Coverage of President Obama’s speech today is concentrating on one big item related to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians: “Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.” Plenty is being said about that.
He didn’t sugarcoat the way people have been manipulated in the region for too long: “In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.”
He made sure no one could doubt where we stand on the change sweeping the region (while specific responses to specific situations may, and should, vary): “Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:
“The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.
“We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.
“And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.”
When he WAS specific, he was generally right: “The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad.”
Finally, he committed us to the most empowering thing we can do for people in the region, and for ourselves — help them bring something other than oil to the world economy: “Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.”
Were there weaknesses? Yes, from my perspective. I could have done without another ritualistic slap at our decision to go into Iraq, which took this form: “…we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intended it may be.”
But I don’t think he meant it quite as negatively as that sounded at first, as I determined upon rereading it. I realized that after I heard this strong endorsement of what has been achieved there: “In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.” None of which would have happened, of course, with Saddam Hussein still in power.
On the whole, a speech that hit the right notes, and was a coherent and appropriate American response to a complex web of events and issues of critical importance to the world.
9 thoughts on “Some thoughts on the president’s Mideast speech”
Karen McLeod
I’ve been to Israel. I understand that they need to protect themselves. But the way they are doing it now, by denying Palestinians access to jobs, decent housing, and even, in some cases, good water will only cause things to worsen. I hope that Israelis will come to realize that they cannot build a free state by denying freedom to others.
I worry that Israel would not survive a second Obama term. Given what he’s saying now (at a time when he’s still a teeny bit nervous about getting re-elected), I can only imagine how terribly American foreign policy will shift against Israel, once he doesn’t have to worry about another term in office. Like Chamberlain before him, who was happy to slice bits of land away from Czechoslovakia for the Germans in 1939, Obama will happily pressure Israel into a situation in which it can be overrun and destroyed by enemies. The difference between Israel now and Czechoslovakia then is that the Israelis know that it’s a life or death struggle for them. The Palestinians will have a peace agreement from Israel and more, on the day after they actually decide they want peace (and not consider Israeli withdrawals to be steps toward the destruction of that state).
I can’t imagine George W. Bush ever giving such a powerful and important speech. Was it perfect? By no means. But as Brad said it did hit the right notes. Of course I disagree with Brad’s assessment of the Iraq reference but otherwise I think Brad got this one right.
Everybody likes to make a WW II reference. Sometimes they work but Stanley’s reference to the events of 1938/39 is just ridiculous. It is Isreal who is acting like a bully not the Palestinians. It’s Isreal that has occupied land for 45 years against international agreements, not the Palestinians. It’s Isreal that possesses the region’s most powerful military. All the president is trying to do is bring about a bit of reason to this whole situation. The Palestinians have plenty of guilt when it comes to terrorist activities but there is no comparison between Isreal and Czechoslovokia circa 1939.
“…Obama will happily pressure Israel into a situation in which it can be overrun and destroyed by enemies”
Happily? Wow, you’re delusional. Right, Obama is an anti-semitic demon who is drooling gleefully at the opportunity to finally stick it to those nasty Jews! Especially the ones in Florida who ritually vote Democrat!
Come on, Stan. ENGAGE BRAIN.
And “Czechoslovakia”? With that air force? And that Mossad? And those cyberweapons? And those secret nukes?
Stan, Godwin’s law much? There is some part of the human brain that perceives greater threats when the threats are really mild ones. If you need an example, just think of the last time you heard the phrase “man vs. nature”. Other than disease and natural disasters man has largely won that war and further aggression only causes more harm than good for man. The same can probably be said for Israel and the Palestinians.
They aren’t a rising military and industrial power house capable of over running any region. Just a long-term pawn to be used by larger players for the sake of antagonizing.
Talk about a complicated issue. I’ve been reading up on the whole Palestine/Israel puzzle and it’s pretty clear that all sides concerned have credibility problems. But the bulk of the problems lies with the Israelis. It’s true that some of the settlements go back before the 1948 boundaries. It’s also true that to some extent the Palestinian authority is perhaps not as strident in oppossing terrorism as perhaps it could. But in general the Israelis really need to come clean with their activities on the west bank regarding the settlements. The nerve of the Israelis prime minister giving the US president a lecture while visiting the White House. His sorry ass should have been thrown out and our support curtailed dramatically. The president’s proposals were perfectly reasonable and in-line with long-standing American policy.
Yet none of this stops the right-wing spin machine from yacking about how the POTUS is throwing Israel under the bus or off a cliff or some other ridiculous analogy. Ally or not Israel is just another country and we need to regard all the nations of the world in the same light. The next time the POTUS gets lectured like this in the White House he should be roundly bitch-slapped. But of course Obama is much too much of a diplomat for that. That goodness he’s in charge. I grow more respectful of him with each passing day.
