This was the sort of split-the-difference address that the president is now famous for — long on Icarus-like soaring phraseology, very short on down-to-earth realities.
The first third of the president’s speech was a good summary of prior (dare we say it?) neoconservative analyses: Middle East autocracies blame Israel and the U.S., and often manipulate terrorism as a way to divert attention from their own failures to provide freedom and economic security to their people. Evidently, they are unwilling to address their societies’ endemic cultural, economic, and social problems: tribalism, religious intolerance, gender apartheid, statism, authoritarian government, and on and on. Yesterday, that was a neocon fantasy of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Bush; today, it is apparently part of a landmark new diplomacy. And yet, in this comprehensive speech on the Middle East, the word “Islam” was never mentioned.
Then, in the second third of his speech, Obama constructed a false narrative that his modest efforts over the last 27 months on the diplomatic front marked a watershed in the history of American policy. In truth, Obama embraced democratic reform only belatedly (recall his advice not to “meddle” when Iranians protested Iranian theocracy in the streets, or the characterization of the creepy Bashar Assad as a “reformer,” or Joe Biden’s assertion that Mubarak was not a dictator), a fact well known in the Middle East. It is curious that Iraq serves as a success in this new narrative, given Barack Obama’s five-year rhetorical assault on the effort — e.g., his demands to pull out all troops by March 2008 and declare the incipient surge that saved democracy a failure. And given the manifest historical fallacies and inaccuracies in the Cairo speech, was it wise for Obama to reference it as a sort of didactic example?
Obama expressed little concern about reports that many of the movements that threw out the illiberal pro-American autocracies are illiberal themselves — and he offered no explanation as to why Qaddafi deserved bombs and the other tyrants of the region, such as Assad, do not. European proximity and concern about future oil contracts? The omission was glaring in a speech touting the supposedly across-the-board new American idealism (e.g., “It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy”). Indeed, the most important country in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia — was not mentioned by Obama a single time. I think we know why, especially in the context of the new Saudi oil chill.
The president proposed giving new billions to some Middle East governments and jawboning others to pump more oil. Meanwhile, here at home — at a time of an annual $1.6 trillion deficit — he has not only failed to grant new drilling leases, but proclaimed that more drilling will not result in more oil. On still another note: As the flooding Mississippi destroys billions of dollars of U.S. property and ruins American lives, a broke U.S. is to give more money to Middle East governments that so far have been not shy about their disdain for America?
The Israeli–Palestinian issue is a black hole for any president, and Obama deserves empathy for thinking he can find a solution, despite the recent resignation of his special Middle East envoy. His statements were balanced enough, but few will see anything there reflective of the fact that Hamas, which is sworn to destroy Israel, is about to be a part of a Palestinian government — and thus will soon be an indirect recipient of U.S. aid. The president made predictions about what would happen “if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection” — but why the “if”?
Is there any reason to believe that another Israel pullout in the fashion of Lebanon and Gaza would bring results any different from the violence that followed those two withdrawals? The problem is not the 1967 border but the failure of the Palestinians to craft a stable, prosperous constitutional government, and then negotiate about borders later.
The president’s last paragraph about freedom as a universal value in the context of the Middle East was almost a verbatim synopsis of George W. Bush’s constant orations — and yet the president can rest assured that his democracy promotion will be praised by the media as idealistic and needed as much as Bush’s identical prose was damned as naïve and irrelevant.
In short, like the Cairo speech, this Middle East address will soon be as much forgotten by most observers as it is referenced by Obama himself.
Dr. Hanson,
I look forward to you correcting all of this administrations missteps when you and the rest of the Bolton administration take office in January, 2013.
(A guy can dream, can't he?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Indeed, the most important country in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia — was not mentioned by Obama a single time. I think we know why, especially in the context of the new Saudi oil chill."
Saudi Arabia wasn't mentioned because they're independent. Obama was, as his predecessors have, lecturing Palestine and Israel on the basis of both being US dependencies. Understandably enough, our client states resent our wanting to get some bang for our buck, but they have to take the lecture. Lecturing the Saudis would be ludicrous and inappropriate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI simply refer to my comments under the posting of the text of the President's speech.
And I don't shy away from bragging that those sentiments were fully expressed by someone of Mr. Hanson's stature.
A broken clock like me can chalk it up to coincidence, I suppose. :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWasn't there an article the other day describing the soft invasion of Israel by thousands of unarmed Arabs?
Sort of putting the foot soldiers in place prior to the outbreak of violence isn't it?
Now that Obama has sided with the Palestinian usurpers couldn't that be a signal that we will not aid Israel in the event the unarmed become violent?
I know I'm a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist but the pieces seem to fall into place.
