Why make this the fight?

(photo by sumeja @ StockXCHNG)
Recent U.S. election results showed foreign policy as the central issue. Initial calls for unity and bipartisanship have resulted in a rather immediate reversal of that spirit, however. The demand that John Bolton continue as UN Ambassador shows an intransigency that does not bode well for the bipartisan honeymoon. Our current president and his advisers did not have to go in this direction. Read more from this Boston Globe story, from which I quote:

President Bush will not relent in his defense of John Bolton, his nominee for UN ambassador, despite unwavering opposition from Democrats who view Bolton as too combative for international diplomacy, aides said yesterday.
Two of Bush's top advisers said the White House is not backing down from a fight to win Senate approval for Bolton to continue in the job. Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. That appointment will expire when Congress adjourns, no later than January.

The current administration continues its insistence on its nomination of John Bolton as the UN Ambassador, throwing down a gauntlet that is sure to provoke a fight with Senate Democrats. The Financial Times reported yesterday that, quote,

The promise of bipartisan co-operation in Washington following the congressional mid-term elections came under immediate strain on Sunday as the White House squared up to the Democrats over the US ambassador to the United Nations and strategy for Iraq.

It has become the White House vs. the Senate. Steve Clemons of The Washington Note always has his finger on the pulse of this nomination's status, and his post brings added nuance to the controversy.
The United Nations Security Council is where Bolton represents the U.S., often in an undiplomatic way. That has been one of the reasons for the Bolton opposition. Peace or war has been the question between Palestine and Israel for far too many decades, and in better times the U.S. led the way. A recent development has the militant Palestinian group, Hamas, agreeing to an Arab League call for a peace conference with Israel. Quoting from a (11/12/06) story from CNN.com,

The Hamas-led Palestinian government agreed Sunday to an international peace conference with Israel. The decision came after the Arab League -- angered by Israel's military offensive in Gaza -- agreed to end a financial blockade on the Palestinians.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar of Hamas endorsed a statement by Arab foreign ministers calling for the peace conference during a meeting in Cairo to respond to a U.S. veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Gaza offensive.
. . . Arab ministers also decided Sunday to end a financial blockade on the Palestinians to show their anger over U.S. veto in the Security Council on Saturday. The U.N. draft resolution would have condemned the Israeli offensive in Gaza that has killed more 50 people recently and also demanded that Israeli troops pull out of the territory. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the Arab-backed resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated."
It was the second U.S. veto of a draft resolution on Israeli military operations in Gaza this year.

Bolton's style regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reflects the much wider adminstration stubbornness in the Middle East- UN Ambassador John Bolton has a reputation for being stubborn, that reflects that of his bosses. The U.S. has used its veto for a second time since Bolton got his temporary appointment, according to stories by Reuters for Yahoo! News. A related article on 11/12 by Jeffrey Heller discusses further developments related to the potential change in the U.S. focus on the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in Washington to meet with President Bush about the looming questions of how to relate to Iran and Palestine. To quote,

A mid-term U.S. election last week showing deep popular dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has also raised speculation in Israel that Bush could try to cap his two-term presidency with progress on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
Olmert heaped praise on moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas last week, calling him "upfront, decent and against terror," in an apparent signal that he would be the focus of any new U.S. or Israeli peace efforts.
"The Palestinian issue is on the agenda. There is no way we can ignore it. We have to find the best partner," Olmert told Newsweek magazine in an interview published over the weekend.
But any moves on the Palestinian front would likely require a remake of the government headed by Hamas, an Islamist group that has rejected demands by the United States and other peace brokers to change dramatically its position toward Israel.

Perhaps the spitit of bipartisan foreign policy can be revived, once the administration understands in its gut that it can no longer be blustering business as usual. There are some tough "new kids" in town who are clearly willing to take a firm stand for a more peaceful, less macho, style with the rest of the world.
Technorati tags: bush democrats election israel republicans war news news and politics politics peace Middle East United Nations Bolton
My "creative post" today at Southwest Blogger is about free photo and art resources from the web.
My “dreams and dreaming” post today at Good Second Mondays is about searching.