the wealthy actually doesn't even belong to them since of course it was stolen from the poor]. They rationalize this framing of the problem by making it sound like an Israeli surrender on this issue is the reasonable view - time, history, demographics, technology, world opinion etc etc all point to the reasonableness of it - and then they further rationalize it by presuming, without evidence, as only liberals can [and sometimes in direct conflict with evidence or common sense], they presume a net positive trailing in the wake of concessions by Israel because, although there will be hard compromises and a period of readjustment to new realities, in the end the long suppressed forces of moderation in the Arab/Muslim world, now freed of the awful burden of having to endure the defilement of a Jewish supremacy, will rise up and usher in an era of comity, good will and tolerance.
Conservatives, realists - cynics if you will - sceptical types who view with deep suspicion the escapist fantasies of liberalism, come at the issue from the other side and say simply: the Arab/Muslim world has endemic problems that have little or nothing to do with the West in general or Israel in particular regardless of unending efforts to make them the scapegoats of these problems - forcing Israel to act as if such isn't the case will result in one of two things: fearing for its very survival Israel will become utterly hostile to any attempts to compromise its security whatsoever - it will abjure and scorn calls for peace and accommodation because it will no longer see peace and accommodation as realistic options while Obama is president - Hamas and Hezbollah, stirred by the promise of a weakened Israel conjured from the dust by the miscalculations of Obama, will crowd the border and push hard - this will lead most likely to war; but if not confrontation, then submission - Israel will be cornered and humbled, if not indeed for all intents and purposes destroyed - this humbling will not though, contrary to the fanciful delusions of liberals, empower the putative moderates of the region [who, as we have seen in Egypt, have no real means by which to advance their inchoate interests] but rather enable, rouse and inflame the irredentist chauvinisms of the Islamists who will view themselves as righteous, glorious victors over the unclean unfavored by Allah, thereby setting in motion a series of cascading upheavals - and not just Islam against the Jews or Islam against America - but Sunni contra Shiite and oligarchy versus theocracy - after all, with Israel brought to its knees, every despotic asshole in the region with an agenda to push is gonna wanna take credit for it so as to cozen the faithful to best effect.
So in short, as a sceptic, I'd say the Obama approach, whether willfully antagonistic towards Israel or just simply misguided by arrogance or incompetence, is not the enlightened effort it imagines itself to be - which is not to suggest the conservative way is free of difficulties - not at all - reality is there may be no way to arrange the pieces of this puzzle so as to fashion something palatable or even sustainable - I've always tended to believe things are bound to get much worse in that part of the world before they get better - and for that reason it's not entirely nuts to wonder what the hell is the point of Israel or to wish 1947 had never happened - but of course wishing for the impossible is a viable strategy only for those who confuse vanity with strength - a counterfeit strength never lasts - events have a way of separating the dreamer from his dreams - only Narcissus gets to sleep forever.
