Tweet
Ha'aretz, Israel
Feb. 25, 2008
Obama`s top adviser says does not believe in imposing a peace
settlement
WASHINGTON D.C. - The knock at the door of her hotel room on Friday
halts the conversation for a moment. No big deal, just to check
whether Samantha Power drank from the minibar. Is she that troubled?
Power responds with a brief laugh. The minibar remains sealed. That
does not mean that the attacks do not bother her. In the course of
the 50-minute conversation she leaves no stone unturned.
Knowing precisely what was written about her, what was quoted, she
tries to refute, explain. Most of the things that were written are
"misleading," she states. They are "a mark of desperation" on the
part of those who do not want Senator Barack Obama as America's next
president, "And fear that is where he is now headed."
The attacks on Obama in connection with Israel come in waves. There
was the Zbigniew Brzezinski wave, against the former adviser to Jimmy
Carter and current Obama supporter. Then came the Rob Malley wave,
against the former adviser to Bill Clinton and current Obama
supporter. Now the name of the game is Samantha Power. Not that the
others have been forgotten; they'll be back, but you need a little
variety. And Power, in contrast to Brzezinski and Malley, plays a key
role in Obama's campaign. As one of his closest advisers, she is a
far more significant target.
She knows it's not personal: "They attack me to hurt Barack," she
says, referring to the candidate by his first name, as she will do
throughout the interview. She's not showing off; they really are
close. Malley doesn't speak with Obama in person. Power has many
hours of conversation with him.
She came to New York to launch her book, fresh off the press, about
Sergio Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian diplomat with the United Nations
who spent years tackling various humanitarian crises, until he was
killed in Iraq in 2003. She opens the conversation with a reference
to this book, which her critics now quote. De Mello was in Lebanon in
1982 when Israel started the Lebanon War, and didn't like what he
saw. She quotes him, among other things, calling the Israelis
"bastards." She says the book depicts its subject's thoughts, not her
own. But "the book is now used to attack me." For example, because of
the following paragraph: "The Security Council were not prepared to
deal with the gnarly issues that had sparked the Israelis' invasion
in the first place: dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli
insecurity."
Power would like to go through like this, item by item, and repel
every attack. There isn't enough space to cover all of these attacks,
and all the defenses. In recent weeks, a young and talented writer
named Noah Pollack, who writes for the right-wing magazine
Commentary, has delved deeply into Power's statements on record.
Among other things, he found the following things she said, in a 2002
interview, about what should be done to stop the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict: "[It will] mean sacrificing - or investing, I think, more
than sacrificing - billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's
military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in
investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to
support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the
old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."
In that same interview, Power said that the situation will "require
external intervention." Pollack very reasonably interpreted this as
an expression of support for a "ground invasion of Israel and the
Palestinian territories." Otherwise, he wrote, what did she mean when
she spoke of "a mammoth protection force"?
Power herself recognizes that the statement is problematic. "Even I
don't understand it," she says. And also: "This makes no sense to
me." And furthermore: "The quote seems so weird." She thinks that she
made this statement in the context of discussing the deployment of
international peacekeepers. But this was a very long time ago,
circumstances were different, and it's hard for her to reconstruct
exactly what she meant. Anyway, what she she said five years ago is
less important that what she wants to say now: She absolutely does
not believe in "imposing a settlement." Israelis and Arabs "will
negotiate their own peace."
In any case, she stresses, this is not exactly her field. Power is
the Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public
Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Her
reputation stems largely from her excellent previous book, "A Problem
>From Hell," which documents the world's indifference to genocide,
>From the Armenians to Rwandans. It earned her a Pulitzer Prize and
made her an extremely popular speaker among Jewish communities in
America, which are very active in areas that are her bread and
butter, such as stopping the killing in Darfur, Sudan.
Power is somewhat frustrated by the need to address every snippet of
past statements. After all, the candidate himself, Obama, has
expressed clear positions on nearly every matter relating to the
Middle East. Like others among Obama's supporters and campaign staff,
she thinks that a problem with Obama's critics is that they tend to
ignore completely what he himself says. As though his words are
merely of secondary importance, and what reflects his true opinion
are all sorts of past quotes from close and not-so-close aides.
But the truth is that critics have also turned the spotlight on
current quotes from Power, for instance from a recent column she
wrote for Time Magazine, in which she complains that "the Bush
Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a
claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye
rolling when the claim is disproved." Once again Power's critics
maintained: She believes that Iran is not dangerous, and accepts as
fact the pathetic National Intelligence Estimate.
But she doesn't understand what all the fuss is about: She doesn't
claim that the NIE is correct, but rather that the international
community is using it to fend off Bush on the Iranian issue. And lest
there be any doubt: "I do not underestimate the threat that is Iran."
Her objective - Obama's objective - is "to neutralize Iran."
Iran is one of the items troubling Israel supporters who scrutinize
Obama's positions. The former Israeli ambassador to Washington, Danny
Ayalon, demanded that the candidate explain what he means to gain by
meeting Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Power volunteers to do
so. "Do people have the right to be worried? Of course," she says.
Just so long as they portray accurately what we say.
With regard to Iran: "Reasonable people can agree or disagree on the
issue of meeting with Ahmadinejad," but here's what she thinks: The
chance of persuading Ahmadinejad may not be great, but it is worth
examining, and a meeting "will increase the chance for mobilizing
international sanctions, because the world will be reminded that
Ahmadinejad is the problem," not America as many now believe.
And it's fine by her that not everyone agrees with that approach, but
she is not willing to put up with distortion of her positions, or
those of the candidate. Mainly, she says, she finds "sickening the
claims that raise the suspicion that there is some anti-Semitic
undertones to our views."
In the interest of brevity, here, in a nutshell, are several more of
Power's positions: Immediate and intensified involvement in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It has to be resolved first of all
for the benefit of the parties involved, but also to preevent
"cynical Arab leaders" from exploiting the conflict as a tool for
justifying their policies.
She thinks that the talks between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are being held "in good faith."
Asked who is to blame for there being no agreement yet, Power says
there is no point expanding on that, but emphasizes that "I've never
blamed Israel for the failed talks" (at Camp David). But precisely
how should these talks be handled, and what should the goal be? She's
no expert on that, she says, and suggests calling Dan (Shapiro), the
campaign's adviser on the Middle East, or Dennis (Ross), who also
advises Obama (advises - but is not an adviser).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Feb. 25, 2008
Obama`s top adviser says does not believe in imposing a peace
settlement
WASHINGTON D.C. - The knock at the door of her hotel room on Friday
halts the conversation for a moment. No big deal, just to check
whether Samantha Power drank from the minibar. Is she that troubled?
Power responds with a brief laugh. The minibar remains sealed. That
does not mean that the attacks do not bother her. In the course of
the 50-minute conversation she leaves no stone unturned.
Knowing precisely what was written about her, what was quoted, she
tries to refute, explain. Most of the things that were written are
"misleading," she states. They are "a mark of desperation" on the
part of those who do not want Senator Barack Obama as America's next
president, "And fear that is where he is now headed."
The attacks on Obama in connection with Israel come in waves. There
was the Zbigniew Brzezinski wave, against the former adviser to Jimmy
Carter and current Obama supporter. Then came the Rob Malley wave,
against the former adviser to Bill Clinton and current Obama
supporter. Now the name of the game is Samantha Power. Not that the
others have been forgotten; they'll be back, but you need a little
variety. And Power, in contrast to Brzezinski and Malley, plays a key
role in Obama's campaign. As one of his closest advisers, she is a
far more significant target.
She knows it's not personal: "They attack me to hurt Barack," she
says, referring to the candidate by his first name, as she will do
throughout the interview. She's not showing off; they really are
close. Malley doesn't speak with Obama in person. Power has many
hours of conversation with him.
She came to New York to launch her book, fresh off the press, about
Sergio Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian diplomat with the United Nations
who spent years tackling various humanitarian crises, until he was
killed in Iraq in 2003. She opens the conversation with a reference
to this book, which her critics now quote. De Mello was in Lebanon in
1982 when Israel started the Lebanon War, and didn't like what he
saw. She quotes him, among other things, calling the Israelis
"bastards." She says the book depicts its subject's thoughts, not her
own. But "the book is now used to attack me." For example, because of
the following paragraph: "The Security Council were not prepared to
deal with the gnarly issues that had sparked the Israelis' invasion
in the first place: dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli
insecurity."
