This guy's point makes a lot of sense to me - don't expect Zero or the NYT to understand it though

Actually, Obama's Speeches Aren't That Good, Either: Walter Mead gives
President Obama failing marks for his Middle East policies, in
particular his policies toward Israel and the Palestinians. But Mead
also argues that Obama's speeches are pretty good, even though his
policies have failed.
This seems to capture President Obama's Middle East problems in a
nutshell. The President's descriptions of the situation are
comprehensive and urbane. He correctly identifies the forces at work. He
develops interesting policy ideas and approaches that address important
political and moral elements of the complex problems we face. He crafts
approaches that might, with good will and deft management, bridge the
gaps between the sides. He reads thoughtful speeches full of sensible
reflections.
What Mead — and Obama — don't grasp is that Obama's speeches are part of
the problem. A large part of the problem.

Let me begin with the obvious: When two sides distrust each other as
much as Israelis and Palestinians do, successful negotiations will
almost certainly have to be secret. By trying to negotiate in public,
Obama has made a private deal less likely.

Even those who don't follow these events closely could see that
happening. Obama began by calling for unilateral Israeli concessions,
and did so in an insulting way. (Obama and his team may have been hoping
to drive Prime Minister Netanyahu from power.) The Israeli government,
naturally, hardened their stance. The West Bank Palestinians demanded
that the Israelis give in before they would even start to negotiate.

And when the Obama administration couldn't deliver those Israeli
concessions, the West Bank government moved closer to Hamas, its deadly
enemies in the Gaza Strip.

If Obama had said nothing, we might have seen, instead, the continued
growth of pragmatic cooperation between the West Bank government and
Israel. The successes of that cooperation, though neither side
celebrated them in public, were already, when Obama took office, great
enough to give us hope for more cooperation between the two sides.

Sometimes, the best thing a president can say is — nothing.

(It is understandable, I suppose, that an academic like Mead, who is
judged by his words, would not realize that Obama should say less. But I
think that any good negotiator, any good marriage counselor for example,
would understand the value, in some situations, of silence.)
- 8:25 AM, 26 May 2011 [link

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.