Forwarded to Liberally Conservative by David Goder of OneJerusalem.org [Picture added by LC]

*************

Change was the central theme of President-elect Obama’s successful campaign for the presidency. Unfortunately, neither candidate presented the American public with their positions on issues facing the American Republic. Now, the question that begs for an answer is “What Change will President Obama advocate when he formally takes office”?

While there has been some speculation of what new foreign policy initiatives may be in store The Center For American Progress is systematically making public the policy prescriptions that Obama’s brain trust is presenting to the President. The Center For American Progress is an invaluable resource for people interested in what policies an Obama Administration will promote. The Center was founded and is presided over by John Podesta who is heading up the Obama transition team. On Sunday, Podesta told Chris Wallace of Fox News that he believes that Obama was given a real mandate for change.

Now Podesta and Obama’s think tank have posted chapters of a book they have compiled for the Obama transition team. It is titled Change For America.

Given our interest in Israel we have read the foreign policy chapters that have been published. We will present a few of the highlights which we think gives a good indication of the type of change the Obama Administration will pursue. We urge everyone to read the full texts to gain more information.

Throughout these documents there are recommendations for creating new international organizations and for working through the United Nations. The concept of America ever being in a position of taking independent action in its national interest seems like an alien idea to these policy experts.

The chapter on the Department of State, written by Gregory B. Craig, includes in its introduction a clarion call for energizing the State Department. It is clear that State should be the central body promoting and implementing very ambitious changes in American policies. The policy proposals are based on the declaration that “America’s moral standing is at its lowest in modern history…”

   There is a call for the new President to take immediate public action, which includes speeches in European capitals and a major address in a Muslim capital: “He should give a speech in a major Muslim capital – perhaps in Cairo or Beirut or Jakarta – that rejects the clash of cultures, that pays respect to mainstream Islam, and that calls for a new era of dialogue, understanding and tolerance.”

On the Middle East Peace Process the recommendation is made for the President to be personally engaged, for the appointment of a special envoy with the authority to speak for government of the United States, and for the convening of an international summit.

In several places the author reiterates the need for the President to be personally involved in this process. It leaves no doubt that the Palestinian-Israeli relationship is of the highest priority. It is also clear that the objectives are the same as those of the Bush Administration: The creation of a Palestinian State.

The need for the President to make this a personal priority is underlined with the recommendation that the President should make a speech on the topic of the two state solution in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Analysis: As anyone who reads this post or the full chapter can see these policy proposals are based on the questionable premise that the Israel-Palestinian relationship is one of the most important foreign policy challenges facing the United States, therefore it requires personal Presidential involvement. It treats the Palestinians and the Israelis as equals (there is no special relationship between the only two democratic societies: Israel and the United States).

It falsely assumes that there is a rational, peaceful party to negotiate with on the Palestinian side. And it is fair to suspect that by the President giving a speech in the Old City of Jerusalem that they propose dividing the Old City — the heart of the Jewish nation.

But perhaps most disturbing is the support for ignoring Israel’s sovereignty as a free state and inviting the international community, i.e. Israel’s enemies into the decision making process. Anyone familiar with Israel’s treatment at the United Nations knows that Israel has had only one friend to count on in the international arena: The United States. These proposals support the ending of that relationship.

*************

Source: One Jerusalem