You won’t agree, Bud, but I thought the WSJ had a point in their editorial yesterday when they essentially said that the president gave a good speech (when the WSJ says an Obama speech “had much to recommend it,” that’s like saying it was awesome), but he shouldn’t have buried his lede by throwing out the pre-1967 thing. He made so many other good points that it’s a shame to make a bombshell like that the headline.
That, by the way, was the reason I wrote this post the way I did. I thought the other things he said were worth discussing without getting into that. I wish the president had had the same thought, because I hate to see his other good points get lost.
And if you’re Bibi, what are you going to do, if you want any respect at home? Everybody knows you’re going to be meeting with the POTUS and when, and he drops something like that on you on the eve of your meeting?
I thought that was unfortunate.
As for the merits — I don’t know. That’s hard-earned territory, and without such a buffer Israel is pretty naked. Yes, Israel is wrong to have allowed so many settlements. But to give it up entirely? I just don’t know about that.
And the reason why is that it’s a huge understatement to say “the Palestinian authority is perhaps not as strident in oppossing terrorism as perhaps it could.” The original organization, the PLO, was a terrorist organization. And the present authority has been playing footsie lately with Hamas, which is definitely a terrorist organization. (The head of Hamas condemned the killing of bin Laden, calling him a “martyr” and an “Arab holy warrior.”)
Now, all of that said, just to argue with myself… the best hope for resolution on this and many fronts is that the Arab Spring really changes the politics in the region, so you don’t have all these despots and such staying in power by redirecting resentment from them toward Israel. Maybe in an environment like that, eventually (and we’re nowhere near there yet), even Hamas could decide it’s not in their best interests to be so committed to the negation Israel. Of course, there are a LOT of ifs before such a good outcome could arise.
I just say it because maybe that DOES argue for making a bold proposal on the Israeli/Palestinian thing in the context of talking about the events in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.
But I don’t know. As you say, talk about a complicated issue…
Here’s a radical idea. Instead of a 2 state solution why not just have 1 big state. It works here. We have many different faiths from Catholics to Baptists, Jews, Muslims and even folks who have no particular faith at all. And for the most part it works out pretty well. Sure we have our moments but no one really believes that we should have a state religion.
In the middle east we could have the state of Isrestine or Palael. Everyone can practice their particular religion and participate in elections that would mostly decide economic matters. There would be no particular foreign policy issues to deal with since the new state would just be one big happy family rather than 2 constantly bickering religious-oriented states.
The reason I came up with this idea is that the people of the west bank seem to be doing something like this on their own. The Jewish settlements are engaging in commerce and the Palestinians are participating in that commerce. In fact the Palestinian authority is trying to crack down on this type of economic participation. At the end of the day it seems like we could encourage more of this type of behavior in the hopes that once people get to know one another they’ll realize people are just people no matter what type of religion they practice. Perhaps I’m naive but if enough people become well off financially they won’t be so radical.
I’ve been to Israel. I understand that they need to protect themselves. But the way they are doing it now, by denying Palestinians access to jobs, decent housing, and even, in some cases, good water will only cause things to worsen. I hope that Israelis will come to realize that they cannot build a free state by denying freedom to others.
I worry that Israel would not survive a second Obama term. Given what he’s saying now (at a time when he’s still a teeny bit nervous about getting re-elected), I can only imagine how terribly American foreign policy will shift against Israel, once he doesn’t have to worry about another term in office. Like Chamberlain before him, who was happy to slice bits of land away from Czechoslovakia for the Germans in 1939, Obama will happily pressure Israel into a situation in which it can be overrun and destroyed by enemies. The difference between Israel now and Czechoslovakia then is that the Israelis know that it’s a life or death struggle for them. The Palestinians will have a peace agreement from Israel and more, on the day after they actually decide they want peace (and not consider Israeli withdrawals to be steps toward the destruction of that state).
I can’t imagine George W. Bush ever giving such a powerful and important speech. Was it perfect? By no means. But as Brad said it did hit the right notes. Of course I disagree with Brad’s assessment of the Iraq reference but otherwise I think Brad got this one right.
Everybody likes to make a WW II reference. Sometimes they work but Stanley’s reference to the events of 1938/39 is just ridiculous. It is Isreal who is acting like a bully not the Palestinians. It’s Isreal that has occupied land for 45 years against international agreements, not the Palestinians. It’s Isreal that possesses the region’s most powerful military. All the president is trying to do is bring about a bit of reason to this whole situation. The Palestinians have plenty of guilt when it comes to terrorist activities but there is no comparison between Isreal and Czechoslovokia circa 1939.