Stay tuned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Hanson,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt grieves me to disagree with you, since I usually forward your columns and notes to associates as the final word on whatever foreign policy issue you are addressing.
However, I do not believe this speech will be quickly forgotten. You pay far too much attention to the hot air that preceded Obama's latest ME peace overture and too little weight to what he said at the end. To call for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders that served as a launching point for the attack of its massed enemies represents in the (possibly) long term a certain step toward the destruction of Israeli. In the short term, it emboldens and encourages those who are dedicated to the destruction of Israel to redouble their efforts. This is a complete reversal of the previous U.S. position and represents nothing less than treachery bound to harm not just Israel, but the U.S. as well.
Obama's failure to address other issues also speaks volumes about where his true sentiments lie. Iran is currently in the process of constructing an intermediate missile site in Venezuela that would already be a smoking, black hole under the administration of any President concerned at all with U.S. Security. As reported yesterday, Iran is also in the process of firing up a nuclear facility that should have been destroyed a year or more ago. Yet not a word said about that by Obama in what was billed as a "major address" on the middle east.
I am afraid that far from being something consigned to the dust bin of history, today's speech will represent a turning point that our enemies will celebrate and that we will long remember, to our sorrow.
It's always "unprecedented" with Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the hallmarks of the modern left is moral equivalence and the subsequent presumption that the solution to any disagreement is to seek to split the difference. This is a fundamental point of difference between the left and the right today. Look at almost any solution BHO has proposed to solve a contentious issue, and he always adopts this approach. This is not how the best leaders act.
Consider how insane this approach would be when applied to some of the 20th century's most egregious examples: OK, Mr. Hitler, we hear your pain. Therefore, we'll let you take Eastern Europe as long as you leave France and England alone, and go ahead with that final solution thing, as long as you get the heads of state of the new Europe to approve your plan with a majority of the votes...As for Mr. Stalin, we'll go along with the internal purges and gulags, as long as you don't send anyone from the occupied territories to the death camps.
Strong visionary leaders know which side they are on, stand by their friends/allies, and use their strength to bring troublesome, recalcitrant belligerents to heel. Weak ones keep giving in to the bad guys and bullys.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@MReed53 I'm afraid your are wrong. Bush had already returned to advocating a return to pre-1967 borders before he left office. Bush during his visit to Jerusalem in January '08 called for exactly the same solution as Obama just proposed - pre-1967 borders with swaps.
With the exception Bushs' support in '04 for Israel to retain territory gained during the war US policy has always been for a return to 1967 borders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusereminds me of Home Alone
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarv, we are getting fooled by a kindygartener!
Mr. Whitelaw,
I am unaware of any statement W made which would suggest Israel return to its pre-'67 border. If he did, then he was as wrong then as Obama is now. God know Bush was wrong about a lot of things, including the shared belief by far too many Presidents that anyone in the Palestinian Authority will ever be an honest partner for peace.
What Bush did do is sign a letter which received overwhelming support in congress promising Israelis that we would never ask them to return to the indefensible 1967 borders. That written assurance was U.S. policy, and for any President to abrogate such a policy without negotiation or consultation with either our own congress or the nation with whom that policy was forged is nothing less than treachery. What can U.S. assurances about anything possibly mean if they can be discarded by one individual on a whim? The fact is that suggesting Israel return to the 1967 borders would be tantamount to national suicide. Obama says various land swaps could be worked out "by mutual agreement." Who could the other party possibly be in that mutual agreement? A Palestinian Authority born of the PLO and now formally aligned with Hamas? Neighboring Egypt, where the grand democracy Obama touted is producing nothing but attacks on Christians, Jews and even other branches of Islam, as the Moslem Brotherhood steadily strengthens its hold on the entire country? Iran? Syria? There is damned little to mutually negotiate when one or all of the parties on one side begins with your death and destruction as the prerequisite to any agreement. An Israel reduced to eight miles in length at its center would be an open invitation to attack, just as it was when every Arab state in the region launched an unprovoked attack in 1967. If we are to say that any national border determined by conflict is subject to negotiation and revision then no national border is legitimate in a world that has been segmented by conflict since the first caveman cast an eye on his neighbor's cave and decided he would kill him to take it. Are we supposed to return every state from Texas north to Wyoming and west to California to Mexico, since the land was annexed as a result of conflict? Never mind that the Mexican government at the time, like the Arabs in 1967, was constantly threatening and attacking Texans across the Rio Grande? If you accept one premise there is no reason not to accept the other. And don't doubt for a moment that one will not follow the other.
