President Obama Wades Back Into The Middle East Quicksand
Once again, an American President thinks he can bring peace to the Middle East.
There wasn’t anything ground breaking in the President’s Middle East speech this afternoon, but it does signal that, once again, the United States seems to be intent on resolving what looks like an irresolvable conflict:
WASHINGTON — Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama for the first time on Thursday publicly called for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would create a non-militarized Palestinian state on the basis of Israel’s borders before 1967.
“At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent that ever,” he said.
Although Mr. Obama said that “the core issues” dividing Israelis and Palestinians remained to be negotiated, including the searing questions of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees, he spoke with striking frustration that efforts to support an agreement had so far failed. “The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome,” he said.
The outline for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement came in what the president called “a moment of opportunity” after six months of political upheaval that has at times left the administration scrambling to keep up. The speech was an attempt to articulate a cohesive American policy to an Arab Spring that took a dark turn as the euphoria of popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt gave way to violent crackdowns in Bahrain and Syria, a civil war in Libya and political stalemate in Yemen.
It required a delicate balance, reaffirming support for democratic aspirations in a region where America’s strategic interests have routinely trumped its values. While Mr. Obama pushed for Hosni Mubarak’s exit in Egypt, he has backed up the Bahraini royal family’s effort to cling to power. While he called for the resignation of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and supported a bombing campaign against Libya with that ultimate goal, he vacillated as Bashar al-Assad of Syria turned tanks and troops on his people, authorizing sanctions against him only on Wednesday.
Mr. Obama said the events in the region reflected an inexorable desire for democracy that nations — both friend and foe of the United States — could not suppress. He bluntly warned Mr. Assad that Syria would face increasing isolation if he did not respond to those demanding a transition to democracy, though again, he stopped short of explicitly calling for his removal.
“President Assad now has a choice,” Mr. Obama said. “He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.”
He was no less blunt in the case of Bahrain, a close ally that has brutally crackdown on protests there. “The only was forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail,” he said in one of the few phrases that drew applause from an audience that included State Department officials, lawmakers, military commanders and Arab diplomats.
(…)
Mr. Obama’s aides and speechwriters labored on his remarks until the last hours before he delivered it in the stately Benjamin Franklin Dining Room on the eighth floor of the State Department.
Until the end, for example, his aides debated how Mr. Obama would address the conflict that has fueled Arab anger for decades: the division between Israelis and Palestinians. A senior administration official said that Mr. Obama’s advisers remained deeply divided over whether he should formally endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state.
That he did so sent a strong signal that the United States expected Israel — as well as the Palestinians — to make concessions to restart peace talks that have been stalled since September.
“Precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel, too, must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
At the same time, he emphasized that no peace agreement should be allowed to jeopardize Israel’s security, to which he declared the United States had an “unshakable commitment.”
For all the hype that this speech got, both here in the United States and in the Middle East, it really didn’t say anything about the situation in the Middle East that American Presidents haven’t been saying since the 1970’s. It was, as Ed Morrissey notes, underwhelming:
The biggest problem for this speech isn’t Obama’s continuing confusion on working with antagonists and antagonizing allies, or the regurgitation of general principles for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s that the White House once again inflated expectations for a major address just to deliver routine white-paper positions and lip service on democratization. The speech was nothing special at all, one that a deputy secretary at the State Department could have just as easily covered.
Of course, the reaction in the United States to this speech isn’t nearly as important as how it will be received overseas. While that remains to be seen, ABC News reported earlier today that the President faced a difficult task in turning around Arab public opinion:
When President Obama speaks today on the so-called Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa, many people in the region either won’t be listening or will take what he says with a large grain of salt.
Obama will encounter a deeply skeptical audience; the confidence and hope generated by his speech to the Muslim world here almost two years ago have now faded with the perception that he has failed to deliver on his promises and U.S. policy in the region remains unchanged.
As uprisings have spread across the region from Tunisia to Bahrain, many critics say, the Obama administration has been slow to act, if at all. Combined with a lack of progress on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in particular, the U.S. role has been increasingly seen as irrelevant.
“The Egyptian people and the peoples of the region have invested much in Obama,” Hassan Nafaa, a political science professor at the University of Cairo who attended the speech in 2009, said. “They expected he would be able to do something to improve the current situation in the Middle East but he did nothing, as a matter of fact.
