by Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn

March 5, 2009

Suddenly the public wants politics to stand still. Many Americans, including many in the Jewish community, expect that the only thing that will change when a new president enters office is the White House china pattern and decorations in the public rooms.

Yet during his first six weeks in office, President Obama has tried to address the nation’s problems aggressively — some even have argued too many and too fast. In fact, what is clear, as is the case with all new presidents, Obama has already demonstrated that he will bring a very different style to governing than his immediate successors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Obama does not want to be cloistered in the White House or Camp David. He will go out for dinner, attend basketball games, and not hesitate to meet the press and the public frequently.

Like virtually every other president, Obama will put his own particular style on public policy decisions. On the one hand, the president has already made it clear that he will make decisions that will sometimes surprise or even disappoint the Congress, his party, or the public. On the other hand, he may make policy decisions similar to his predecessors’, but he and his team will arrive at them through their own evaluation of the options. It will take the American people time to adjust to this willingness to defy expectations.

Take Obama’s efforts to address the nation’s economic woes, the budget, and national security. The president’s budget does not significantly depart from the Bush administration’s when it comes to the conduct and the costs of the Iraq war. The Obama budget, however, includes all the costs for the Iraq-Afghanistan war in the regular budget. Unlike the previous administration, Obama made the costs transparent and visible within one $3.55 trillion budget that he sent to Congress last week.

Similarly, the Obama administration announced last week that it would recommend that $900 million of humanitarian assistance be given to the Palestinians, with $300 million of it to go to the citizens of Gaza. Despite the fact that participants at this week’s international Gaza rebuilding donor conference meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh were still not sure how to get the funds to the people in Gaza without giving it to Hamas, the United States and the other participants urged the Israelis to permit into Gaza, promptly and effectively, food, medicine, and heating materials.

The administration’s decision came after it reviewed conditions in Gaza and decided to provide humanitarian relief. At the same time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated that this action in no way should or could be taken as a change in U.S. foreign policy toward Hamas. Nevertheless, Clinton and the Obama administration incurred the wrath of Jewish leaders, including Mort Zuckerman, the former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

At the same time, the administration is clearly evolving toward a more engaged dual-track approach to Iran. The appointment of Dennis Ross as the president’s chief adviser on Iran underscores not only the importance that the White House places on this issue, but also that there will be a policy shift. At the very least, the administration will actively engage the entire international community to solidify a serious economic embargo on Iran, should the Iranians fail to respond to entreaties to cease their nuclear weapons development program. In addition, Ross would not have been appointed were the administration not intent on engaging Iran directly.

Many in the Jewish community remembered vividly the ugly spectacle of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism rhetoric that spewed out of the United Nations racism parley known as Durban I. Obama’s critics worried that National Security Council’s director for multilateral affairs, Samantha Power, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice would reverse the Bush administration’s aversion to what was shaping up as an equally egregious Durban II. Instead, denying expectations and showing flexibility in the face of new facts, once the Obama delegates went to the planning meeting they understood that the conference was indeed destined to be used as a platform to vilify Israel. Upon their return, the new administration announced that it had concluded that the U.S. indeed would boycott the Durban II conference unless the platform was dramatically altered to remove condemnation of Israel and Zionism.

The Middle East, with all its problems —from oil to terrorism to Iraq to Iran to the Palestinians — needs creative, imaginative ideas. This is what happens when governments change in a democracy. The old way had not changed the status quo positively. It is not clear that the new way will succeed — for example, dispatching George Mitchell to try and jump-start discussions with Syria and Lebanon. But Jewish leaders and the Jewish community need to understand that new approaches are not “bad” for Israel. Nor are they a demonstration of ill will on the part of the new government.

Engagement by the Obama administration may prove to be as frustrating and fruitless as the do-nothing approach of the Bush administration, but it just might move the peace process forward. One does not want to support change for the sake of change, but neither ought one support standing still.

Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union (e-mail gkahn@kean.edu).

Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com

--TOP--