Even I Learn Stuff Occassionally From the New York Times

You know things are bad when the left-wing dishrag's editorial page is taking shots at Obama's foreign policy...

We were thrilled when President Obama decided to plunge fully into the Middle East peace effort. He appointed a skilled special envoy, George Mitchell, and demanded that Israel freeze settlements, Palestinians crack down on anti-Israel violence and Arab leaders demonstrate their readiness to reach out to Israel.

Nine months later, the president’s promising peace initiative has unraveled.

The Israelis have refused to stop all building. The Palestinians say that they won’t talk to the Israelis until they do, and President Mahmoud Abbas is so despondent he has threatened to quit. Arab states are refusing to do anything.

Mr. Obama’s own credibility is so diminished (his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent) that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever.

Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no.

Seriously, 4 percent? That's impressive, in a twisted way.

But on a more important note, the Times is suggesting Obama try the equivalent of a Hail Mary, by pushing "his own final-status plan for a two-state solution" since "stalemate is unsustainable." I'm sure they felt the same way about Iraq. More to the point, I'm not sure how a party with no diplomatic credibility can advance any plan when the entire region can't agree on what to eat at the negotiating table. Or maybe get them to agree on a heath-care plan -- even that's simpler than Middle East peace.