“If I have some other things to do [during the speech], I prefer to do them rather than listen to the speech because I don’t expect something that will make the difference with the American policy that he’s been doing until now.
So, it seems unlikely that the President will win many hearts and minds with this speech, and his call for Bashir Assad to step down is likely to be laughed at in Damascus. Nonetheless, once again, our President has committed the country to another quixotic try at Middle East peace. How many times are we going to try, and fail, before figuring out that there’s nothing we can do to force people that hate each other to make peace unless they want to?
Anyway, here’s the speech itself, in case you missed it:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Obama Speech Wordcloud via Taegan Goddard
Obama’s main upcoming decision on the Middle East is whether or not to veto the U.N. declaring Palestine a country.
Either the US will veto that resolution or make sure it never gets to a vote
Nothing new?
Wasn’t the billion dollar debt forgiveness for Egypt a new policy initiative?
I did not see this speech as being about Israel and Palestine It was about the relationship of the USA with the people though out the Middle East. Israel is only a small part of the picture. Israel is more important for short term domestic political considerations than it is to our long term interest in the area. In the future our interests will lie with the democratic majorities in Arab countries who are trying to peaceably improve their lives.
The reason Presidents have been pursuing “mid-east peace” since the 70’s is that:
1) people generally want peace
2) it’s kind of no-lose
The worst outcome being “hey, he tried for peace.”
It’s a lot better, IMO, than invading someone.
Would this be more or less quixotic than being the first black man to win the White House?
More or less quixotic than trying to pass universal health care — something many presidents had tried and failed to do?
Or getting Osama Bin Laden — something George W. Bush had sworn to do?
Cynicism is easy. I know the history as well as most laymen, I know the odds are very, very long. But we have to try the hard things, not just the easy ones.
For those inclined to turn their cynicism on the president himself, I’d point out that in an election season this does nothing for him politically. He thinks it’s the right thing to do.
I’m surprised Comrade President didn’t call for a return to Israel’s 1947 borders.
I’m sure you are surprised. But then you’re not very bright.
The people want peace. The great majority of Israelis would gladly go along with a Pal state along the lines almost agreed to at Camp David, so long as there own security would be secured. The great majority of the Palestinians would also approve, so long as they were rid of their occupiers, and had a viable state.
The problem is NOT that these two peoples are thoroughly riven by murderous hatred for each other. The dispute is between two normal groups of human beings, fighting over a limited resource – land. It is entirely within the scope of wise political leadership to be able to bring these two groups together around a peace deal.
The frustration that many seem to feel seems based on the fact that disputes like these, working against a backdrop of misunderstand, delusion, and the narrowness of ideology and religion, often take years or decades to work through – something that we modern folks, with our 24/7 news cycles and instant gratification culture find hard to understand.
As many people have pointed out as relates to Israel this is US policy going back over several presidents. Naturally the right will scream and yell and accuse Obama of selling out our allies.
So anyone here thus inclined should start by explaining just how any the Israel/Palestine portions of policy are different from George W. Bush’s policy.
perfectly put
because michael, obama is intent on selling out the state of israel, because of his slightly less slobbering rhetoric towards israel. and because i said so.
the fact that not a single policy or practical position has changed, and that we support them more than ever? mere technicalities.
Right, only one of the people are driven by murderous hatred and they are Muslims.
I guess it’s just me but I do think this speech was a least a little significant. Obama clearly picked a team and stated a desired outcome for Israel/Palestine which dramatically alters the status quo. If Israel is in fact any ally of the US, this certainly could strain that relationship and ultimately change the dynamic of the entire region. At this point ‘arab summer’ is a crapshoot at best.
Dumb question. No one has ever ask Israel to return to it’s pre-1967 borders.
I’m not so sure.
Obama would lose my vote if he vetoes a Palestinian state…non negotiable.
And I think Obama knows he’d lose more support than he gains by being fringe right Israel’s bottom.
heartbreakingly simple minded
Who strapped on the suicide vest, not the Jews. Who fired mortar at civilian targets, not the Jews. Who started every war in the Middle East, not the Jews. Who refuses to recognize the Jew’s right to exist?
Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006.
