Terry Connelly is dean of the Ageno School of Business at Golden Gate University and is frequently quoted on business, financial, and economic issues by Bay Area local, as well as national, news media.
Obama’s was not a Mideast policy speech of a President focused on the short-term — not even his own re-election — but rather on the long term.
He had no realistic hope for a jump-reset of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talk: both sides are stuck in intransigence; Hamas can’t give up its existential threat to israel — for domestic political reasons – and for similar reasons Netaneyhu (spelling) cannot give up the ”settlements process”. Thus Obama in effect bypassed the current situation in favor of repositioning US policy more favorably towards those he believes are on the side of history — the Arab street protesters in particular. One day, it would seem, he believes they will in some fashion (democratic or otherwise) control the oil the US will remain dependent upon long after Obama is through his second term (ant the speech was very much that of president who expects a second term).
He has signaled to Bibi’s successor (for all practical purposes the Israeli PM’s unwillingness to “swap” land for peace makes him irrelevant in terms of any peace deal in the near future) that the US may tilt more to its own self-interest rather than categoric support for Israeli bargaining positions. Hence the reference to 1967 borders — a coded way of raising the settlements issue and Jerusalem without saying either word.
Things are in an unprecedented jumble in the Mideast just now, and US interests cannot be set forth in simple, black and white terms reflecting utter “consistency’ across multiple national borders. The President knows he will be attacked by Republican and some Democratic critics — as well as cable-channel field marshalls – for appearing to “throw Israel under the bus”: of course he is not doing that — just saying he will no longer let Israel drag the US under the bus with them should they choose to remain unwilling to negotiate anything except on their most absolute terms. He will tolerate the criticism because the situation in terms of statesmanship requires nuance, and this is a President who “does nuance”.
Likewise, he has signaled to the Palestinians that Hamas one way or another must eat its words and reform its deeds regarding Israel’s right to exist. Neither side will see him as “evenhanded’ but in the short run it makes no difference. There will be no peace for the foreseeable future, and no intifada either — the important action, as the President also signaled, is going on in Syria, Bahrain, Libya and Yemen — not to mention Pakistan and Iran. That is where the Mideast future is being determined (it could have been determined by Israel and Palestine but they just can’t make a deal), along with Egypt and Tunisia. The US must be a player from the sidelines in those arenas by definition — we are no longer arguing for imposition of democracy at the point of our guns. But we will stand ready to recognize those who support true reform…again, in nuanced degrees, but no longer as the total captive of Israeli domestic politics.
In short, this is a speech of a President becoming more confident of re-election himself, not a ’man in a hurry” – it is the first_post-Bin Laden articulation of US Mideast policy, and will be read in all foreign capitals as such.
Filed under: Uncategorized
