Window on Israel: Obama's strength is also his weakness

Barack Obama won the most powerful office in the world, along the way promising widespread changes that magnified expectations. Now he has won the most prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. The Committee has cited him for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples."
 
Extraordinary efforts there have been. The question is whether they have excited expectations beyond capacity. I remember a teacher telling me that effort is fine, but it is accomplishment that pays the bills.

On the same day as the announcement of the Nobel, there appeared two articles in respected journals that lambasted him for naivete and hubris.
 
The Economist noted that on the less-than-hot-button issue of the Olympics, Obama put his reputation on the line with a high-profile trip to Copenhagen, along with his wife, only to see Rio get the nod over Chicago.
 
The journal also joined those noting that the war in Afghanistan is not going well. The president finds himself in squabbles not only involving Taliban and al Qaeda, but also his lead general, vice president, congressional democrats and republicans, not to mention talk show vipers.
 
On his primary domestic initiative, the administration-friendly Washington Post headlines a dirty fight between a health insurance company and a prominent hospital, each accusing the other of putting profit ahead of patient care. Sick people who thought themselves insured are in the middle, being threatened with bills they cannot pay. 
 
Will this help the president advance his initiative, or does it point to the fatal illness of profit-making firms too heavily involved in health care?
 
Commentators on one of Israel's most prominent news programs ridiculed the president for not getting the message about the Middle East. His point man has arrived on another trip to the region, seemingly seeking the same concessions that Israeli leaders have already rejected.
 
The major headline in Ha'aretz notes that the White House is "furious over Israeli incitement against President Barack Obama." Is this a threat meant to force Israel into changing its decision about a settlement freeze, with or without parallel concessions from the Arab side? The Nobel will add to the pressure. Must Jerusalem be behind Oslo in recognizing the President's genius?
 
Barack Obama is a fascinating individual. He is also sitting in the world's most important seat. Observers the world over risk a great deal if they fail to understand him. Yet the task is not easy.
 
None doubt his intelligence, and it would not be wise to disparage his sincerity and aspirations. If the test of a Nobel Peace Prize is "extraordinary effort" in behalf of peace, he deserves it. Ironically, the Nobel committees that award prizes in other fields are wary of bright new stars. They demand a test of decades before deciding a candidate is worthy. The Peace Prize committee works by different rules.

Obama got the nod with less than 10 months in office. Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin shared the prize in 1994 for a deal made in 1993, that was in shambles less than a decade later.
 
Obama's magic is a source of strength and weakness. Race and religion are helpful in understanding him. He speaks like a African-American preacher. The music of his voice is captivating, and his words inspiring. His themes of change and engagement are thrilling. They evoke hope and progress, rather than the hate associated with the preacher that may have taught Obama the cadence of his style. The president is more like Martin Luther King than Jeremiah Wright.
 
Yet he may be too much the minister and not enough the politician. He plays to magnificent ideals rather than to possible deals. He is on the spiritual, rather than the pragmatic plane. He talks of eternal truths rather than interests - but politicians deal in interests.
 
This is apparent especially in his international efforts. He has shown himself able to gain the support of the masses in Europe, as well as that of the Nobel Committee in Oslo. But hesitance, rather than confidence, is what we have heard from those who lead the governments of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Germany and Israel. Afghanistan is on the other side of the dark mountain, and shows no sign of being touched by his magic.
 
The New York Times called the Nobel award a "mixed blessing." It drew attention to the fact that while much of the world was celebrating him as the "anti-Bush," he has not broken as fully as he once implied he would from the previous administration's national security policies. And it set off another round of mocking criticism from opponents who have chafed at what they see as the charmed and entitled rise of Mr. Obama.
 
His efficacy in the domestic arena remains uncertain; healthcare is the great test, and it illustrates the problem with his lofty goals and spirituality. Individuals who are not members of his political church oppose him with unusually bitter animosity, and may be dangerous. Thomas Friedman sees a parallel between American responses to the health proposal and extremist Israelis who cursed the Oslo Accords in the months before one of them murdered Yitzhak Rabin. 

It is appropriate to use the term fanaticism to describe much of the opposition to the President's health initiative. Slogans of death committees, socialism and rationing are too highly charged, when every other Western democracy employs the principal devices being discussed without damaging individual freedom, and producing indicators of health that put the United States to shame.
 
Antagonism comes along with threats. According to a CNN anchor, "a source ... close to the US Secret Service confirmed ... that death threats against Barack Obama ... go far beyond anything the Secret Service has seen with any other president."
 
There are elements of racism in the antagonism to the president in his own country. Accusations of his being Muslim and having been born in Kenya are not far from the stereotypes used by the Klan, Neo-Nazis and their kin. Claims that his health proposal is contrary to American tradition also condemn him as the hostile other.
 
Obama personifies a recurring question regarding the American presidency and other heads of state. Is their function to make policy or to define uplifting aspirations, even if they are beyond reach? Great themes may win elections and excite the crowds afterward, but may not accomplish much that is tangible. Franklin Roosevelt is a rare example of a leader who was both exciting and effective, but scholars are still arguing about how he did it.

Ronald Reagan generated enthusiasm and may have contributed to the end of the Cold War, or that might have occurred in any case on account of internal collapse culminating in the last years of the Soviet Union.
 
Nine and one half months might have produced a record good enough for the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not enough to decide if President Obama is closer to Franklin Roosevelt or to the lesser figures who have held his office.

Those of us who admire his aspirations but are skeptical about his prospects should hope that he does not end up like another bright star who generated great passion - John Kennedy.