« Obama eying exemptions for Iran sanctions bill | CBO: Trillion dollar deficits for the next decade »
PrintMarch 6, 2010
Obama should be the last one to 'cast the first stone' in Israel-PA talks
A certain person who lived in Judea some 2,000 years ago once saw a crowd of righteous gentlemen who were about to stone a woman caught in a compromising situation, and uttered this advice: "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone."
People love to hurl stones at the guilty. It makes them feel good, turning them as it does into defenders of goodliness and righteousness - even if, as the above-mentioned gentleman observed, they are themselves not altogether blameless.
Here is the latest instance, coming from exactly the same geographical location as the first one. Per a Haaretz report , President Barack Obama decided to actively mediate in stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authority aimed at creating the Palestinian state - and furthermore, he promised to apportion blame in case of the failure of those American-mediated indirect negotiation and to throw a stone at the guilty party (which threat, in the diplomatic parlance used by our President in his letter to the Palestinians, is expressed thusly: "If one side, in our judgment, is not living up to our expectations, we will make our concerns clear and we will act accordingly to overcome that obstacle.")
But, looking into this business of assigning blame for failure and stoning the guilty, is our dear President without sin in the matter of judging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? His much-celebrated speech to the Muslim world revealed a curious fact that he has no clue about the nature of the problem he is here trying to solve. He does not even know that West bank, this "Israel-occupied territory," is not just the Israel-occupied Arab land, but also the Arab-occupied Jewish land too.
Understanding the nature of the problem is not a guarantee of a success in its resolution - but it does help. Not understanding the problem one is trying to solve is, on the other hand, a sure guarantee of failure - and that is precisely the endeavor our President is now engaged in in the Middle East.
Is it a sin to be ignorant? For a person of no power, perhaps not. For the President of the United States, on whose shoulders rest the responsibility for the entire free world, it undoubtedly is.
So before hurling the stone at the party that will be found guilty of stalling negotiations directed at "a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967," as the President's letter put it, shouldn't he first examine his own conscience? Ignorance is a sin, and the President is full of it. Should he be throwing a stone at those who are perhaps much less sinful in that regard than he is?
