The Opportunity To Support 'Disengagement'

Finally, I can now support a 'disengagement' policy, as Jennifer Rubin describes Obama's predicament:

It was always going to be a challenge for the Obama administration to maintain a policy of engagement with regimes and actors who so obviously have no interest in being engaged...there has been precious little evidence that these players [N. Korea & the PA] are interested in adopting fundamental changes (e.g. giving up nuclear capability, recognizing a Jewish state, etc.) — which is the desired end result of engagement. But in the last few weeks the veneer of plausibility has been chipped away, country by country.

North Korea was the first to go...

Then we had Israel and the Palestinians. Happy talk toward the “Muslim World” and harsh words for Israel. The Palestinians balk when the Israeli Prime Minister reminds them this is all about recognizing a Jewish state. What’s changed? Who is to be engaged? Well there’s a head-scratcher. In the meantime, Obama can pester Israel about settlements.

Then comes Iran...

...One senses the Obama team is longing to hold on to the shreds of their tattered engagement vision...[but]...It is time for a new approach that does not entail self-delusion and doesn’t require historical distortion.

Moreover, the pipe dream that engagement could keep the world at bay and conflicts quiet...is proving unrealistic...