Its loss to Hezbollah then is what led to Israel’s current round of strutting overcompensation against the Palestinians.
because theyre all just bloodthirsty savages deserving of that kind of dehumanization, right? and they all support the same vile tactics of wanton murder and suicide bombing right? just a homogenous mass of brutes clamoring for jewish blood? thats all there is to it? just a theres no fracture or debate inside the territories about tactics? i realize youre provoking just to provoke, but the lack of nuance in your statements is, again, heartbreakingly simple minded.
yes, i re-read that and i DO realize suicide bombing and wanton murder are one and the same. d’oh.
cB:
Plus Kenyans are notoriously anti-Israeli.
I just want to say that as a Jew I really appreciate the rabid support of right-wing Christianists who look forward to the day they can sit in heaven and watch Jews burning for all eternity in hell.
oh yes, how could i forget. hey, whered my tinfoil go…
Who rejected the Clinton Peace Plan? Who is doing the ethnic cleansing of Christians in the West Bank? Who bombed Gaza YMCA library? Who attacked the U.S. diplomatic convoy killing three Americans in Gaza?
SH
The 1967 borders have been discussed for what is approaching 15 years worth of American foreign policy.
Read Doug’s article on the border comment:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obamas-reference-to-israels-1967-borders-creates-faux-controversy/
or Jeffery Goldberg over at the Atlantic for two sources…
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/nothing-new-in-the-idea-that-67-borders-should-guide-peace-talks-updated/239162/
Actually, it could be argued that this has been the policy since at least the Camp David Accords (1978), and the staged return of the Sinai Peninsula, began the process of returning the Israeli to its borders from June 3rd 1967.
See this excellent timeline from the Financial Times for more history on the borders:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/08b950fc-e22a-11d8-8005-00000e2511c8.html#axzz1Mpxt8BxM
And then please STFU… or at least bring some intellegent trolling.
So you are saying Israel started the war because they do not have the right to defend themselves?
I look forward to Joyner explaining how this bigotry really isn’t so bad and is something that he feels is a harmless contribution to his site’s comment threads.
So what happens to the Jews that have settled outside the 1967 borders?
Probably the same thing that happened to most the Palestinians who had been living and owning land within the borders of modern Israel prior to 1948.
The other question with all of this is how many of those people are living illegally in the occupied territories, given that the illegal colonization process is still going on to this day.
And note, by illegal I mean that they are not only in violation of international law, but are even in violation of Isreali Law (often stealing privately-owned land from Palestinians).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasson_Report
This is where the “swaps” come in. Any deal is going to have to include an agreement that Israel gets the territory settlements have been established and trades it for territory elsewhere.
That’s the rational thing to do so, of course, they won’t do it.
The Palestinians should trade prime real estate in Jerusalem’s suburbs for tracts of desert down by the Egyptian border?
Just because they have the right to defend themselves doesn’t mean they can do it.
Remember the IDF chief who ordered the start of the war, made some war profiteering stock trades and then checked himself into the hospital with a tummy ache?
Israel better do a deal while it still can.
One problem in swaps is always the question of “equal” trade. In theory it makes sense, but when you get into the detail you suddenly discover that they party with less political/military power has traded prime real estate for swampland (see history of Native American land trades for some of the particularly egregious examples).
This becomes especially tough when you live in an area that has both deserts and farm lands, but not in equal proportion.
What ever happened to quid pro quo? If Palestinians don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, we don’t recognize a Palestinian state’s right to exist.
Harry, I thought you was an atheist?
Oh and by the way Obama is a, well, a very bad worldly puppet. And so is anyone who supports going back to the borders before 1967.
Completely clueless to what will happen puppets.
If anyone wonders what a Palestinian state would be like, they simply have to look at the Gaza Strip after Israel pulled out. The Palestinian destroyed the Israeli settlements. Then the the Gaza Strip became a launching pad for mortars and rockets.
I promise, you’re not ready for this.
http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org
Kinda like what the South would look like if New York and California stopped sending it a constant stream of welfare?
Wingnuts seem offended that the Palestinians destroyed the symbols of Israeli colonization.
Correct. and now they want to give the terrorists the high ground, very sad.But oh so predictable.
Ponce you are oh so predictable. Dude are you even from America?
Once more into the breech…eh?
“Why do you keep hitting your head with that hammer, Mr. President?” I believe every President since Truman has still got a ringing headache from that hammer, even in Heaven. New approach, indeed!
