In his Middle East speech yesterday, President Obama sounded less like himself of old and much more like the predecessor he once condemned. Obama’s general declarations — on universal human rights, the convergence of U.S. interests and democracy promotion, dictators’ ploys to distract their subjects with colonial-era resentments and Israeli bogeymen — made him sound like a convert to W.’s freedom agenda. So did his remarks on Iran, whose “intolerance” and “hypocrisy” he condemned, and whose democrats he honored (two years too late). He even had warm words for Iraq’s nascent democracy.
Advertisement
In typical Obama style, though, he didn’t acknowledge Bush’s contribution or his own change. He seemed rather to suggest that he is the one who reoriented American policy toward the region’s reformers. “Already,” he pronounced at the outset, “we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts.” In his telling, America’s move toward democracy promotion began with his Cairo speech, which dealt with the topic almost in passing.
He spent much of the speech relating the recent events of the “Arab Spring,” and skipped over its less pleasant elements — anti-Israeli provocations, a threat of Islamist dominance in Egypt and elsewhere, the fraught question of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Bahrain. Obama kept it vague and anodyne. But it was welcome to hear him say that “democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities”; invoke the importance of a vibrant market economy to reform in these countries; and speak up for the right of Coptic Christians to worship freely in Cairo.
He tried to muster a muscular condemnation of Syria, but couldn’t quite manage it. “President Assad,” he said, “now has a choice: He can lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way.” Really? The Obama administration along with the rest of the liberal foreign-policy establishment has long hoped Assad would make a reliable negotiating partner for Israel and prove himself a domestic “reformer.” Those hopes have all been dashed as the tanks have rolled. Assad can’t and won’t lead Syria to democracy. We have been and remain baffled by Obama’s reticence toward the dictator who has orchestrated arguably the worst anti-democratic crackdown of the Arab Spring, and who remains a toady of our worst enemy in the region.
Finally, and inevitably, Obama’s speech rounded back to the Jewish state. In explicitly announcing support for a two-state solution based on the so-called 1967 lines, Obama went further than any prior U.S. president. He subtly shifted America’s position in the Palestinians’ direction and away from assurances that President Bush had made to the Israelis in 2004 that they wouldn’t be made to trade away major settlements. The Israelis understandably reacted with dismay.
Regardless, the chances of any negotiation’s succeeding now are remote. President Obama hit on the chief reason in a pregnant line about Israel’s relationship with Hamas: “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?” You can’t. If President Obama would follow through on the logic of his own rhetorical question he’d save himself and our closest ally in the region much unnecessary grief.
President Obama said, “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?”
Is that the most tepid of translations of the actual, real-life position of Hamas?
Dear Lord, if that really was the stumblng block for Hamas -- whether Israel should exist or not -- Foggy Bottom deep thinkers and their Internationalist ilk absolutely could negotiate faint recognition. ("Oh yes, I suppose I have a cold sore.")
The problem would be more accurately rendered, “How can one negotiate with a party who wants to kill you?”
The fact is, any answer that involves negotiations will get you killed that much quicker. That's what the killer wants, for you to remain passive and assume humanity in the other. That's why Arafat had one language for peace (English), and another for war (Arabic).
Self-defense applies as much to nations as to people.
Has Syria let in any journalists yet? How many dead this week?
How many secrets has Pakistan given to China the past 3 days?
How many Christians in Egypt killed yesterday? Why is the Arab Spring promoting press not there to report it?
How many have entered our country illegally this week?
How much have food stamp beneficiaries spent on lotteries, casinos, alcohol and other none essential pursuits?
How many more have enrolled in the foot stamp program this week, claimed jobless benefits and applied for other government aid this month?
How much have home values dropped this month?
How much has gasoline risen the last 12 hours?
How many lawsuits have been filed against businesses by various federal agencies?
How many Obamacare waivers granted this week, who of the recipients donated to the Obama campaign, how many are in districts of high profile democratic legislators that pushed Obamacare down our throats?
All this administration can do is bad mouth our country abroad, bath mouth tax payers domestically, hug the devil while selling him our allies souls and even baring our back to ensure the knife that is coming doesn’t miss its mark.
Perhaps those claiming ‘the end of times’ know a wee bit more than they get credit for.
"...the convergence of U.S. interests and democracy promotion..."
--As one of your writers noted a few days ago, democracy in Islamic countries means death for Christians. It also means death for Jews, Secularists and many others.
The history of the last few years in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and many other places shows obviously that democracy and Islam are incompatible. Looking further back in history, there are so many cases of how "the democratic elements" were worse than what they replaced, or at least they paved the way to worse governments. France in the 1790's, Russia in 1917, and on and on. Until a much larger proportion of the population in the Middle East respects and believes in western-oriented institutions and freedoms, then "democracy promotion" is doomed, and will result in much more fruitless shedding of blood and wasting of money and other resources. At least George W. Bush was trying something relatively new with his experiments. Now noone has any excuses.
"Democracy," or representative government, did not spring immediately from on high and take firm root in North America, ancient Greece or modern western Europe. It required long, prominent traditions of valuing individual freedom and the rule of law. These qualities are sorely lacking in the countries in which you are trying to promote democracy. Let's put our efforts into more worthwhile enterprises.
The Arab Spring is about as pro-democracy as the last few months of the Weimar Republic. And we know how that ended.
If the trend continues, Egypt, Syria, and perhaps Turkey will become the new Arab-Fascists states, and they will be closely aligned to Iran. Heck Iraq could still go that route.
Claiming Obama is a convert implies he ever had a standing, stable set of ideas. He has betrayed this country and now is trying to do the same in Israel. I'm so disgusted with every decision he has come up with --and do not count UBL as a victory for his presidency. It was a militarily orchestrated plan--a military he would just as soon gut. He is too self-serving and weak to have accomplished that feat; a leftist wolf in centrist sheep's clothing. love, mb.
It was a terrible speech, mendacious and manipulative.
Does anyone else notice a pattern in Obama's manipulations:
He tells the big scam in his speech (e.g., Israel must go back to the 1967 borders).
The media all over the world report his statements, the Palestinians dance in the streets.
His hapless and ineffectual press secretary walks it back the next day (He didn't really mean exactly).
The media virtually ignore the correction.
Result: He charms his Arab pals, and Israel gets slammed for arguing with him.
rongordo:
I'm afraid you give Obama too much credit. He likely sensed that it was something he should have known, but didn't, and was embarrassed to ask about. Therefore, he had to have advisors explain it to him after the speech was DELIVERED, and the feces hit the windmill.
(Today's uncanny captcha phrase in relation to post it validates: "mumbo jumbo.")
the only thing clarified by your comment is that you lack even a third graders reading comprehension. Nobody here at NRO has anything good to say about the speech, and how you managed to find that in a sarcastic lambasting of a hypocritical, malignantly narcissistic president's ill-conceived, meandering and completely unfocussed speech that did little more then embolden our rivals and weaken our allies is beyond my ken.
For us "man made disaster" or "war on terror" either of which is not close to their perception or their will, and as for moderate Muslims...anybody out there heard fromn them? Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST!!!