(An incidental note: the filter on this blog, as others have complained, is simply ridiculous. I had to refer to "other branches of Islam" because the filter refused to accept the actual name of the sect which controls Iran. A previous submission required me to use the word "wimpy" when my original choice had been "p_sillanimous." Those are not the only incidents. It is galling to have to substitute an imprecise word for a precise one. The way it is now, Bill Buckley could not submit a post on this site without having to limit his vocabulary to that of a three-year-old. Your webmaster really needs to address this situation.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWill someone please provide me with evidence that the Palestinian leaders want a sovereign state? As long as they are not a state, they can continue to be trouble makers and live off the sympathy and dollars of the west.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Legare, when I took your neuroscience course you seemed to be a reasonable smart person. Having since received my MD/ PhD I have read your various comments. Who would know you were a run of the mill neocon. I have been to Palesine and Iraq and have treated enough children victims of the neocon PNAC war machine. You are to smart for this. God forgive you.
Clarke
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>> The president made predictions about what would happen “if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection” — but why the “if”? <<
Allowing the enemy a path of retreat, see: Sun Tzu "Art of War".
And that's exactly why Obama's mideast policy in particular and democratic policy in general is not Neocon. It's focused on setting up incentives to nudge all actors in - yes, the direction of democracy and human rights - but crucially in the direction of moderation. Including Israel. That's the difference.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoing back on 2004 position that 1967 (pre) cannot be the final borders, mutually agreed swap of land and right for "a contiguous state" (How), putting two key issues not only lower in the order of negotiation but need not be part of the immediate solution. How you conclude it was balanced?
Yes nothing is going to change. But it changes the starting position in a negotiation probably a strategy devised to pressure the PM during coming visit. (That if he does not negotiate, starting position will change. Probably done in haste and based in WH belief that they know how to solve it and claim their place in history). It may result in a strong response scaling back starting position from other side also that two state solution is not acceptable.
Naive!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@MReed53
"There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent." - George W. Bush
msnbc.msn.com/id/22587081/ns/politics-white_house/t/bush-calls-end-occupation-arab-lands/
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there a connection between George Mitchel's sudden departure and Obama's ill-advised speech?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseG. Whitelaw,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe statement you reference is filled with diplomatic ambiguities, as most usually are. It calls for an end to the "occupation" that began in 1967 while also ensuring that Israel has "defensible" borders. Nowhere does it say that the borders must exactly reflect those that existed prior to 1967. Standing U.S. policy, prior to Obama's unilateral action yesterday, remained that stated in the 2004 letter to Israel and supported by a huge majority in congress; ie, that Israel would not be forced to accept the lines that existed prior to the time they were sneak attacked by combined Arab forces. What the Bush statement you cite does reflect is the perpectual fiction that anyone on the Palestinian side of the equation can be an honest broker genuinely interested in anything other than the destruction of Israel and its people.
Obama's statement yesterday was new and it was radical and it would spell the end of Israel if carried out.
Gary Whitelaw, Nice try, but the Bush White House clarified that he meant the West Bank, NOT the Golan Heights in his reference to occupied territories. (Occupied territories being the Sinai, West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights). Obama makes NO demands on the Palestinians, not even a demand to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGary,
Bush may have meant exactly what you think he meant (although I tend to agree with MReed53 in his interpretations). Regardless, Bush does not have the final word on any matter--especially those involving immigration and a vast chunk of foreign policy.
As a president, although infinitely preferable to Obama, Bush had more than his share of flaws.
What offends my sense of logic in this whole Israeli-Palestinian issue is that in the corridors of power, it is fashionable to pretend that one side is not mostly animated by deeply-rooted religious hatred.
We hear it's the land. It's a few apartment blocks, AKA settlements. It's the exact nature of the borders. It's Palestinians wanting self-government (and look what a swell job they are doing of that in the Gaza strip).
The simple truth is that the I-P conflict is fueled by the religious hatred and a genocidal dream on the Islamic side. You can't split the difference with a culture that institutionalizes teaching its young that Jews are sons of pigs and monkeys. Period.
Sure, there may be tangential issues regarding land, borders and self-government. But to conflate these with the real cause of the conflict--one-way religious hatred--is the height of irrationality, and I dare say the main reason why in 60 years we haven't moved past square one.
To treat the two sides as equals is an insult to every politically-mature society the world over. Let's call a spade a spade. On average, the current Palestinians are a backward rabble of angry zealots who couldn't generate a dime of wealth in their country if they walked on diamonds--and who hold one hand out to the West while feeding mortars with the other. Their only talent is to play "Little Guy Victim" for the Western media and the UN, so that their sworn enemy ends up looking like the big bully.
The whole thing should sicken any thinking mind. If the civilized world had a moral compass and came down hard on 7th-century-style religious hatred, this insane conflict would be well on its way towards a resolution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGary, Nice try, but Bush officials clarified that statement, stating the President was referring to Gaza, NOT the Golan Heights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse