The president was in Israel, Palestine (a few minutes), Bahrein, etc. It is a constant surprise to hear him talk about peace, though to be fair, he speaks of it only after security, freedom, etc., as a sort of automatic by-product. He had the obligatory mention concerning the settlements: they must stop. One wants to ask him: which? the present extensions on Har Homa and Ma’alei Adumim? Or all of them? He doesn’t mention UN Resolution 242, or at least I haven’t heard him say it. And I remember him a number of years ago speaking of “facts on the ground” that would have to be taken into account, just the language Ariel Sharon and others on the right hoped to hear.
Back to the US: I wish I could believe in Clinton, but distrust the way she is making the kind of close calculations her husband did. After Bill Clinton’s election in 92, it was disappointing, to say the least, to see him delegate the vital issue of national health to his wife and not be willing to spend essential political capital himself on this project. I thought at the time she should have been the president. But now? Would she be able to tackle such an issue any more sucessfully now, let alone phase out the military adventures in the Middle East and in Asia? I think political calculations would take over…

Meanwhile, the governor in California speaks of tightening the budgetary belt. He was happy enough to buy votes by cancelling taxes (DMV) once upon a time. Happy to issue a lot of bond paper too, as his predecessors. Happy to pick the pockets of school districts, promise them the money would be returned, which didn’t happen. And now he is going to pick what crumbs are left in public pockets…