The Jewish Press is a weekly newspaper based in the New York Area that has a large circulation among Orthodox Jews. I think that it would be fair to call it "right wing"; it is outspokenly pro-Israel, generally supports the right in that country, and endorsed George W. Bush twice. (More often than not, it endorses Democrats in local elections, so it would be unfair to call it a partisan rag.)
This week it ran an editorial that called for less of a push by the US government in the Middle East peace process. It used the term "benign neglect" which may be an unfortunately charged term, but I think that the essential point, that the US should not be as aggressive in forcing its will internationally on less-than-willing parties, is very well taken and quite consistent with the direction that Obama supporters want.
Here is a quote from the article:
The conventional wisdom is that the president-elect, preoccupied with the economic crisis, Iran, and the growing Russian threat, has, at least for now, put the Israel-Arab conflict on the back burner. If true, we think that is just fine in terms of long-range prospects for peace in the Middle East.
The last thing we need now is for a new and inexperienced president to come into office looking to establish his peacemaking bona fides by imposing his solution to a conflict that has proved so vexing to a long line of predecessors.
The entire article is here:
http://www.jewishpress.com/...
I would note have phrased the article the same way, but I think the general point is very well taken. The US has acted with tremendous hubris over and over again in international affairs, and not just in the Middle East. This has created resentment and has often proven counterproductive, and in the case of the conflict between Israel and its Arab enemies we are no closer to a real peace than we were 60 years ago despite the tremendous efforts of many Presidents. I suspect many Obama supporters and many dailykos readers would agree that the Iraq war was the most dramatic example of such hubris. Yet the solution is not to adopt paleoconservative isolationism a la Patrick Buchanan. The United States can be engaged internationally, doing what it can to assist in conflict resolutions, but always with the understanding that the parties themselves have to work things out. This does not prevent the United States from taking sides with the good guys, but it might well result in more good guys and bad guys listening to us.