Weekend notes: An unfinished business

It's time for the shortened version of my print edition weekend column (my usual partner, Aluf benn, is still away, so all complains should be directed at me). You can read the entire piece here, or just a couple of paragraphs here:

Truman

This week, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan went to Truman's hometown, Independence, to end his term with a speech filled with criticism for President George W. Bush's administration. The speech was full of longing for that other president. In order for the international system to function, he said, it "still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition."

It's funny how Truman has been transformed into the symbol of sane, desirable American leadership. At the end of 1952, when he finished his term as president, he had the support of only 32 percent of the American public - the lowest of any modern president with the exception of Richard Nixon. Annan, however, preferred to mention the establishment of the UN and Truman's support for the institution. Perhaps Annan chose to focus on this as a slap to the incumbent, in recognition of the extent to which Bush draws encouragement from the transformation of the Truman legacy that came many years after he returned to his home in Independence.

Truman, who started the Cold War, did not get to see Gorbachev come to Missouri to announce its end. Bush believes that the war that began under his watch will also end many years into the future, perhaps in a celebratory speech in Texas.

Congress

When it comes to Israel, Congress offered a fair amount this week: It extended the U.S. loan guarantees, approved an increase in the U.S. emergency weapons pre-positioning in Israel and condemned the Holocaust deniers' conference in Iran. All the decisions garnered a large majority, as expected. There were also a few topics that were not put to a vote, such as the approval of funds for American-Israeli cooperation on energy issues and a budget for developing homeland security methods that will benefit many Israeli companies when it (presumably) is passed by the incoming Congress.

The anti-Hamas law, in the softened format proposed by the Senate, also finally passed this week, by a large majority. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which restricts aid to the Palestinian Authority until the Hamas-controlled government meets certain key criteria, has been altered and updated many times since the original, tougher version that the House wanted. In between, there was a bit of arm-twisting among the different lobbyists involved in Israel issues and odd acrobatics by American for Peace Now. The organization objected strenuously to the original formulation, then enthusiastically supported the Senate's more moderate version - and this week it publicly asked the president not to sign the act it had promoted. The organization explains the reversal stems from the change in the situation in the Mideast, contending that such legislation is liable to damage the positive atmosphere created in the wake of the cease-fire. The argument is slightly strange, since legislation is a long-term commitment and will continue to be in force when the situation changes yet again.

Intelligence

Sources scanning the horizon say there will not be a big difference between the Republican-held outgoing Congress and the Democratic-majority incoming one regarding efforts to get Palestinian-Israeli negotiations rolling. "The Democrats understand that there are very few cards that can be played," an Israeli official said this week. An aide to a leading Democratic senator explained the situation by saying that Democrats want to do something but must first see whether there is anyone to do it with.

The Democrats in the new Congress will begin their new jobs full of motivation to act but occasionally short of experience and background. Thus, to their great embarrassment, it turned out this week that the new chairman of the House intelligence committee, a Democrat from Texas, still has a lot to learn before he can reliably question top administration and intelligence agency officials about their work and their predictions.

His name is Silvestre Reyes; he is 62, fifth term congressman, and won the position of committee chairman by default. The most fitting candidate for the job, Rep. Jane Harman from California, lost it over differences with the new House majority leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, also from California - differences that were more personal than topical. Pelosi had to pass on the next candidate, Rep. Alcee Hastings from Florida, due to corruption scandals that have previously been linked to him. A former American administration official said this week that what happened to Pelosi was exactly what happened to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with Defense Minister Amir Peretz: an appointment to a sensitive security post that was based primarily on political, not professional, considerations, and that ends up in widespread embarrassment.

Iran

On Monday several experts gathered to discuss Iran at the Cato Institute. Many of them focused on one of the biggest problems facing the decision-makers as they think about where to turn: the lack of intelligence about Iran.

The Iranian regime, Welch said in his Saban Forum speech, "is our greatest global security challenge" - that is to say that it endangers not only America but the entire world. But at the Cato Institute, it turned out that there were as many solutions as there were speakers. Aside from the president, no one knows what he plans to decide, what he plans to do, if anything. After all, just as Annan is leaving his position without a diplomatic solution to the crisis, Bush will be able to do the same in two years - leaving the headache to his successor, the Republican John McCain or the Democrat Hillary Clinton, who are looking and acting like the leading candidates for the upcoming elections.

McCain and Clinton speak about Iran with the requisite toughness. McCain did it again this week, at a Hanukkah dinner at Yeshiva University in New York, where he called the Iranian nuclear program "an unacceptable risk." The panel of experts convened by Haaretz for the fourth time to rank the candidates in the race for the White House gave McCain and Clinton relatively high marks. Or, to be more accurate: McCain got a high score and Clinton got a relatively high score compared to the other Democratic candidates.


More Diplomacy on Rosner's Domain:

What I said (and what I meant) about Carter's book.

The Israeli interest in Iraq: who has the answer?.

The Israel Factor: Ranking the American Presidential candidates.