Herewith President Obama’s May 19 Middle East speech, annotated:
It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.
With this Barack Obama openly, unreservedly, and without a trace of irony or self-reflection adopts the Bush Doctrine, which made the spread of democracy the key U.S. objective in the Middle East.
Advertisement
Too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills.
Note how even Obama’s rationale matches Bush’s. Bush argued that because the roots of 9/11 were to be found in the deflected anger of repressed Middle Eastern peoples, our response would require a democratic transformation of the region.
We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.
A fine critique of exactly the kind of “realism” the Obama administration prided itself for having practiced in its first two years. How far did this concession to Bush go? Note Obama’s example of the democratization we’re aiming for. He actually said:
In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process. . . . Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region.
Hail the Bush-Obama doctrine.
President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition (to democracy), or get out of the way.
The only jarring note in an otherwise interesting, if convoluted, attempt to unite all current “Arab Spring” policies under one philosophical rubric. Convoluted because the Bahrain part was unconvincing and the omission of Saudi Arabia was unmistakable.
Syria’s Assad leading a transition to democracy? This is bizarre and appalling. Assad has made all-out war on his people — shooting, arresting, executing, even using artillery against cities. Yet Obama is still holding out the olive branch when, if anything, he should be declaring Assad as illegitimate as Qaddafi. Clearly, some habits of engagement/appeasement die hard.
A lasting peace will involve . . . Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.
Meant to reassure Israelis that the administration rejects the so-called right of return of Palestinian refugees. They would return to Palestine, not Israel — Palestine being their homeland, and Israel (which would cease to be Jewish if flooded with refugees) being a Jewish state. But why use code for an issue on which depends Israel’s existence?
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.
A new formulation favorable to maximal Arab demands. True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000. But no president had ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the 1967 lines.
Close but no cigar, it is rather they would prefer a return to no borders, no Israel, just a few haggard Jews hanging desperately to hope floating aimlessly in the Med. Wouldn't that make Obama's life simpler?
He could claim for his legacy, Peace in the Middle East, (pssst..and not a Jew in sight).
Why any Jew would support this clown is beyond comprehension.
In endorsing pre 1967 War borders, Obama is actually saying the following:
1. The Arabs must be rewarded for the war they lost in 1967
2. Israel must commit suicide. These borders are entirely indefensible. A casual glance at a map of the area, pre 1967 war, offers convincing proof of this.
One would have thought his trip to Israel as the POTUS, one of if not the only sane and civilized country in the Middle East, would have provided insight...shucks, forgot...
As if Hamas/Iran/Fatah will agree recognize Israel's right to exist. Not a chance. There will be no peace in the Middle East until it is 100% Muslim. And then only if the Sunnis and Shia decide not to have a dust up. They might decide to tolerate each other as long as they are making mutual territorial gains, however.
Obama believes the lie that the issue can be resolved by Israeli territorial concessions. Well, technically it actually might if he can convince Israel to only concede 100% of their land.
It is as serious a mistake to take anything Obama is saying about the Middle East at face value as it is to try to grasp Obama within the normative terms of American politics.
This speech comes in the middle of turmoil, serious turmoil, not democratization, in several Middle Eastern countries. The result of that turmoil is likely to be regimes that are more Islamist and more hostile to the West, and democratic only in the sense that they reflect the deepest resentments of the people, not the principles of freedom.
Obama's attempt to incorporate the relative success of Iraq, a success he denied and wanted nothing to do with on his path to the presidency to the extent that his antiwar declarations surely encouraged the enemy, is a tactic that shocks me by its familiarity. Having lost an argument, big time, he makes the winning argument his own, minus the principles that made it a winning argument. American blood paid for the limited success in Iraq, and some of that blood was shed by car bombers who were encouraged by Obama's "help is on the way" shout outs during his campaign.
The position he has taken today on Israel isn't about peace. It's a victory thrown to Palestinian radicalism, Hamas, Hezbollah, for steadfast hatred of Israel, dressed up with the usual somber Obama equivocations and practiced squared jaw, the familiar poses.
And it was a campaign speech, aimed at a demographic cultivated on left and right that has been trained to believe that a millenium-long clash between Islam and the West began suddenly in 1948. A list of those complicit in this disgusting lie would include many familiar names, but Obama has put his name on it, and many of us knew that he would do just that, when he felt the time was right.
Martin McPhillips is exactly right. This speech was a loose connection of talking points that made little sense. On Israel/Palestine, Obama says Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland, but the right of return for descendants of exiles is up for grabs. These are mutually exclusive. The reason Palestinians reject Netanyahu's demand for recognition is precisely because it implies giving up the right of return. Also mutually exclusive: Israeli security and a bifurcated Israel to allow Palestinian contiguity. And a demilitarized Palestine and a right of every state to defend itself.
History rendered its verdict on partition in 1947 and rendered its verdict on '67 borders in June 1967. If the spirit of liberal democracy would awaken in the hearts and minds of people in the region, maybe there would be cause for hope. For now, our approach should be one of hard headed realism - not the banal platitudes and incoherent messages that Obama offers.
