Barack Obama’s speech to the Arab world was an attempt to give incoherent policy a coherent appearance. This can’t work well. The contradictions between rhetoric and actual policy, between declared goals and real opportunities for implementation are too distinct.
At the same time, the directions of impact that the president specifies are completely accurate. But who would believe that the U.S. is on the side of the Arab reform movements when Saudi Arabia wasn’t mentioned at all, when the $1.3 billion of annual military aid to the Mubarak regime is measured against the mere $2 billion in one-time economic help now, and when Obama suggests that the Syrian president, Assad, can still be a leader of reform?
In the USA, the statement about an Israeli-Palestinian settlement according to the borders before the Six-Day War has notably caused a stir. With that statement, Obama has abandoned support of Israel and enraged conservatives and the Israel lobby. That’s nonsense. Not only have all the negotiations of the past decade been conducted under this premise (although the U.S. has not been decisively loud about this), but, more importantly, Obama knows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want any peace negotiations anyway. If so, Obama can say what he wants in the hope that it will at least please the Arabs.
This was too little for a keynote speech about foreign policy guidelines. It was a speech from someone who doesn’t want to admit that his policy toward the Arab countries in the last six months has been lagging behind results. It shows that he still hasn’t found a principle that goes beyond big declarations.
And you would suggest WHAT as a plan?
I think the Arabs are going to work themselves up into a froth and call the Israeli nuclear bluff.
If Israel saves itself with nuclear weapons, Jewry is doomed.
That leaves conventional weapons.
Ow!