Seems to me that too many of us are projecting Western values and ideas of fairness onto Mid-Easterners who have lived with a much different set of values and have an entirely different idea of fairness in this situation, and well-developed concepts of justice leading to the only proper outcome for them as well.
GA:
Ethnic Jew, not religious.
It took America a long time to end slavery, too.
Doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth fighting for.
Looks like the fringe right Israelis may have finally pushed America too far.
Time for a no fly zone?
Reynolds we know you are not religious. Your ego will not allow for the existance of God. I was shocked to here you admit to being Jewish. You are living proof not all Jews are intelligent. You are one of those dumb f***s who think they are not going to come after you. And, secular Jew will probably burn in hell if there is one. I suspect just emptiness. But that is what you have now.
WS:
You’re drunk.
For a non-Muslim to defend Islam, would be like a Black defending the Klan or a Jew defending Nazism. The Klan thinks Blacks are inferior. The Nazis think Jews are inferior. The Muslims believe infidels are inferior. The Jews didn’t believe the Nazi Holocaust was happening till it was too late. And now the Western world refuses to believe that an Islamic holocaust is taking place.
Do you want to loose over 1/2 a million lives to bring peace in the Middle East? Besides the Civil War was an internal matter. No outsider was trying to force us to keep or end slavery.
Ummm, I just had an insight regarding this topic.
Don’t the Israelis smell a trap of a backlash against Obama? (Because it all summarizes in one word, Obama.)
See what has happened to the Right in America. Just because they’re trying to oppose Obama on every single issue the Right often marginalize themselves.
I guess being constructive is too much of a dream.
well yes, it would be, if youre deluded enough to believe the black/white false dichotomy.
There is but one permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that is the total destruction of Israel. Any lesser accomodation will be fleeting and much to the disadvantage of Israel and to any nation that elects to assist in defending such an accomodation. The Israelis know this, the Palestinians believe this with all their hearts, and our current President, like many before him, hasn’t a clue. He, too, wants to draw a line in the sand that will be washed away with the next tide. Churchill had it right lo these many years ago.
I wish Obama good luck in his peace initiative, but I confess I see Lucy and a football…….
Our tax dollars at work…
And SH thinks Muslims are inferior. Well, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep…
No need for shots to be fired.
All it would take is for America to threaten to cut off the billions of dollars in welfare we send Israel each year and the they’d tear down their illegal settlements like they did in Gaza.
“WS:
You’re drunk.”
I suspect that Wiley’s screen name is how he wants us to think of him. The problem is that only the second part appears to be accurate.
@ anjin-san and cB
I take it that you agree with Islam, Sharia law and what is taught in the Koran, right?
wtf? where did you get that from.
im saying that youre grossly generalizing a religion of 1.5 billion people, and lumping them all in with the jackasses shooting rockets into ashquelon and marrying 8 year olds. youre not distinguishing between any form of moderate secular islam, and fundamentalism. youre actually not even acknowledging any sort of debate or fracture within the islamic community writ large.
and the koran and sharia and whatnot? much of it is just innocuous religious doctrine, albeit ‘strange’ to the west. does it contain passages advocating vileness? damn right. many religious doctrines do. but again, youre ignoring that it is interpreted and applied many different ways, by many different people.
but alas, im probably debating with a brick wall.
You are right, I go by what the Koran says and Sharia law that is based on the Koran.not the way it is practice. Have you ever read the Koran? The terrorist are the ones keeping the teachings of Mohammad.
To be a Christian is to be Christ like. To be a Buddhist is to be like Buddha. To be a Muslim is to be like Mohammad. And what was Mohammad like? He was a pedophile, a liar, a man without honor, a slaver, a terrorist, false prophet and a psychopathy.
CB this is a good book right here that will educate you and it’s free:) http://prophetofdoom.net/
Prophet of Doom is a good book. I love the author’s sense of humor.
I would recommend Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/0879759844
Oh my,
The Southern Cracker and G.A. lift their hoods and just admit they are racist bigots.
What.a.surprise!
What race is Muslim? How can it be bigotry, if what we say is true?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386392/Im-gonna-send-kaffir-b—straight-hell-White-teen-baby-married-Muslim-murdered-chilling-text.html#ixzz1MwLRp3t6
Islam is peace
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/09/islam-a-threat-to-western-freedom-wilders/
http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/31020-pakistani-muslims-kidnap-christian-girl-threaten-honor-killing
More bigotry
Damn conservative should go around asking questions.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/hillsborough/muslim-womans-death-questioned-by-conservative-activist-05202011
@ ponce
Lots more bigot stories where these came from.
again, youre extrapolating from very specific and extreme examples a position onto 1.5 billion people, with no recognition of any moderation, debate, or difference in the muslim world. as i said, yes, of course people do f*cked up things in the name of god (in every religion…), but im sure youll tell me that based on these horrible fundamentalist examples, all one and a half billion muslims are savages, which (from the best i can gather) is what you are really saying.
sorry man, thats nothing if not blindly prejudiced and intolerant, which is called…
What I am saying is 1.5 billion people have a savage and brutal religion that has not changed in 1400 years, . How they practice that religion makes no differences to me. Just because a Klansman never lynched a Black, by virtue of the fact he is a Klansman he is still a racist.
Even if I posted 1.5 billion stories, you would tell me there are still good Muslims out there. The only good Muslim is one that does not practice their faith.
There is one major difference between Islam and Christianity. The atrocities committed by Christians are contrary to the teaching of Christ. The atrocities committed by Muslims are in keeping with the teachings of Mohammad.
Haha,
Southern Cracker just keeps digging his racist hole deeper and deeper.
Wingnuts always double down on the crazy. Always.
i guess i just dont accept your framing. i think youre distorting a lot of history and ignoring true reform and evolution in the muslim world.
again, i consider that a gross misinterpretation. i suppose this has gone as far as it can go, so cheers. at least nobody got called a stupid libtard or a wingnut
wow, i missed that part, but a big part of my problem with your position is that it ignores how tenents and doctrines can and have changed with time when it comes to islam, but taking it as granted when it comes to other religions.
I got called a racist and a bigot again:)
That is because you are a racist and a bigot.
@ Have a nice G.A.
I’ve never understood why people so strongly defend Islam, when they are so ignorant of it and so many people are being killed in the name of Islam. You never see anyone defending Buddhism or Hinduism. But then Buddhists and Hindus aren’t killing people the way Islam is. Why defend a religion of hate?
Ignorance, indoctrination, and fear.
sigh….Any reasons, or is just because I am white pigmented human? Have a flag in my pic? believe that Islam is Islam? Speak my mind? Said Terrorist? Had blonde hair and have blue eyes? Am Strait because I was born that way?Make better jokes then you?
How true.
“I’ve never understood why people so strongly defend Islam”
Many of us have gotten to know Muslims both here in the US and while deployed in the Middle East. Many of us have read both the Bible and the Koran. Some of us understand statistics.
Steve
oh steve, so naive. theyre just waiting for their moment to pounce. savages, all of them
It’s so shameful to read the comments by the zionist apologists. They contribute only propaganda. Those here in the U.S., they’re not patriotic Americans – they have dual citizenships and most of the comments made here in support of israel are coming from military zionist propaganda officers in tel-aviv.
Real Americans want to stop sending them our money and protection.
While we Americans are and have been the source from which the zionist have amassed great wealth and security, and on our dime, the zionist stole and illegally occupy Palestine, murdering thousands of innocent women and children. They were only able to do it with America backing them. They are afraid of anyone suggesting America cut them off – NO MAS! – and they don’t like it. They’re nuts and welfare queens.
Hey folks, we’re broke and all used up.. The zionist have us fighting at least 4 WARS right now – Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Lybia – soon it will be Iran – they tell us it might take a hundred years to defeat the war on terror so they can be the racist apartheid loving people that they are.
It’s only pure selfishness on their part – The chosen people won’t quit, not now – despite what Obama said, there will be no change. They own us/America – you can thank our Congress – traitors all of them, the banks and AIPAC for that.
Only nuclear war will settle the matter now – the zionist have the power to destroy all the major Arab cities and turn them into black spots – and when they have to, the zionist will blow up the world – a disgusting people will do that and we can’t stop them. But israel will also become one giant black spot. It won’t survive.
I say let’s hurry up and get it over with! In the end there will be no more zionism and no more israel – The world will curse israel and zionist survivors will be hunted down. And they will get what they deserve.
A world lost. This will happen -because a bunch of blood-thirsty zionist thugs want to continue stealing Arab lands and murder innocent children with tanks and jets made in America.
I can take comfort in knowing there will be no more israel and sadly, there will be no more America.
Let’s just get it over with.