While Powell's hand's may not have been soiled when it comes to the aftermath of Hamas in Gaza, the simple fact that Powell acquesced to the "non-inteference" policy toward Israel in its conflict with Palestinians means that his hands are dirty nontheless.

The problem is that there is nothing that suggests that, had Powell remained Sec. of State, that he would have done anything but acquiesce to the anti-Hamas policy, just as he acquiesced to just about every other policy that he now tells us he disagreed with.

Lots of people have been saying what Powell is now saying --- and I don't see any reason to praise him for simply "making sense" when he does so only after leaving office.

Talk is cheap.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at July 22, 2007 04:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Basic" common sense from Powell would have been to address the Israeli settlement question, not whether to "engage" (whatever that means) with Hamas.

There are real limits to which the United States can pick winners and losers in Arab factional politics, something Crooke's book reviews underline. No matter what it does, it will always have some of the local Arabs for it, some against it, and some others looking on with suspicion. But one thing Palestinians all share is an intense dislike for continued expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and these settlements don't serve any American interest either. Even most Israelis don't approve of them, though the defective structure of Israel's parliamentary system has given those who care primarily about expanding settlements the whip hand in determining government policy in this area.

The reasons the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to this issue are too well known to be recited here. I understand why it has (though all previous American administrations at least disapproved publicly of settlement expansion, backing down in the face of pro-Israel sentiment in Congress), even if I think its attitude not only wrong but undignified -- American foreign policy should not be made by a minority of the Knesset.

What I understand much less well is why a retired official like Colin Powell, who has nothing to lose by straying from the foreign policy establishment herd occasionally, never has on this point. Talk to Hamas whether they renounce terrorism or not and whether they recognize Israel's right to exist or not -- all your mainstream foreign policy types can bat that question back and forth for months and work themselves up into a real lather. But it isn't the essential issue. The settlements are.

Maybe Powell just doesn't see this. No one's every accused him of being an original thinker, which is probably why Greg holds him in such high regard. But this insight is not particulary original, it just isn't where all the people Powell knows are at the moment. Maybe he's waiting for decisive, overwhelming force to arrive on the scene before committing himself.

Posted by: Zathras at July 22, 2007 09:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

Powell gets a lot of flak for his falling for the same bullshit many of us did prior to getting the facts that are 'uncooked".

But one thing he can still be criticized for is his inherent fear
of risk and the concomitant loss of his personal dignity. He has
been wrong before and he is loathe to make that mistake again.

If he really wants to recoup his dignity he should come clean
IN TOTO. Damn the torpedoes, the National Welfare is at stake.

Posted by: Semanticleo at July 23, 2007 12:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

v

Posted by: Semanticleo at July 23, 2007 12:59 AM | Permalink to this comment

Semantic:

Powell, unlike the rest of us, was in a position to "know better" about Iraq. Indeed, he now tells us that he did know better. But what did he do? He goes before the UN and seels the world and the US a shoddy bill of goods about WMDs. When the honrable thing would have been to resign as a protest against the policy.

I really do not care to hear from Colin Powell. His insights are pablum and his past is compromised. And by telling the Euros what they wanted to hear, and by self-isolating himself in the Administration, he turned out to be one awful Secretary of State. Condi isn't impressive, but at least when somebody talks to her, they do have the confidence that comes from talking to someone with the President's ear.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at July 23, 2007 01:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

zathras
nobody talks about the settlements. It must be un-american or something.
I am sure if any of the candidates mentioned them they would be immediately branded anti-semitic. Yet it would the best way to get the palestianians confidence. sadly nobody will do it.

Posted by: bill at July 24, 2007 01:08 AM | Permalink to this comment

AM;

I don't think the country can afford to dismiss any and all who finally
'come to Jesus' about this Admin. WingNut Nation would have a field day with his mea culpa, as they do any 'traitor' from the inner circle. But we need as many voices shouting at the Jericho Walls as we can muster.
Time's a wastin'.

Posted by: Semanticleo at July 24, 2007 02:28 AM | Permalink to this comment

Greg-

Two things: 1) is Chris Hill the greatest foreign diplomat since Lafayette?

(and 2) did I see a Djerejian listed (as a contributer) on the ISG report? I read it belatedly. Not exactly Smith or Brown, if ya' get my drift....)

As to the former, Hill's achievement hasn't gotten near the media coverage it's due. Not long ago, one of the more celebrated whines re Iraq was that Jong-il was the one WITH the WMD, and that he was the tiger to be tamed. In short, we were in the right church, wrong pew. That, followed by tirade ad nauseam that Bush's character assassination of him-axis of evil-would forever leave the DPRK more intransigent than a smitten mother-in-law.

Enter Chris the Magnifico. Or in the immortal words, sort of, of Butch and Sundance, " who is this guy?" Barely a full-moon elapses, and he's managed to charm and disarm the 21st century's antichrist. No nukes, no mas.

Chris Hill, in short, has caught the devil by his tail. Let's hope we can keep him confined.

Posted by: reshufflex at July 24, 2007 03:13 AM | Permalink to this comment

Semantic:

Actually, for any good to be done, the folks who need to come to Jesus are enough GOP senators to dodge a filibuster or a veto. And, like the Pharoh, even after plagues of locusts, they waiver for a little while, but harden their hearts at the exact point a decision get made.

The campaign, at this point, needs to be on the GOP senators who are up for reeelection. I'll see what I can do on Saxby Chambliss (my Senator.) What are you going to do?

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at July 24, 2007 12:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

AM;

I've been calling Boxer to suggest they look at the debt ceiling as a means to defund. But I think the capper is when public opinion rises to a majority for impeachment, then the 60-vote threshold is a done deal.

Posted by: Semanticleo at July 24, 2007 04:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

Z--But I guess it's a stunningly original insight that settlements are the only issue, and that other final status issues like jerusalem, borders, '48 refugees/right of return don't matter at all, eh, including testing the political wing of Hamas' views thereto through exploratory quartet outreach? But sorry, i'll exit comments now to join other "mainstream foreign policy types", the better to get into a good 'lather' on today's topic: "Hamas: To Talk, or Not to Talk."

Posted by: greg djerejian at July 25, 2007 08:09 PM | Permalink to this comment