Enduring America, 16 May: "Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process."
"Israel" prompts more spin and speculation than perhaps any other current issue --- even Afghanistan and Pakistan --- in US foreign policy. So, on the eve of and even during yesterday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, there were the differing, even contradictory revelations: Obama would force Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution with Palestine. Obama would set a deadline on "engagement" with Iran. Netanyahu would concede to "two-state" talks. Netanyahu would not shift his position.
None of this actually happened (except maybe that last one).
None of this happened because each leader knew he would not get the other to adopt his chief demand: Netanyahu would not get an American suspension of discussions with Tehran, and Obama would not get the Israelis to move beyond a limited Palestine agenda consisting of economic development and security. So the aim for each was to ensure he maintained flexibility, while giving the appearance of a friendly and productive meeting.
Let's start with the Iranian spectre. In the press briefing, Obama had the huge advantage of speaking first. With Netanyahu's publicity machine in overdrive on the "existential threat" of Tehran, the US President set out this apparent shared ground:
Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.
Let's call this "The Bogeyman Tactic", as in I can tell my kid that I will protect him from the Bogeyman because I know he doesn't exist. As yet another CIA assessment concluded this month, the US has no evidence that Iran has an active programme for the development of nuclear weapons. So Obama could put out the bold statement which was hypothetical, rather than real.
Much more important was Obama's position on future talks with Iran. Once again he began with a diversion:
We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course. But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.
The agenda in the still-private US-Iran talks, at this point, is well beyond The Bomb. Tehran wants an easing of economic sanctions; Washington wants cooperation on regional issues, with Iran offering some assistance on Afghanistan and --- in its relations with countries and parties like Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah --- giving the US some diplomatic space on the Israel-Palestine and regional issues.
The misleading headline this morning is that Obama left "all options", including military action, "on the table" (Netanyahu's words, not the US President's). Just as inaccurate is the claim that Washington has set an end-of-year deadline on the Iran talks. What Obama actually said was, "It is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talk forever." Later in the briefing, he added:
We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences.
From this, the press added 2 and 2 and got 5. It's wrong (although there is at least one Obama official, working against the Administration's current position, muttering about a deadline), but it's convenient for Washington. It keeps gentle pressure on Tehran while offering the President diplomatic cover. Without making any policy chance, he can let the Israelis claim that Washington recognises its concerns.
What then of Obama's priority issue, Israeli-Palestinian talks? The US President could not have been clearer on the central demand:
I have said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.
The ball was in his court, but Netanyahu simply ignored it. He offered, "We want to live in peace with [the Palestinians]." More substantially, he said, "We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel." But instead of uttering the word "state", he put Israel's core demands:
If...conditions are met — Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy — its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace.
And, with that, Netanyahu --- who said far less than Obama to make his points --- drew his line. Obama's pointed statement that "[Jewish] settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward". No response. Obama's call for action on the "humanitarian situation in Gaza"? Netanyahu sidestepped it with, "The president described to you those rockets falling out of Gaza."
On the day-to-day scorecard of statesmanship, the President and Prime Minister each got a Win. Obama blocked the Israeli insistence of Iran First:
If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.
Netanyahu, however, ensured that Palestine First would be a far from quick and complete process. His agenda --- Israel gets recognition and guarantees on its security --- trumped any specific item put by Obama, let alone the concept of a Palestinian state.
Which, beyond any issue of the political and economic future for Palestinians, leaves only the problem that will overtake these talks --- a problem for Obama, not Netanyahu.
The news organisations are scrambling for interpretations of today's private meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, based on "sources" and the public press appearance of the two men. MSNBC is going with "Obama expects positive Iranian response; Netanyahu ready to resume peace talks if Palestinians accept Israel"; CNN holds back with the blander "Obama, Netanyahu discuss U.S.-Israeli disagreements".
