I've been musing about President Barack Obama's speech on the Middle East and North Africa for the past week: I like it, I like it not. And I still don't have a clue what to make of it after listening to him on Sunday as he addressed the influential pro-Israel lobby group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
No doubt that the president gives fantastic speeches. The one on Thursday had two parts. In the first half, Obama has so many good points about the change sweeping the Arab world. In fact, I liked what I heard so much that I now feel sorry that he actually gave the speech. Why? Friends and colleagues are convinced that he could not have ignored the Israeli-Palestinian issue -- but I wish he had. That's the problem. In these two speeches, President Obama missed an opportunity to make two distinct points, and that bringing Israel up on Thursday muddled his message.
If the president hadn't talked about Israel on Thursday, that first part of the speech would have been covered differently by the media, deservedly so. "The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism," Obama said. "Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression." Exactly. And the fact that the president of the United States finally spoke in the same language as his Middle Eastern counterparts -- as crude as a Columbia and a Harvard Law School graduate can speak up -- is remarkable.
If President Obama hadn't introduced Israel into his Thursday remarks and had focused solely on the Arab uprisings, he still would be able to make his case very strongly, before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress. But that didn't happen. Netanyahu overreacted to Obama's reference to the 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps. On Sunday, the president had to bring clarity to his remarks, and provided extra assurances to Israel to calm it down. "The commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad," Obama said. And there is nothing original about that -- as well.
There's no point in arguing about something that's already done. But the point that I'm trying to make is that the White House should have known that the moment president talks about Israel, it makes headlines. Israel claims more interest and energy than nearly any other country, and now, as the Middle East undergoes remarkable transformation, people still can not give up from tying Israel to everything that's going on in the region. For a change, though, the current Arab unrest has nothing to do with Israel.
"Some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe," the president said. "If you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland."
Those issues command far less interest than the latest salvo between Obama and Netanyahu. The question is how to help people move toward a better life. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict unquestionably needs to be settled peacefully -- but it's just one of the Middle East's issues. Even if that conflict were miraculously solved tomorrow, the Arab world would continue to sink into a dark hole of malfunction, using their energy and resources to go backward. But the people are demanding a new way forward.
The dilemma is what did these two speeches accomplish? Did we really need this theatrical show, with President Obama first appearing to side with the Palestinians? Is this serving the people of the region who have put everything on the line to effect change? It's difficult to have an answer. But what's clear is that the ones who were actually supposed to get a hit by the first half of the Thursday's speech are playing the three monkeys -- deaf, dumb and blind.
But if Obama had waited until the weekend to talk about Israel, who would have been the first to react to his speech? Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah? Or would the Saudis have said something? Or would Turkey, the region's rising power, have spoken up? The Erdogan government certainly has trafficked in rhetoric that's spiteful toward Israel, which created a bloody ordeal last year off the coast of Gaza. This year, the organizers of that flotilla will repeat their attempt to break the Gaza naval blockade. Obama said nothing about the coming danger or shared any insider knowledge as to whether or how he is trying to avert this upcoming crisis.
The president did not provide a concrete map outlining the steps he would undertake against Syria, or how long it will take for NATO to depose Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. Nor did he share any thoughts about an approach to Yemen or Bahrain. But while it would be great to have simple, clear answers about the path forward, there's not always clarity about what to do next. Well, sometimes, the way is blurry and unclear. Also, Obama was addressing not only the American people, but the people of the region as well -- people who are used to hearing a lot of empty talk. He may not have moved things around, but he did give a speech that could have inspired people. Yet, now, like always, everyone is talking about Israel, Israel, and Israel -- again.
As a result, his remarks raise more questions, such as why he didn't mention Saudi Arabia -- at all. Many people fixate on the workings of the Israeli lobby, but the Saudis influence Washington in a much more cunning way. They do their business silently and the U.S. lets them get away with a lot. They're a different kind of a superpower: the world's biggest oil producing country.
Alan Gerson, who represented 9/11 families in their lawsuit against the Saudi government, reminded me that after the bombing of U.S.S. Cole, it was the first time that the U.S. government really made the connection between terrorist financing and al-Qaeda. They knew that the money was the oxygen that allows it to work. The question was where was the oxygen coming from. And they discovered that it was principally coming from Saudi Arabia. Vice President Al Gore, who was also the head of National Security Planning Group, authorized to send a team to Riyadh almost a year before al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They asked the Saudi authorities and the Saudi banks to shut it down. "The Saudi government did not stop the banks from doing it until after 9/11," Gerson said. "It was too risky to allow it to continue afterwards." This is just one example of Saudi behavior, totally separate from what they're getting away with in Bahrain.
In brief, if Obama could not say a word to the Saudis because of their control over the world oil prices, he could have done without addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Thursday. On Sunday, it would have been a whole different story. In the meantime, the world's media would have really been talking about what the president said about the Arab uprisings. But who knows, may be the White House purposely wanted to live this whole new drama with Netanyahu.
Follow Tulin Daloglu on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TulinDaloglu
The reply by Israel to all these resolutions is GO TO HELL WITH THE UN.
What would have happened to a weaker nation such as Iran if the SCs resolution had condemned it? The SC would introduce sanctions and within a few months the US B52s would do their job of destroying Irans infrastructure.
Can the UNO and its American appointee puppet secretary move his little finger in the case of Israel dropping SCs resolutions in the waste paper basket? Any sanctions on Israel. No way,
Israel is a high caste Brahmin created from the head Palestinians are polluted illegitimate untouchables ( Dalits)
That is why the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr.Mahathir said the Jews rule the world by proxy, in one sentence he summarized the power, might and political domination of the Zionists in the world.
The Israeli/Palestine conflict has always been at the core of US policy in the Middle East. Had Obama made no mention if it, the very omission of it would have been the headline. Why is Oba avoiding the issue? How can he be so hypocritical to support the democratic uprisings and not discuss the 63 year long freedom struggle by the Palestinians?
The Arab Spring has profound implications for both the US and Israel. Obama had no choice but to address the entirety of the crisis.
The US has vern perceived as being caught flat footed on these events. In short, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
So the President focused his speech on Israel for obvious reasons; shared values, a fellow democracy with mutual strategic interests and concerns. In short, Israel is the ONLY society in the ME region which is stable, a consistent and reliable ally and democracy, which is faced with chaos and conflict on all its flanks emanating from Arab countries in flux, which necessitates collaborative stategic planning to deal with any contingencies that may come Israel's way and which may also impact on the US's security and strategic interests in that region.
If you know the history of World War One then you know that European colonization, of Africa and the Middle East, is continuing to achieve the goals the Europeans intended nearly 100 years ago.
"A Peace to End All Peace, The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (1989) is a history written by David Fromkin. The book, which was a Pulitzer prize finalist, describes the events leading to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, and the drastic changes that took place in the Middle East as a result."
Great reading!
The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats. The conclusion is pretty obvious.
With 24 seats in the British Parliament Jews are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Arabs. If Muslims and Arabs for instance, were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats. All hell would break loose.
A question must be raised here. Why are Jews overwhelmingly over-represented in the British parliament, in British and American political pressure groups, in political fundraising and in the media?
Haim Saban, the Israeli-American, multibillionaire media mogul offers the answer. The New Yorker reported this week that at a conference last fall, Saban described his pro-Israeli formula, outlining “three ways to be influential in American politics…make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.
Once the Arab/Muslim world gets with the program and seeks/developes a similar influence/programs...there will be balance.
We are STILL waiting for that eventuality.
But right now...there just seems to be a lot of empty talk.