Obama's "A Moment of Opportunity" Address

President Barak Obama has proven with his recent address on the Middle East that he is no different than any other US president or politician.  They all proceed under the guise that they are working in the best interest of the United States of America, but their words and actions make it hard to believe that they even know what is in the best interest this country.


There is no doubt that President Obama is an eloquent orator and there are aspects of his speech that merit approval.  His focus on encouraging investment and trade in the Middle East to help the economic situations of many of the countries in the region is warranted.  Even the countries with oil resources need to have more diversified economies so that they don't tumble into crisis when the reserves are gone or the global market turns to alternate fuel sources.  Reaching out to the nations of he Middle East and helping them to build strong and diversified economies will certainly help bring stability to the region.

President Obama also honorably placed the "Arab Spring" in an historical context that underlines the importance and the hope that the recent revolutions and protests in the region offer and inspire.  He states: "Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights."  He continues with the story of Muhammad Bouazizi, whose personal frustration and sacrifice in the face of hopelessness ignited the fires of revolution and inspired a country, a region and the world to hope for a better future.  Speaking of the revolutions, President Obama details how these countries gained independence "long ago, but in too many places their people did not."  What Muhammad Bouazizi and the other protesters and revolutionaries have shown their nations and the world is their will to end decades of oppression and to take their future into their own hands.  It is important that President Obama recognizes this and goes further to mention that these revolutions really have been initiated by the people and no credit can be given to anyone else.   

This discourse is refreshing after the major delay in response from the US when the revolutions first began.  It is no secret that the US does not boast a good reputation in the Middle East, but we had a very small window of opportunity to change that.  When the demonstrations began in Egypt, the administration should have voiced its support for the people of Egypt.  Instead, it was too worried to lose a dictatorial ally than to recognize and support the efforts of a people standing up for their human rights.  The comments of Vice President Biden in a interview with Jim Lehrer in response to questions about the revolution in Egypt makes this very clear.  There is no concern for human rights here, but concern for what the administration thought was in the best interest of the United States.  The shortsightedness of the administration wasted an opportunity to make long-term strides in changing Middle East perceptions of the US.

Yesterday's remarks by President Obama are just that--remarks.  There is no real substance to his words.  It is true that he has become emboldened by the more peaceful revolutions to call on the dictators, which have been more violent with their people, to stop the violence and to "lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way."  This includes the president of Syria, with whom the US recently opened diplomatic relations, but has not been a close ally; the president of Yemen, who has already indicated that he would step down from his position; and the king of Bahrain, who already declared a lift of the state of emergency and martial law that was imposed in March.  Obama's words, which may seem bold and strong to someone not paying close attention, are weak and opportunistic.  He isn't calling for something or doing anything that isn't already happening, but I'm sure he hopes most people won't be aware of this.

The real problem with President Obama's speech, however, is his plan for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He stresses over and over again how Israel has every right to secure itself against any forces that may threaten it.  In a larger perspective, I'm sure most people agree that the sovereignty of any nation includes the right to protect itself.  However, one must bear in mind the context of his statements.  Israel has the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the Middle East.  Although the United States supplies many countries in the Middle East with military equipment, Israel receives the newest and most advanced holdings in order to always provide it with an edge over the other countries in the region. President Obama stated that one of the core interests in the Middle East for the US was "standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace." He later expands on this stating "every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.  Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state."  There are a few things that are ridiculous about this statement.  First, when President Obama mentions the right of every state to protect itself, he is really only referring to Israel.  Second, the Palestinians are warned that they must first ensure security for Israel after the withdrawal of Israeli military and they are not allowed to militarize their own borders, but must live with the fact that their oppressive occupiers for the past 60 plus years are the only ones allowed to keep its military presence.

According to President Obama "the United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region," except of course when it comes from Israel.  We don't have to go back very far to find evidence of this.  On May 15, 2001 (just five days ago) the Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank commemorated the nakba (catastrophe), the day after Israel was declared a state in 1948, with demonstrations along the borders of Israel.  Some threw rocks and others climbed unarmed over fences that blocked occupied lands that were taken by the Israelis in 1967.  The Israeli response was to open fire on these people, which killed at least a dozen people and wounded over a hundred more.  The US is appalled by heads of state shooting unarmed demonstrators in other lands, as it should be, but when it comes to Palestine and Israel, the Israelis have a license to kill.  They need to protect themselves and their nation from the unarmed Palestinians who have been living in refugee camps for 63 years and want to return to their homes.  This makes perfect sense to me (please note the sarcasm).

There was a possibility that President Obama might be headed in the right direction when we declared that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," which is an indicator that he believes there should be an Israeli and a Palestinian state.  This has certainly angered Prime Minister Netanyahu and the likes of Mit Romney, who claims President Obama just threw Israel "under the bus".  However, President Obama's stand is weak, because he opens the topic of Israel and Palestine by suggesting the Palestinians move to be recognized as a state in the UN this September is a  "symbolic" action "to isolate Israel at the United Nations" and it " won’t create an independent state".  He continues by playing on the rhetoric of Palestinians refusing Israel's right to exist and their use of terrorism.  This is no longer the discourse of the Palestinians and President Obama is fully aware of this.  This is just a ruse of clever speech to support his comments about the utmost need to make sure Israel is secure.

"The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state," President Obama said in his address, but this is not possible and he knows it.  The West Bank and Gaza are not contiguous and the only way to make that possible is to split Israel in half.  He mentions land swaps, which might make this possible, but what he doesn't say is the lands that would go to the Israelis are those that have been claimed by the illegal settlers in the West Bank and include the natural water aquifers that should belong to the Palestinians.  The Palestinians would get Israeli territories that aren't inhabited because there are no sustainable resources.  These are unacceptable options for a viable Palestinian state.

Throughout this address, President Obama refers to human rights and self-determination, but his stance on Israel and Palestine clearly show that he is not all that interested in the human rights and self-determination of the Palestinians.  The sentiments of his discourse are good and valiant, but the reality of his words are feeble and cowardly.  It is a shame that President Obama and his administration have once again floundered on the opportunity to make a real difference.