The unbelievably brilliant and disappointing Obama trip

This week, as you well know by now, president Obama visited Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Jordan.  This was a well planned and even better executed trip.  But why did he go on this trip?  Did he want to fix his relationships with Bibi Netanyahu?  Sure, but that wasn’t the major goal.  Did he intend to encourage young Israelis to push their government to work toward peace with the Palestinians?  Sure, but that too wasn’t the major goal.  Does he want to see any such peace talks?  I’m sure he does, but he didn’t do anything to push the parties into conversations - not in the first four years of his administration and neither in this trip.

Don’t let the mending of the broken relationships with Netanyahu fool you; don’t confuse the warm atmosphere Obama enjoyed everywhere he went in Israel with the real goal for his visit.  All are important in themselves, but all just a sideshow, a preparation for the real reason he flew in.  

The major goal of this trip, to my opinion, was to lay the ground ready for a possible military option against Iran.  In order to do that, Obama needed Turkey onboard.  Since Israel is the second major power in potentially fighting Iran and since the Turkish military depends heavily on weapons made by Israel, it was important for Obama to have Turkey and Israel talking to each other again.  The phone call from Netanyahu to the Turkish PM Erdogan as Obama was preparing to depart Israel was not a coincidence.  It was not a by-the-way of the last moment.  It was well planned in advanced.  First he fooled Netanyahu to think they are really friends, then he easily convinced him to call Erdogan and apologize for the Marmara incident - something Netanyahu refused to do since.  A small phone call set the stage for a future use of an American-Israeli cooperation against Iran, using Turkish airfields and air space.  Obama made it all the way from the US and spent three days in Israel schmoozing, attending ceremonies, giving lectures - all in preparation for this one phone call between Netanyahu and Erdogan.  A brilliant plan.

Winners and losers:

Winners:

• Obama, of course - he achieved everything in his plan in this trip.  The most important of them all is the resumed relationships between Turkey and Israel, as explained above.  Next to them is the good atmosphere and the positive energy he generated among Israelis.

• Netanyahu - he won in three major areas:

1. Obama never mentioned the illegal settlement expansion.  This is a subject close to Netanyahu’s heart.  By not saying a word about it, Obama signaled to Netanyahu “carry on....we’ll continue to keep a blind eye”.
2. Turkey is an important ally to Israel in a Muslim neighborhood.  A simple “I’m sorry” restored that fragile dynamics.
3. Similar to Obama, Erdogan, by accepting Netanyahu’s apology, made it clear that relationships with Israel is more important to him after all, than pushing his head into the Israeli-Palestinian mess.  Both Israel and Turkey made mistakes during the Marmara incident.  Neither country knew how to climb down from the tree she climbed on.  But now that relationships are restored, it is as if Erdogan too said to Netanyahu “carry on”.  

Losers:

• The Palestinians - sorry, Obama simply dumped them for the greater goal.
• Erdogan - as explained above, by accepting Israel’s apology, he showed his real face - how little he cares about the Palestinians.  (That is understandable, BTW.  He has plenty of problems at home.  He just realized he should have stayed out of it all along.)
• The state of Israel - This is the most disappointing part of the Obama trip.  He did not put any pressure whatsoever on Netanyahu to stop the expansion of the settlements in the occupied territories.  By not doing so Obama joined all previous US presidents in their inability or not-wishing-to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end.  Only American pressure on Israel can help resolve this, but this is a topic for another day.  Until then, the status quo will continue, with the Palestinians remaining under occupation.

BTW, I was listening to so-called “experts” analyzing the trip on the radio in the last few days.  None of them mentioned any of the above.  Most of them mentioned the “new commitment for the peace process”.  And I’m thinking “huh?  what commitment?  He just pushed the Palestinians aside”.  The reality is that in 65 years no American president did anything serious enough to bring the sides to a long-term solution (but as I said, that is a topic for a later post - maybe).  The Palestinians are simply unlucky now with all the shit that goes on in the middle-east.  They’re too small and irrelevant to the US.  It’s sad, but true.  There was a time that it was thought that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, it’d preempt most of the other instability in the region - and specifically the hostility toward Israel and America.  But that is not the case anymore.  It’s clear that even if this conflict is resolved at best it’d leave a small dent on the whole middle-east mess.  The middle-east countries for their part are deep in their own mess, while the global dislike (to put it mildly) to the US has its own agenda, completely unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian mess.

P.S.  I wrote all the above late Friday, when I was tired from the whole week.  I didn’t take the time to check the text for grammatical and other errors, to which I’m famous for.  It was more important for me to write it all down and publish it while it’s fresh on my mind.  Some corrections/additions may come at a later time.

Happy would-have-been 18th birthday

 

  Emphasis on “happy”.  Because who would be a better example than Liam of how to be happy?  Despite all her limitations and disabilities, she was a happy girl almost all the time.  She did not need big reasons.  Small things here and now made her happy:  yummy food, monkey on TV, a computer game, company (and food), the outdoors (and food)....the list is long.  But most of all, Liam did not do the complicated calculations (we do) of who were her friends (or rather, why she didn’t have friends like most teenagers), how difficult it was to hold her body upright, why she’s stuck in a wheelchair while everybody else is walking/running.  Some may say she didn’t do those calculations because of her limited brain activity.  Maybe.  But I think otherwise: she was JUST HAPPY TO BE HERE.  She was happy with herself and who she was and it reflected on everybody around her.  

  Don’t get the wrong impression.  There were many unhappy - not to say difficult - moments (and hours into the night and weeks).  Right next to her disability, as if that wasn’t enough, she experienced a lot of pain, upset stomach, chronic constipation....alright, we’ll stop here.  The list is long.  But the point is that regardless of all those and despite them, Liam was a happy person.

  Which begs the question:  If such a disabled and disadvantaged girl was able to be happy with who she was, why do the rest of us need a reason to be happy?  We’re not happy because of employment (or lack of), money, a bunch of disorders (food, drugs....you know, the usual list), family, society, etc.  Once again, the list is long.  For a matter of fact, the list might be endless.  We can find any reason in the world to be unhappy and stick to it, insist on it.  If you think about it, there are people who have more than enough (good things) and they’re still unhappy.  People are bitching and complaining and are blaming the world.  

 The flip side is that we need no reason at all to be happy.  We can simply decide that we’re happy regardless of the results.  Shit will still happen:  loss of employment, illness, coping with your own weaknesses, and the rest of life events.  But at the end of the day, you have to answer two questions:
1.  What is happiness (to me)?
2.  Am I happy?
Nobody can ask those questions for you and nobody can answer them for you.  There can be many “helpers” to get to happiness - love, family, community, even-money, beer-must-be-on-any-happy-list.  But ultimately these are just tools.  Ultimately you’d have to make a choice whether to be happy or not.  

 Just to be sure we understand each other, being happy does not necessarily mean to get up with a smile on your face every morning or to walk around all jolly.  Happiness means that you can look inside of yourself at any given time and accept who you are.  That’s the gist of it.  It does not mean that you don’t need to improve yourself, but acceptance at any given point is the key to this whole talk.  And I’m pretty sure somewhere in the above I should have inserted that you better be happy with what you have than bitch about what you don’t have - another key ingredient.  (But I’m a poor writer and a lazy one too, so you get a fair argument written poorly....sorry.)

And if you don’t know how to be happy, how to break the ice - go ask kids like Liam.  Go spend time with such incredible people.  They will teach you - I guarantee it (but remember, at the end of the day it’s up to you to be happy).  

 Alright, enough with that blah-blah.  This lecture ended up a lot longer than I intended, which does not make me happy....oops....

That’s Liam’s legacy.