We're going to take some time to decode the statements and leaks --- full analysis tomorrow. In the meantime, here's the three-part video and transcript of the press briefing
OBAMA: All right, everybody. Just tell me when everybody’s set up. Great. Well, listen, I -- I, first of all, want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for making this visit. I think we had a (sic) extraordinarily productive series of conversations, not only between the two of us, but also at the staff and agency levels.
Obviously, this reflects the extraordinary relationship, the special relationship between the United States and Israel. It is a stalwart ally of the United States. We have historical ties, emotional ties. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, it is a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.
I have said from the outset that when it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East, that Israel’s security is paramount, and I repeated that to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as a (sic) independent Jewish state is maintained.
One of the areas that we discussed is the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran; something that the prime minister has been very vocal in his concerns about, but is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and -women across the political spectrum.
I indicated to him the view of our administration that Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
OBAMA: And I indicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu in private what I have said publicly, which is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.
We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course.
But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.
And, obviously, the prime minister emphasized his seriousness around this issue as well. I’ll allow him to speak for himself on that -- on that subject.
We also had an extensive discussion about the possibilities of restarting serious negotiations on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians.
OBAMA: I have said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.
We have seen progress stalled on this front. And I suggested to the prime minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure.
That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they’ve previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map. They were discussed extensively in Annapolis.
And I think that we can -- there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment for all the parties concerned to take seriously those obligations and to move forward in a way that assures Israel’s security, that stops the terrorist attacks that have been such a source of pain and hardship, and that we can stop rocket attacks on Israel, but that also allows Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state that allows economic development to take place, that allows them to make serious progress in meeting the aspirations of their people.
And I am confident that in the days, weeks and months to come that we are going to be able to make progress on that issue.
So, let me just summarize by saying that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has the benefit of -- of having served as prime minister previously, he has both youth and wisdom...
(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: ... and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring back historic peace.
OBAMA: I’m confident that he’s going to seize this moment and the United States is going to do everything we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process.
NETANYAHU: President Obama, thank you.
(inaudible) friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader: a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who (inaudible) Israel appreciate it, and I speak (inaudible).
(inaudible) first time that we are meeting as president and prime minister, so I was particularly pleased in your reaffirmation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We share the same goal and we face the same threats.
The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace.
The common threat we face are terrorist regimes (inaudible) that seek to (inaudible) the peace and endanger both (inaudible).
In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable (inaudible). It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide.
But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella (ph) to terrorists or worse could actually give (inaudible) nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.
NETANYAHU: So, in that context, (inaudible) I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your -- your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.
I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians (inaudible). I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world. If we could, Mr. President, (inaudible).
I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.
And for this there has to be a -- a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There’ll have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share as well.
If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will -- will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself.
If those conditions are met -- Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy -- its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace.
And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you, a true friend of Israel, for the achievement of our common goals (ph), which are security, prosperity and above all peace.
Thank you.
OBAMA: We’re going to take a couple of questions. We’re going to start with (inaudible).
QUESTION: Mr. President (inaudible) at length, as did the prime minister, about Iran’s nuclear program. Your program of engagement -- policy of engagement, how long is that going to last? Is there a deadline?
OBAMA: You know, I don’t want to set an artificial deadline.
OBAMA: I think it’s important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you, since you’re all (inaudible) reporters, are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done.
Their elections will be completed in June. And we are hopeful that at that point there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first with the P-5-plus-1 process, which is already in place; potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.
I want to re-emphasize what I said earlier: that I believe it is not only in the interests of the international community that Iran not develop nuclear weapons; I firmly believe it is in Iran’s interest not to develop nuclear weapons, because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways.
Iran can achieve its interests of securing international respect and prosperity for its people through other means. And I am prepared to make what I believe will be a persuasive argument that there should be a different course to be taken.
And the one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, at least, of negotiations with Iran is that there is a lot of talk, but not always action that follows.
And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talk forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which the talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon.
That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.
My expectation would be that we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections.
OBAMA: We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences.
That doesn’t mean that any (ph) issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we’ll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this (inaudible).
QUESTION: Aren’t you concerned that your outstretched hand has been interpreted by extremists, especially Ahmadinejad and (inaudible) Mashaal (ph), as weakness?
And since my colleague already asked about the deadline, if engagement fails, what then?
OBAMA: Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) example.
OBAMA: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: The example of (inaudible).
They would have preferred to be on your side and move (ph) the extremists to Iran (ph).
OBAMA: Oh, I -- I think...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: Yeah, I’m not sure about that interpretation.
Look, we’ve been in office a little over a hundred days now; close to four months. We have put forward a clear principle that where we can resolve issues through negotiations and diplomacy, we should.
We didn’t expect, and I don’t think anybody in the international community or anybody in the Middle East, for that matter, would expect, that 30 years of antagonism and suspicion between Iran and the United States would be resolved in four months.
So we think it’s very important for us to give this a chance. Now, understand that part of the reason that it’s so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach that we’ve been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked.
OBAMA: Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished (ph). And so, not talking, that clearly hasn’t worked. That’s what’s been tried.
And so what we’re going to do is try something which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians.
The important thing is to make sure that there is a clear timetable, at which point we say, “These talks don’t seem to be making any serious (inaudible).”
It hasn’t been tried before, so we don’t want to pre-judge that. But, as I said, by the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we are starting to see serious movement on the part of the Iranians.
If that hasn’t taken place, then I think the international community will see that it’s not the United States or Israel or other countries that are seeking to isolate or victimize Iran. Rather, it is Iran itself which is isolating itself by (inaudible) -- being unwilling to engage in serious discussions about how they can preserve their security without threatening other people’s security, which ultimately is what we want to achieve.
We want to achieve a situation where all countries in the region can pursue economic development, commercial ties and trade, and -- and do so without the threat that populations are going to be subject to bombs and destruction.
That’s what I think the prime minister is interested in. That’s what I’m interested in. And I hope that ends up being what the ruling officials in Iran are interested in as well.
QUESTION: Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, can you each react to (inaudible) statement about a week ago that we really are at a critical place in the conflict and that if this moment isn’t seized and if a peace isn’t achieved now, soon, that in a year, a year and a half we could see renewed major conflict and perhaps more? And do you agree with that assessment?
NETANYAHU: I think we have to seize the moment.
I think we’re fortunate in having a leader like President Obama and a new government in Israel, and perhaps a new understanding in the Arab world that I haven’t seen in my lifetime.
You are very kind to me calling me young, but I’m more than half a century old. And in my 59 years, in the life of the Jewish state, there’s never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today, and also see the need to join together in working towards peace, while simultaneously defending ourselves against this common threat.
NETANYAHU: I think we have -- we have ways to capitalize on this sense of urgency, and we’re prepared to move with the president and with others in the Arab world, if they’re prepared to move as well.
And I think the important thing that we discussed, among other things, is how to buttress the Israeli-Palestinian peace tracks, which we want to resume right away, (inaudible) from others in the Arab world (inaudible) give confidence to each other that we’re changing the reality, changing the reality on the ground, changing political realities (inaudible) as well, while we work to broaden the circle of peace.
And I think that the sense of urgency that King Abdullah expressed is shared by me, it’s shared by many others, and I definitely know it’s shared by President Obama.
OBAMA: Look, I think there’s an extraordinary opportunity (ph). The prime minister said it well. You have Arab states in the region -- the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis -- who I think are looking for an opportunity to break this longstanding impasse, but aren’t sure how to do it, and share concerns about Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon.
In order for us to potentially realign interests in the region in a constructive way, bolstering, to use the prime minister’s word, the Palestinian-Israeli peace track is critical.
It will not be easy. It never has been easy.
In discussions, I don’t think the prime minister would mind me saying to him -- or saying publicly what I -- I said privately, which is that there is a recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution, that, you know, the leadership of the Palestinians will have to grain -- gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.
The other Arab states have to be more supportive and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel.
And next week I will have the Palestinian Authority president, Abbas, as well as President Mubarak here, and I will deliver that message to them. Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well. And I shared with the prime minister the fact that under the road map, under Annapolis, there is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements; that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.
OBAMA: That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed.
Now, I was along the border in Sderot, and saw the evidence of weapons that had been rained down on the heads of innocents in those Israeli cities. And that’s unacceptable. So we’ve got to work with the Egyptians to deal with the smuggling of weapons. And it has to be meaningful, because no prime minister of any country is going to tolerate missiles raining down on their citizens’ heads.
On the other hand, the fact is is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.
So all these things are going to have to come together. And it’s going to be difficult.
But the one thing that I have committed to the prime minister is we are going to be engaged. The United States is going to roll up our sleeves. We want to be a strong partner in this process.
I have great confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political skills, but also his historic vision (ph) and his recognition that during the years that he is prime minister, his second go, he is probably going to be confronted with as many important decisions about the long-term strategic interests of Israel as any prime minister that we’ve seen in a very long time.
And -- and I have great confidence that he is going to rise to the occasion. I actually think that you’re going to see movement in -- among Arab states that we have not seen before.
The trick is to try to coordinate all this in a very delicate, political environment. And that’s why I’m so pleased to have George Mitchell, who is standing behind the (inaudible) there, as our special envoy, because I’m very confident that, as somebody who was involved in equally delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, he’s somebody who recognizes that if you apply patience and determination, and you keep your eye on the long-term goals that the prime minister articulated, which is a wide-ranging peace -- not a grudging peace, not a transitory peace, but a wide-ranging regional peace, that we can make -- make great progress.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the Israeli prime minister (inaudible) Israeli administration has said on many occasions (inaudible) that only the Iranian threat (inaudible) can achieve (inaudible). Do you agree with that kind of linkage?
And to the Israeli prime minister, you were speaking about the political track. Are you willing to get into final status issues negotiations like borders, like Jerusalem in the near future based on the two-state solution? And do you still hold this opinion about the link between the Iranian threat and your ability to achieve any progress on the Palestinian side?
OBAMA: Well, let me say this.
There is no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to -- to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That -- that’s not conducive to negotiations.
And as I’ve said before, I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.
Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.
OBAMA: Having said that, I think that dealing with Iran’s potential nuclear capacity is something that we should be doing even if there already was peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I think that pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace is something that is in Israel’s security interests and the United States national security interests, even if Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
They’re both important. And we have to move aggressively on both fronts.
And I think that, based on my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he agrees with me that they’re both important.
That’s not to say that he is not making a calculation -- as he should -- about what are some of the most immediate threats to Israel’s security. And I understand that.
But, look, imagine how much less mischief Hezbollah or Hamas could do if, in fact, we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief and vice versa.
I mean, so, obviously, these things are related but they are important separately. And I’m confident that the United States, working with Israel, can make progress on both fronts.
NETANYAHU: We’ve had extraordinary friendly, constructive talks here today. And I’m very grateful to you, Mr. President, for that.
We want to move peace forward and we want to ward off the great threats. There isn’t a policy linkage -- and that’s what I hear the president saying, and that’s what I’m saying, too, and I’ve always said -- there’s not a policy linkage between pursuing simultaneously peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, and trying to deal with removing the threat of a nuclear Iran.
There are causal links. The president talked about one of them. It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And, conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area and disrupt the existing peace agreement.
So it’s very clear to us. I think we actually -- we don’t see closely on this; we see exactly eye-to-eye on this. We want to move simultaneously and in parallel on two fronts: the front of peace and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.
On the front of peace, the important thing for me is to -- is to resume negotiations as rapidly as possible and to -- and my view is less one of terminology but one of substance.
NETANYAHU: And I ask myself, how do -- what do we end up with? If we end up with another Gaza -- the president described to you those rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don’t want to happen because a terror base next door, cities that doesn’t (inaudible) recognize Israel’s existence, calls for our destruction and acts for our destruction is not interested (ph) in peace.