The sad reality of all this is that no matter what Israel offers, the missiles continue to fly. Every concession made by Israel has been met with the same. And the region is more anti-Israel now then ever and feeling emboldened.
"...democratic only in the sense that they reflect the deepest resentments of the people, not the principles of freedom."
Exactly. If and when new regimes are established, how likely is it that they will "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"
Excellent as always Mr. Krauthammer. Sure, Israel could grant a corridor through the Sinai that might split an Israel from a strategic, or at least tactical need for undisputable control of Aquaba.
In Obama's dream world, it would be a sincere and strong statement of Israeli strength and understanding should they allow it. One has to assume they would insist that they own signifiant suburbs of Jerusalem in return for a corridor to establish a symbolic and real manifestation of Palestinian territorial integrity.
Israeli security would then have to be backed by an ironclad American, European, and International decree.
The Israelis, understandably so, may distrust said decrees in the long run, but have no problem thriving under their explicit or implied aegis as best they can for as long as possible. They have earned, by their maintenance of a civil society against grea odds, our sincerest commitment.
But should they buy into Obama's plan, he must show that he has the gumption to make the guarantee explicit and put the full faith an credit of the United States (whatever that means these days) into the deal.
It won't ever happen that way.
I am always a supporter of Israel and have no wish to see them give up any territory, especially since this has had such disasterous consequences in the past. However, the constant statement that the "1967 borders are indefensible" is simply not correct. In the 1967 war, these borders WERE successfully defended.
When I first heard “1967 lines” in Obama’s speech, I assumed that he meant the lines after the 1967 War. After rereading the speech, and listening to the near universal interpretations from across the political spectrum, it appears that Obama meant pre 1967 lines. This is a shocking and unconscionable rejection of Israel’s right to have “defensible borders,” one that literally rewards Arab aggression against Israel by removing any negative consequences for the Arabs having fought a war with Israel and lost. Obama is trying to force Israel to concede to Palestinians demands BEFORE negotiation even starts. Making it worse, Obama’s shift makes no mention of the context of The Palestinian Authority deciding to form a government with Hamas, a Genocidal terrorist organization that seeks Israel’s annihilation.
Obama is now an openly Anti-Israel Pro Palestinian partisan.
More ponderous is Obama’s statement about a “contiguous” Palestinian state. The only way the West Bank and Gaza can be contiguous is if they cut Israel in half, which would make Israel impossible to defend from the inevitable Arab attack it would invite. This would represent an even more radical shift in US policy than the Pre 1967 lines. My question is whether Obama’s support for a contiguous Palestinian state is really a shift in US policy, or just poorly thought out and worded. In other words, what if our assumption that Obama’s policy and speech writing staff carefully crafted this speech is wrong and instead the speech is yet one more example of Obama’s amateur and incompetent leadership?
Obama’s leaving the “Right of Return” to negotiation is another shift towards the Palestinian position. The so-called “Right of Return” for Arabs 3 and 4 generations removed from actual refugees will never happen as it would be Israel agreeing to cease being the Jewish state. Not only would this destroy Israel, it would inevitably lead to the expulsion of Israel’s 6 million Jews, just as the Arab states expelled their Jews though violence and oppression from 1948-1973. Why has Obama chosen to play to this Palestinian fantasy and raise their expectations that it could become a reality? If Obama really wanted to support a Two State solution, he would firmly disabuse Arabs of the notion that there will ever be the so-called “Right of Return,” and instead work on permanently settling the kids, grandkids and great grandkids of the original refugees in Arab lands.
The Palestinians will immediately jump on Obama’s radical shift towards their position as the starting point for negotiation. Since Obama essentially imposed Palestinian positions on Israel and damaged Israel’s negotiation position, Israel’s proper response would be to reject Obama’s Pro-Palestinian position and refuse to negotiate on the bad faith terms that Obama, as chief Palestinian advocate, just proposed. I hope enough Americans are as outraged as many of the posters here are. If Obama did not mean what he just said, then he needs to clarify that he did not mean Pre 1967 lines. Congress needs to act, now.
I believe that the President is not a close reader of the Bible. The Temple Mount is of great significance. Who occupies the Golan Heights controls Jerusaleum. Too bad the lessons of the 1948 war were not heeded. A pledge of American defense is useless if Isreal is overrun before we could even know what is transpiring. 1967 borders would make that more likely. The fact that Hamas is part and parcel of the Palestinian autority makes the demand even more suspicious. Remember the Yom Kipper War of 1973? Pretty close run deal. That was post 1967 borders. Pray for the strength of the Isreali army and the watchful eye of the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob.
"We do not promote Democracy overseas, We promote countries that want Democracy"
Woodrow Wilson
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
This is a perfect example of why he is NOT the smartest guy in the room. I believe he forgot about Gaza, I don't believe it was some plan to slice Israel in two. He is a joke, albeit a terribly unfunny one.
Follow
