The president set out yesterday to valiantly reset U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East by embracing the Arab Spring, establishing a new blueprint for America's goals in the region. As a highly anticipated and long-overdue addendum to his 2009 address in Cairo, the speech was intended to regain lost support among younger Arabs deeply disappointed with America's continued hesitation between dictators and democracy.
But judging by much of the region's reaction, the address needlessly stepped on its own core message by opening yet another inopportune rift with the Israeli government on the eve of Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with the president.
Under any circumstances, the president confronted extraordinary challenges selling his message to his intended Arab audience.
The Middle East has dramatically changed since his first Cairo address nearly two years ago. From the moment young Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia last December, the White House has consistently been two steps behind rapidly unfolding revolts, flip-flopping along the way depending on the shelf life of its autocratic allies. This palatable uncertainty has cost us precious support among young Arabs hoping for more out of America.
And when the U.S. has tried to act, it has often been too little too late. In a region where actions speak louder than words, the United States has (so far at least) failed to move the needle against Gaddafi in Libya, continued to throw lifelines to Syria's Assad, and has absolutely nothing to show for its failed two-year effort at forging a Middle East peace except a self-indulgent and untimely resignation from George Mitchell, its Middle East envoy.
The president could have done better.
He could have articulated a more coherent policy in Libya, including recognizing the Libyan opposition and announcing a "lend-lease" program to help the rebels. He could have declared the Assad regime illegitimate and announced his determination to seek more international sanctions on the regime. Had there been more effort, he also could have unveiled an actual multilateral economic development initiative that would establish a new Middle East enterprise fund financed largely through wealthier Arab oil producers with U.S. and European support. Instead, he merely pledged to try to seek support for the concept when he travels next week to Europe.
The president also could have declared his intention to personally commit his prestige to restarting stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. And he could have reached out to the Israeli people on the eve of his summit with the Israeli prime minister, encouraging them to innovatively approach the Arab revolts as an opportunity to rebuild support for Israel's legitimate aspirations in the Middle East.
But he did none of this, which is why I am afraid the speech may not realize its full potential.
As presidential speeches go, it was a rhetorical tour de force. The president painstakingly articulated a well-constructed linkage between America's core values and the values motivating Arabs to face down the forces of repression. It represented an inspiring evocation of American history to better align Arab revolts with our own founding principles.
Among the president's many challenges is transforming his remarks into actual policy. "Cairo 1" faded into history largely because the White House was so slow translating the president's principles into actual and sustainable programs.
The president articulated a series of sensible economic assistance initiatives to support Egypt's and Tunisia's democratic transition. But matching word with deed depends not only on finding the funds necessary to launch these programs, but also rewiring his administration to avoid the same pitfall of overpromising and underperforming. So far, the president has not deemed it necessary to appoint anyone with adequate authority to expedite a coordinated and rapid outreach to Arab democrats. Judging by the lost opportunities from "Cairo 1," that would be committing the same error twice.
And without realizing the consequences, the president then fell off his city on a hill.
Two thirds of the way into the address, he took an unanticipated and lengthy deep dive into the stalled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Buried on Page 11 he proclaimed: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.."
This was the first time any U.S. president has publicly made such a declaration. Nothing particularly new in the words themselves (indeed, almost anyone involved in Middle East peace negotiations has long understood this to be informal U.S. policy).
However, it now appears that virtually everyone who read the speech is singularly fixated on this sentence as if the entire speech were constructed around it. That is truly regrettable.
Like other clumsy compromises between those who wanted the U.S. to lay out a more comprehensive U.S. position and those who wanted to avoid diverting the speech's objectives, the president inserted this declaration at the eleventh hour without laying adequate groundwork with our ally, Israel, or with the Palestinians. Perhaps the White House hoped it would dissuade Palestinians hellbent on forcing the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state within pre-67 borders. But it likely will not achieve this goal. So it begs the question: In the absence of any ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, why open up this can of worms now when it rewards the White House with little but more headaches at a time when Israel feels even more threatened by unfolding events?
The president is understandably frustrated with the stalled peace process. He has staked a great deal on America forging a Middle East peace as part of a broader effort to rebuild America's security in the world. But he is going to have to do far more than merely complaining. It is high time for him to show that he is personally prepared to fill the void created by the region's new realities. He is going to invest the time and effort to convince Israelis of his commitment to their security and to Palestinians that there is hope for a compromise if they are willing to do so without Hamas.
He is going to have to try his level best to do what every predecessor before him well understood: while peace cannot be forced on both sides, it takes a president to invest the personal time necessary to get the sides to compromise, rather than subcontracting it to envoys lacking access to the Oval Office. Only then will his declaration have any real resonance to it.
It will also take a president deeply engaged in his own speech's goals to convince young Arabs that America is truly on their side.
The president has now once again placed the nation's credibility with Arabs and with Israelis on his own shoulders and he is just going to have to accept the consequences through his own investment of time and effort.
Obama's Middle East Speech: VIDEO, Full Text
Obama's Middle East speech missed 'historic opportunity,' say many ...
Obama's speech draws mixed reviews in Middle East - CNN
Addressing Muslims, Obama Pushes Mideast Peace - NYTimes.com
It was a fine speech by the President.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
We actually have a word in English for that. It's "two".
Until and unless the Israeli government and Israeli taxpayers start sending money our way, you should be concerned about rifts caused by Bibi and his buddies not President Obama's attempt to be an honest broker in the peace process.
Why would he do this? President Obama has already put in an enormous amount of effort in getting these talks going, and he has been met with the political equivalent of "a back of the hand" from Netanyahu. Also, unlike what Ambassador Ginsberg has said, I have heard that his speech was well received by the Arab world, however most of the Arab world believes, as do the experts, that restarting the peace process at this time is impossible.
There is a slight chance this all could play well, but the best chances are that Israel firms up their facts on the ground and punts a solution into the 2012 elections where they are counting on a more robust support from the United States and an outcome.
Meanwhile, no peace, no justice.
Deal with it Marc.
Second, we have a lot of enemies in the Islamic world mostly because of our support for Israel, which has oppressed the Palestinians. Why do you not comprehend that?
Speaking of terrorism, Israel has killed more civilians, and blown up more hospitals, apartment buildings, ambulances and people, than its enemies.
2. as far as the "rebels" in libya are concerned - we know very little about their composition - we have learned that among them are a fair number of salafi muslims who want to turn the clock back for women and society in one of the most secular societies in north africa
israel has had a free ride ever since they 'miraculously' defeated five arab armies...six american presidents have affirmed that settlements are illegal- and the land is covered with them. another 1300 units were announced the day of obama's speech...
we need a true 'even handed' approach to policy in the region - and israel and its blind supporters will scream bloody murder...but they had a good run - and now its coming to an end!
The disproportion of this issue is staggering, when one imagines any other country/state taking up as much of our $$$$, time and effort as does Israel. Unfairness magnified in so many ways.
Time for the USA to think about the USA, let the Jewish donors whine and complain all they want.
Unconditional support for Israel is not in our best self interest. Our concerns are not identical and the US is funding an oppressive right wing leadership totally NOT interested in peace.
This article was actually printed in the Wall Street Journal. Just imagine changing the word "Jewish" to any other voting population......kinda sounds like blackmail, does it not??
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331661918527154.html
Not everything hinges on WHETHER or NOT the Jewish voting population is "happy" about US foreign policy. It's long past time to put this issue in perspective, stop tiptoeing and speak honestly about Israel and its' importance in the big picture.