Power would like to go through like this, item by item, and repel
every attack. There isn't enough space to cover all of these attacks,
and all the defenses. In recent weeks, a young and talented writer
named Noah Pollack, who writes for the right-wing magazine
Commentary, has delved deeply into Power's statements on record.
Among other things, he found the following things she said, in a 2002
interview, about what should be done to stop the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict: "[It will] mean sacrificing - or investing, I think, more
than sacrificing - billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's
military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in
investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to
support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the
old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."
In that same interview, Power said that the situation will "require
external intervention." Pollack very reasonably interpreted this as
an expression of support for a "ground invasion of Israel and the
Palestinian territories." Otherwise, he wrote, what did she mean when
she spoke of "a mammoth protection force"?
Power herself recognizes that the statement is problematic. "Even I
don't understand it," she says. And also: "This makes no sense to
me." And furthermore: "The quote seems so weird." She thinks that she
made this statement in the context of discussing the deployment of
international peacekeepers. But this was a very long time ago,
circumstances were different, and it's hard for her to reconstruct
exactly what she meant. Anyway, what she she said five years ago is
less important that what she wants to say now: She absolutely does
not believe in "imposing a settlement." Israelis and Arabs "will
negotiate their own peace."
In any case, she stresses, this is not exactly her field. Power is
the Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public
Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Her
reputation stems largely from her excellent previous book, "A Problem
>From Hell," which documents the world's indifference to genocide,
>From the Armenians to Rwandans. It earned her a Pulitzer Prize and
made her an extremely popular speaker among Jewish communities in
America, which are very active in areas that are her bread and
butter, such as stopping the killing in Darfur, Sudan.
Power is somewhat frustrated by the need to address every snippet of
past statements. After all, the candidate himself, Obama, has
expressed clear positions on nearly every matter relating to the
Middle East. Like others among Obama's supporters and campaign staff,
she thinks that a problem with Obama's critics is that they tend to
ignore completely what he himself says. As though his words are
merely of secondary importance, and what reflects his true opinion
are all sorts of past quotes from close and not-so-close aides.
But the truth is that critics have also turned the spotlight on
current quotes from Power, for instance from a recent column she
wrote for Time Magazine, in which she complains that "the Bush
Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a
claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye
rolling when the claim is disproved." Once again Power's critics
maintained: She believes that Iran is not dangerous, and accepts as
fact the pathetic National Intelligence Estimate.
But she doesn't understand what all the fuss is about: She doesn't
claim that the NIE is correct, but rather that the international
community is using it to fend off Bush on the Iranian issue. And lest
there be any doubt: "I do not underestimate the threat that is Iran."
Her objective - Obama's objective - is "to neutralize Iran."
Iran is one of the items troubling Israel supporters who scrutinize
Obama's positions. The former Israeli ambassador to Washington, Danny
Ayalon, demanded that the candidate explain what he means to gain by
meeting Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Power volunteers to do
so. "Do people have the right to be worried? Of course," she says.
Just so long as they portray accurately what we say.
With regard to Iran: "Reasonable people can agree or disagree on the
issue of meeting with Ahmadinejad," but here's what she thinks: The
chance of persuading Ahmadinejad may not be great, but it is worth
examining, and a meeting "will increase the chance for mobilizing
international sanctions, because the world will be reminded that
Ahmadinejad is the problem," not America as many now believe.
And it's fine by her that not everyone agrees with that approach, but
she is not willing to put up with distortion of her positions, or
those of the candidate. Mainly, she says, she finds "sickening the
claims that raise the suspicion that there is some anti-Semitic
undertones to our views."
In the interest of brevity, here, in a nutshell, are several more of
Power's positions: Immediate and intensified involvement in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It has to be resolved first of all
for the benefit of the parties involved, but also to preevent
"cynical Arab leaders" from exploiting the conflict as a tool for
justifying their policies.
She thinks that the talks between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are being held "in good faith."
Asked who is to blame for there being no agreement yet, Power says
there is no point expanding on that, but emphasizes that "I've never
blamed Israel for the failed talks" (at Camp David). But precisely
how should these talks be handled, and what should the goal be? She's
no expert on that, she says, and suggests calling Dan (Shapiro), the
campaign's adviser on the Middle East, or Dennis (Ross), who also
advises Obama (advises - but is not an adviser).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress