President Obama has a way with words and a beautiful ability to set a mood. That he certainly did in his speech to the Muslim world, June 4. He was right to reach out to the Arab world. Indeed, rarely has an American president in peace time undertaken such a major initiative, together with a visit to a Nazi concentration camp and then on to the 65th anniversary of the invasion at Normandy! Clearly the president has grasped the reins of leadership like no one in recent history. Just as clearly, the mood he sets cannot be divorced from the substance of his remarks, especially about the Middle East.
On one level the Presidents address was a breath of fresh air. On a wide range of hot button topics Muslim violence, Holocaust denial, American mistakes, Irans nuclear pursuit, the Arab peace plan, Muslim head scarves Obama tells it like it is. Violence by Muslims is wrong. The US was wrong at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. The Holocaust happened. No nukes for Iran. No nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The Arab peace plan is a nice start, but only that. Behavior and education, not Muslim scarves, count. Obamas remarks help forge a new, sensible and better world.
Yet, along a certain axis, a troubling undercurrent remained. Obama was equally critical of Israel and the Palestinians as if the two sides had an equal stake to morality in their conflict.
As if both sides planted bombs in pizzerias.
As if both sides celebrated people who killed children.
As if both sides wrote national charters denying the right of the other to exist.
As if both sides shot rockets randomly into houses, schools and playgrounds. Read also Dennis Prager’s commentary in his column, Plain Truth
As if a suicide bomber and a checkpoint were the same.
The moral equivalence of Israel and her enemies in Obamas mind is troubling. Its specious. Its spurious. When he says that before Israel there was a Holocaust and, on the other hand, the Palestinians have suffered, too this is downright obtuse and insulting. For all his eloquence against Holocaust denial, the President himself, on a certain level, doesnt get it.
He is congenial in a wide range of relationships shaking hands with the dictator of Venezuela, welcoming to the White House a person (Mahmoud Abbas) who salutes child murderers, curtsying before the King of Saudi Arabia yet he is unable to elevate the prime minister of Israel to the same level of solidarity. Only with respect to Israel did Obama say it would be necessary to be honest; he did not say this to or about the Palestinian Authority. One cannot escape the impression that while Obama tells it like it is on Israel it is here to stay, it deserves to exist free of terrorist attacks against it Israel is just another country in his eyes.
To President Bush, Israel counted high, and counted special. To President Clinton, exactly the same. To them, Israel was more than another major American ally. The Biblical rhythms, the ancient Israelite history, the heroic rise from the Holocaust, the religious centrality of the Holy Land all this was reflected on the faces and in the words of the previous two American presidents. With Obama, most of the words are right, but the tone is different, the sense of history is absent, the sense of common religious background is downplayed. The policy is bound to suffer, too.
Its a different world for Israel. This, ironically, will make Israel a tad more wary of Obamas plans for the Middle East. If Obama is trying to make Israel feel comfortable with compromise, hes taking the wrong approach. Read also Tehilla Goldberg’s view in her column
Not to mention Hillary Clinton. She says that she will not honor any oral understanding between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon that, in return for Israels total withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005, natural growth on settlements is OK. Great move, Ms. Clinton good luck convincing Israel to tear down more settlements next time! Your message is clear: Any benefit Israel is given for any real sacrifice she makes is subject to reversal by a new administration. Not a great strategy for peace negotiations.
History is not Obamas strong point. That supposed Golden Age in the Arab world did, yes, show the Arabs to be the leader of civilization in the realm of technology. But there was no Golden Age under medieval Muslims in human rights not for Jews, anyway. Under the Arabs, the Jews were second-class citizens, officially, legally. And, contra Obama, Israel does not deserve a homeland merely because it was a persecuted people, but because its history in Israel predates and runs far longer than that of either Islam or Christianity. Israel deserves to be a Jewish state by right, not by mercy.
These are not quibbles, for it is words and words alone with which Obama stepped up to remake the relationship between the US and America. Listening to his words carefully, we were both encouraged and concerned. Overall, he made a fine start we give him an B+. Because the stakes are so high he needs to make the necessary corrections. He needs an A+.
