Krauthammer: The News in Obama's Speech

[DarrinS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...N7G_story.html

The news in Obama’s speech

Herewith President Obama’s Middle East speech , annotated:

“It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.”

With this Barack Obama openly, unreservedly and without a trace of irony or self-reflection adopts the Bush Doctrine, which made the spread of democracy the key U.S. objective in the Middle East.

“Too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills.”

Note how even Obama’s rationale matches Bush’s. Bush argued that because the roots of 9/11 were to be found in the deflected anger of repressed Middle Eastern peoples, our response would require a democratic transformation of the region.

“We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.”

A fine critique of exactly the kind of “realism” the Obama administration prided itself for having practiced in its first two years.

How far did this concession to Bush go? Note Obama’s example of the democratization we’re aiming for. He actually said:

“In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process . . . Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region.”

Hail the Bush-Obama doctrine.

“President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way.”

The only jarring note in an otherwise interesting, if convoluted, attempt to unite all current “Arab Spring” policies under one philosophical rubric. Convoluted because the Bahrain part was unconvincing and the omission of Saudi Arabia was unmistakable.

Syria’s Assad leading a transition to democracy? This is bizarre and appalling. Assad has made all-out war on his people — shooting, arresting, executing, even using artillery against cities. Yet Obama is still holding out the olive branch when, if anything, he should be declaring Assad as illegitimate as Gaddafi. Clearly, some habits
of engagement/appeasement die hard.

“A lasting peace will involve . . . Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.”

Meant to reassure Israelis that the administration rejects the so-called right of return of Palestinian refugees. They would return to Palestine, not Israel — Palestine being their homeland, and Israel (which would cease to be Jewish if flooded with refugees) being a Jewish state. But why use code for an issue on which depends Israel’s existence?

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

A new formulation favorable to maximal Arab demands. True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000. But no president had ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the 1967 lines.

Even more alarming to Israel is Obama’s omission of previous American assurances to recognize “realities on the ground” in adjusting the 1967 border, meaning U.S. agreement that Israel would incorporate the thickly populated, close-in settlements in any land swap. By omitting this, Obama leaves the impression of indifference to the fate of these settlements. This would be a significant change in U.S. policy and a heavy blow to the Israeli national consensus.

“The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves . . . in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

Normal U.S. boilerplate except for one thing: Obama refers to Palestinian borders with Egypt, Jordan and Israel. But the only Palestinian territory bordering Egypt is Gaza. How do you get contiguity with Gaza? Does Obama’s map force Israel to give up a corridor of territory connecting the West Bank and Gaza? This is an old Palestinian demand that would cut Israel in two. Is this simply an oversight? Or a new slicing up of Israel?

Finally, in calling for both parties to “come back to the table,” the Palestinians have to explain “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. . . . How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?”

Not a strong statement about Washington rejecting any talks involving Hamas. A mere placeholder.

On the other hand, Obama made no mention here of Israeli settlements. A mere oversight? Or has Obama finally realized that his making a settlement freeze a precondition for negotiations — something never demanded before he took office — was a disastrous unforced error? One can only hope.

[ChumpDumper]

Federally mandated LED bulbs.

[baseline bum]

ipod

[baseline bum]

dish soap

[Winehole23]

No hat tip? I gave you the link.

[boutons_deux]

The evidence of US remaining silent as US oil-supplier Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain and crushed its uprising ("some say" the deal was SA staying silent during US bombing Libya and US staying silent when SA invaded Baharain), coupled with the infinite UCA occupation of Iraq, shows that Chomsky's analysis is much truthful than der KrautSalat sucking off dubya while trashing Barry.

Noam Chomsky: "The U.S. and Its Allies Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in the Arab World"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD0lf-TugxY

[boutons_deux]

Here's UCA-approved Prince helping "promote and protect democracy" in UAE"

Blackwater Founder Creating Private Army of 'Christian Crusaders' in the Persian Gulf

The United Arab Emirates has secretly signed a $529 million contract with Erik Prince’s new company to put together an 800-member battalion of foreign mercenaries.

the force is intended to conduct special operations missions inside and outside the country, defend oil pipelines and skyscrapers from attacks, and put down internal revolts. The troops could be deployed if foreign guest workers stage revolts in labor camps, or if the UAE regime were challenged by pro-democracy protests like those sweeping the Arab world. One contract do ent describes, quote, "crowd-control operations" where the crowd "is not armed with firearms but does pose a risk using improvised weapons (clubs and stones)."

The UAE is a close ally with the United States, and it appears the deal has received the Obama administration’s support.

Prince himself now lives in the United Arab Emirates after moving their last year under a cloud of legal controversy here in the United States.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151006

============

And we can be sure the MIC will be selling the arms to UAE + Prince's mercenaries.

[Def Rowe]

**sleepfart**

[DarrinS]

Gay-->

[ChumpDumper]

You really think that's his own picture?

[Def Rowe]

Of coarse it is. I'm the freakin lead singer of Depeche Mode during the early 1990's.

[ChumpDumper]

It looks like Kraut just made up a bunch of stuff. I can see why Darrin likes him.

[Def Rowe]

Gay-->

Asshole

[DarrinS]

Of coarse it is. I'm the freakin lead singer of Depeche Mode during the early 1990's.

Like I said.

[Def Rowe]

Fair enough.

[DarrinS]

It looks like Kraut just made up a bunch of stuff. I can see why Darrin likes him.

Evidently, Chump doesn't know that the "op" in op-ed stand for "opinion".

dumbass

[ChumpDumper]

Gay-->

It's good to know Darrin is eager to express his thoughts about the article he posted.

[Def Rowe]

It's good to know Darrin is eager to express his thoughts about the article he posted.

That rarely happens...

[Capt Bringdown]

The last thing the US & Israel want in the ME is democracy.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's good to know Darrin is eager to express his thoughts about the article he posted.

Darrin would much rather hide behind the coward's skirts of innuendo and implication rather than straight up comment on Krauthammer's OpEd.

[DarrinS]

Darrin would much rather hide behind the coward's skirts of innuendo and implication rather than straight up comment on Krauthammer's OpEd.

As opposed to all the thoughtful comments left by ChumpDump, et. al.? Please.

I thought it was a good read. That's why I posted it.

[ChumpDumper]

Evidently, Chump doesn't know that the "op" in op-ed stand for "opinion".

dumbass

It doesn't stand for "making up" but you do it all the time, so I don't expect you to tell the difference.

Nothing is going to change for Israel.

[DarrinS]

tampon

[ChumpDumper]

light bulb

[DarrinS]

bird droppings