Obama's words and waters being tested, or stirred

So, how about POTUS Obama's Middle East foreign policy (was it?) speech? He was clumsy. He was lawyerly. He was testing the waters with rhetoric and tossing in a few ideas, one of which distracted from the fine, thoughtful comments that went before it.

Sadly, that seems to be what the take-away will be, due to Obama's, uhh, audacity (not of hope, sorry, but of typical arrogance).

He suggested that Israel accept a retreat to their pre-1967 borders as part of a peaceful transition to a Palestinian state, which made Israel 9 miles wide at the time, in its middle.

Curiously, the very next day Obama met with Israel's PM, which suggests an anterior motive for the entire speech. The meeting showed us, those watching, that, with due respect to both men, the "Leader of the Free World" might hold the greatest powers of man in his office, but he still needs a talking to now and then by a conscientious, time-tested professional.

Bibi Netanyahu offered Obama his clear, diplomatic view of Obama's idea during a joint media session in the Oval Office. It was a stunning scene of an unfettered leader teaching an unsettled, face-shielding, simmering lecturer (Pres. Obama) a thing or two about how to prevent the destruction of Israel (while Obama needs further advice on avoiding helping chaos to reign elsewhere in the tribally, religiously and ethnically tense Middle East).

God willing, our big leader will not make things worse for Arabs in other countries OR Israelis/Palestinians of any stripe.

Mostly, for someone who holds an interest in the Middle East as I do, his speech was just a position speech, with little new BUT the line that toyed with being serious about the 1967 lines. THEN, quite as a man attempting to inject cover into everything, he added wording about land swaps.

Don't tire yourselves on the word games, watch for the fallout from this speech. Obama made it clear that the USA is on the side of those seeking democracy, and cast dispersions on the despots in the region, from Libya to Syria. It didn't offer a lot on Iran.

Watch, as predictable as time passing, there will be more tests and nasty words to encourage American guilt, once again. Yes, if you are NOT supporting BHO's words, some will say it equates supporting a cursed plight for innocent Palestinians.

Shame that these overt supporters of Palestinian leaders and their tactics had no guilt about their views. Hamas was elected to rule in Gaza. So keep in mind that their partnership with the more sane (you decide by how much) Palestinian leadership may only be a way to control that other side.

I ask this question often, and you should, too. I would like journalists to ask this question, and get a legit answer: Why is it STILL only Israel's back with a target on it, where the Palestinian plight is concerned?

How have the Israeli government failed Palestinians, when their own brethren do not want to take them in? If peace is a goal, this would be happening. Palestinians are being used by some Arabs as pawns in the Arab Cold War against Israel. They were rejected in 1948, in 1967, in later years.

Somehow this cruddy treatment is always propped up as Israel's blight on another race. Really? Are enough of you so stupid to believe that, or is it simply a convenient distraction from the solid issue: A broad faction of Arabs do not want the conflict to end but one way, with the end of the Jewish State.

Did Obama's speech make THAT clear? No.

- jR

Post a Comment