Mr. Miller instead of opting for the foreign policy techno-chatter favored by other ‘Experts’, favors something that resembles the cliche ridden patois of the sports announcer of American football. Although Mr. Miller has no talent for the necessary brevity of between the plays commentary. File this under the melodramatic heading of Obama’s last year meditation, and a complete waste of the reader’s time. For a grim, but utterly realistic appraisal of Israel as Western/World conundrum, see Perry Anderson’s essay at The New Left Review titled The House of Zion:
‘Since the turn of the century, the Arab states have come to constitute a zone for Western military intervention without parallel in the post-Cold War world—us invasion of Iraq, nato bombardment of Libya, us proxies in Syria, Washington-backed gcc assault on Yemen. What of their traditional enemy? At the time of the second Intifada, an essay in these pages surveyed the balance of forces between the two nationalisms, Zionist and Palestinian, reflected in the naked inequities of the Oslo Accords.  Since then, how much has changed? On the West Bank, very little. The first Intifada was the rebellion of a new generation of Palestinians, whose activists came from local universities that were themselves recent creations. Displacing the compliant notables on whom the occupiers had relied, they led a three-year wave of popular demonstrations, strikes, boycotts and punishment of collaborators. The exiled plo in Tunis was caught by surprise, and played little part in it. Driven out of its bases in Lebanon, and defunded by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait after the Gulf War, the organization was rescued from its weakness by the Oslo accords, which returned it in pomp to bits of the homeland.’
A critical reader can’t accept a Foreign Policy expert, sometime government employee and full time Zionist, to present anything but this cynical political handicapping: a wordy description of the maladroit, not to speak of the misplaced good intentions/aspirations of the Obama/Kerry team, as argued by Mr. Miller.
Here is Mr. Miller in 2005 making the case for ‘The case for Israel-first advocacy is compelling.‘ And for America as the indispensable broker:
‘The case for Israel-first advocacy is compelling. Israelis live in a dangerous neighborhood; they have only one real friend and critically important security requirements that the United States is committed to furthering. Practically speaking, Israel sits on land the Arabs want, so without Israel’s trust and confidence there can be no peace process.
Having worked for the past six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations, I believe in the importance of a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship. Paradoxically, it is our intimacy with the Israelis that gives America — only America — the capacity to be an honest and effective broker. Arab governments have come to accept this reality. That is why — even now — when our credibility is so diminished in the region, they continue to press for U.S. engagement.