“…Obama will happily pressure Israel into a situation in which it can be overrun and destroyed by enemies”
Happily? Wow, you’re delusional. Right, Obama is an anti-semitic demon who is drooling gleefully at the opportunity to finally stick it to those nasty Jews! Especially the ones in Florida who ritually vote Democrat!
Come on, Stan. ENGAGE BRAIN.
And “Czechoslovakia”? With that air force? And that Mossad? And those cyberweapons? And those secret nukes?
I call BS.
Stan, Godwin’s law much? There is some part of the human brain that perceives greater threats when the threats are really mild ones. If you need an example, just think of the last time you heard the phrase “man vs. nature”. Other than disease and natural disasters man has largely won that war and further aggression only causes more harm than good for man. The same can probably be said for Israel and the Palestinians.
They aren’t a rising military and industrial power house capable of over running any region. Just a long-term pawn to be used by larger players for the sake of antagonizing.
Talk about a complicated issue. I’ve been reading up on the whole Palestine/Israel puzzle and it’s pretty clear that all sides concerned have credibility problems. But the bulk of the problems lies with the Israelis. It’s true that some of the settlements go back before the 1948 boundaries. It’s also true that to some extent the Palestinian authority is perhaps not as strident in oppossing terrorism as perhaps it could. But in general the Israelis really need to come clean with their activities on the west bank regarding the settlements. The nerve of the Israelis prime minister giving the US president a lecture while visiting the White House. His sorry ass should have been thrown out and our support curtailed dramatically. The president’s proposals were perfectly reasonable and in-line with long-standing American policy.
Yet none of this stops the right-wing spin machine from yacking about how the POTUS is throwing Israel under the bus or off a cliff or some other ridiculous analogy. Ally or not Israel is just another country and we need to regard all the nations of the world in the same light. The next time the POTUS gets lectured like this in the White House he should be roundly bitch-slapped. But of course Obama is much too much of a diplomat for that. That goodness he’s in charge. I grow more respectful of him with each passing day.
You won’t agree, Bud, but I thought the WSJ had a point in their editorial yesterday when they essentially said that the president gave a good speech (when the WSJ says an Obama speech “had much to recommend it,” that’s like saying it was awesome), but he shouldn’t have buried his lede by throwing out the pre-1967 thing. He made so many other good points that it’s a shame to make a bombshell like that the headline.
That, by the way, was the reason I wrote this post the way I did. I thought the other things he said were worth discussing without getting into that. I wish the president had had the same thought, because I hate to see his other good points get lost.
And if you’re Bibi, what are you going to do, if you want any respect at home? Everybody knows you’re going to be meeting with the POTUS and when, and he drops something like that on you on the eve of your meeting?
I thought that was unfortunate.
As for the merits — I don’t know. That’s hard-earned territory, and without such a buffer Israel is pretty naked. Yes, Israel is wrong to have allowed so many settlements. But to give it up entirely? I just don’t know about that.
And the reason why is that it’s a huge understatement to say “the Palestinian authority is perhaps not as strident in oppossing terrorism as perhaps it could.” The original organization, the PLO, was a terrorist organization. And the present authority has been playing footsie lately with Hamas, which is definitely a terrorist organization. (The head of Hamas condemned the killing of bin Laden, calling him a “martyr” and an “Arab holy warrior.”)
Now, all of that said, just to argue with myself… the best hope for resolution on this and many fronts is that the Arab Spring really changes the politics in the region, so you don’t have all these despots and such staying in power by redirecting resentment from them toward Israel. Maybe in an environment like that, eventually (and we’re nowhere near there yet), even Hamas could decide it’s not in their best interests to be so committed to the negation Israel. Of course, there are a LOT of ifs before such a good outcome could arise.
I just say it because maybe that DOES argue for making a bold proposal on the Israeli/Palestinian thing in the context of talking about the events in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.
But I don’t know. As you say, talk about a complicated issue…
Here’s a radical idea. Instead of a 2 state solution why not just have 1 big state. It works here. We have many different faiths from Catholics to Baptists, Jews, Muslims and even folks who have no particular faith at all. And for the most part it works out pretty well. Sure we have our moments but no one really believes that we should have a state religion.
In the middle east we could have the state of Isrestine or Palael. Everyone can practice their particular religion and participate in elections that would mostly decide economic matters. There would be no particular foreign policy issues to deal with since the new state would just be one big happy family rather than 2 constantly bickering religious-oriented states.
The reason I came up with this idea is that the people of the west bank seem to be doing something like this on their own. The Jewish settlements are engaging in commerce and the Palestinians are participating in that commerce. In fact the Palestinian authority is trying to crack down on this type of economic participation. At the end of the day it seems like we could encourage more of this type of behavior in the hopes that once people get to know one another they’ll realize people are just people no matter what type of religion they practice. Perhaps I’m naive but if enough people become well off financially they won’t be so radical.