Israel Has No Reason To Be Angry
Published in NRG Maariv
(Israel) on 5 June 2009
by Shmuel Rozner (link to original)
Like a contestant in the Miss Hawaii pageant, Obama stood on stage in Cairo last Thursday and asked for world peace. Only that - and freezing the settlements. We don't need anything else.
An impressively built, well polished and fluent speech. However, try to recall a single sentence and you will realize it is not an easy task. Obama spoke a lot, but with caution, as someone who does not want to spoil the festive occasion with a jolting remark that might cause a disagreement or scratch an open wound.
Iran gained from this approach when it comes to the nuclear issue: Obama did not say a word that might be interpreted as a threat or even a shadow of a threat. Israel also gained from the situation: The American president felt as if he quarreled enough for the past two weeks, and so he made do with repeating what is already common knowledge.
Israel has no reason to be angered by this speech. The American president went out of his way to stress his obligation to maintain Israel's safety, with an added reminder as to the circumstances that lead to Israel's formation. As a matter of fact, no one else has a reason to complain to Obama either. He delivered a magnificent speech, only not particularly interesting. Actions will speak louder than words.
As it is, the speech had no lack of pretense. It's either one or the other. If Obama is a "realist", who is outlining a calculated policy based on mutual interests, à la George Bush Senior, there is no room for nonsense vis-à-vis an Arab democracy. If he wants progress and women's rights, like Bush Junior, there is no point in making nice with the acting regime leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran.
Like George Bush Senior
Therefore, there is reason to suspect that Obama is much more like the father than the son, for better or for worse. Like Bush Senior, who proclaimed in his inaugural speech, "We know what works: Freedom works. We know what's right: Freedom is right"- so did Obama. In Cairo he said:"my commitment (is) to governments that reflect the will of the people".
Neither of them is speaking the truth. When it comes to the United States, the president is indeed obligated to a just democracy, but when it comes to the Middle East he is only obligated to mention "the will of the people", not to act on its behalf.
Obama spoke a lot, but did not specify at all. How will he obtain peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians without "forcing" his own will? How will he convince Iran to abandon its Nuclear program? And will he externally support an Iraqi government even if the people of Iraq do not have the safe and unified country he is asking for?
To all of the above he did not give answers. Perhaps he has none. Either way, the Cairo speech did not cause any damage. If there will be a turning point, his policy will be determined based on its success or failure.
When Ronald Reagan asked: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", it was bold, aggressive and controversial. But this speech too would have looked different in retrospect if the Berlin wall had not fallen.
An impressively built, well polished and fluent speech. However, try to recall a single sentence and you will realize it is not an easy task. Obama spoke a lot, but with caution, as someone who does not want to spoil the festive occasion with a jolting remark that might cause a disagreement or scratch an open wound.
Iran gained from this approach when it comes to the nuclear issue: Obama did not say a word that might be interpreted as a threat or even a shadow of a threat. Israel also gained from the situation: The American president felt as if he quarreled enough for the past two weeks, and so he made do with repeating what is already common knowledge.
Israel has no reason to be angered by this speech. The American president went out of his way to stress his obligation to maintain Israel's safety, with an added reminder as to the circumstances that lead to Israel's formation. As a matter of fact, no one else has a reason to complain to Obama either. He delivered a magnificent speech, only not particularly interesting. Actions will speak louder than words.
As it is, the speech had no lack of pretense. It's either one or the other. If Obama is a "realist", who is outlining a calculated policy based on mutual interests, à la George Bush Senior, there is no room for nonsense vis-à-vis an Arab democracy. If he wants progress and women's rights, like Bush Junior, there is no point in making nice with the acting regime leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran.
Like George Bush Senior
Therefore, there is reason to suspect that Obama is much more like the father than the son, for better or for worse. Like Bush Senior, who proclaimed in his inaugural speech, "We know what works: Freedom works. We know what's right: Freedom is right"- so did Obama. In Cairo he said:"my commitment (is) to governments that reflect the will of the people".
Neither of them is speaking the truth. When it comes to the United States, the president is indeed obligated to a just democracy, but when it comes to the Middle East he is only obligated to mention "the will of the people", not to act on its behalf.
Obama spoke a lot, but did not specify at all. How will he obtain peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians without "forcing" his own will? How will he convince Iran to abandon its Nuclear program? And will he externally support an Iraqi government even if the people of Iraq do not have the safe and unified country he is asking for?
To all of the above he did not give answers. Perhaps he has none. Either way, the Cairo speech did not cause any damage. If there will be a turning point, his policy will be determined based on its success or failure.
When Ronald Reagan asked: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", it was bold, aggressive and controversial. But this speech too would have looked different in retrospect if the Berlin wall had not fallen.