If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come to a substantive solution that allows the two peoples to live side by side in security and peace. And I add prosperity (inaudible).
So I think the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding. And I think -- I think we can move forward on this.
I have great confidence in -- in your leadership, Mr. President, and your friendship to my country, and in your championing of peace and security. And the answer is both come together, peace and security are intertwined, they’re inseparable. And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you to achieve both.
Iran Review has just posted an article by Dr. Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh of the Tehran International Studies and Research Institute, on President Obama's foreign policy and the Middle East. I found the analysis intriguing both in its expression of Iran's interest in the region and in its "window of hope" for the new Administration. At the same time, there is an uncertainty about the substance of US policy and a warning that the window can be closed: "The US president must remember that candle of hope is not eternal and can be put out easily and due to a single incident."
Middle East: The Difficult Test of Hope in Obama
There may be no escaping of the fact that in the extremely realistic world of international relations the presence of a window of hope may be a source of optimism and pessimism at the same time. In fact, to the same extent that positive forces may be encouraged over the possibility of change and pin their hope in future horizons, uncertainty and suspicion plus bitter realism may work to eliminate the same window of hope. Here in addition to honesty and truthfulness whose requisites is the window of hope, hard work and faith in the path chosen as well as firmness in treading this path is vital for the strength of positive forces and thwarting its negative impacts.
“Change” and “hope” were two main points in the statements Barack Obama made before and after US presidential election. His words for many people of the world breathed life into the last rays of hope which were gradually fading away under the eight-year rule of the Neo-Cons.
In the Middle East region, the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan apparently shifted the battlefield from the American soil and the heart of New York but for the people of the region they had no outcome but death and destruction, floods of refugees and escalation of ethnic and religious disputes. Contrary to the propaganda, neither Iraq became safer compared to the time of Saddam Hussein nor Afghanistan became more stable than what it was under the Taliban.
As far as the Israeli-Palestinian differences were concerned not only they were not settled but were further aggravated. In fact, the two recent Israeli wars in Lebanon and Gaza were added to the list of unending tragedies in the region. Arms purchases severely increased and the climate of the region became strictly security oriented. Iran’s nuclear issue quickly turned into a security matter from a technical and scientific case. Four UN resolutions plus numerous other sanctions imposed by Europe and US increased the pressures on Tehran.
With the coming to power of Obama the crisis-riddled Middle East region had just one expectation from the American president: “Materialization and application of rationality in the US foreign policy in the region.” The kind of rationality to understand why the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has remained unresolved for 60 years; why the region has become a hub for training extremist religious forces; why Iran despite all the sanctions and pressures considers access to nuclear technology its unquestionable right; why the liberated Iraq cannot leave one single day behind without witnessing confrontations and bombings; why America’s biggest enemy, i.e., Al-Qaeda hails from Saudi Arabia, a formal US ally; why Israel is facing more complicated and tougher security problems every day; why suicide operations against US and NATO forces would never end; and why the idea of a stable and tranquil Middle East is becoming a dream never come true.
At present, one cannot perceive a specific sign from Obama’s foreign policy. The new US foreign policy team has tried to get to know the issues and cope with them cautiously and refrain from taking hasty decisions. Probably this is the same window of hope glimmering in the heart of inhabitants of the Middle East region. Can one hope that a sound and intelligent policy based on recognition and taking into account all the open and hidden potentials in the complicated issues of the region would show to the Middle Easterners that rationality is back in the US foreign policy? Can the taboo of Washington’s unsparing and unconditional support for Israel be broken in the mind of the regional people? Can something be done for the people of the region to believe that the US military presence in the region does not serve its personal interests or is not for control and supervision over the oil production and supply routes? Can the belief in America’s double standards in dealing with political, security and human rights issues of the region be erased from the people’s mind? Can the emotional and irrational approach towards Iran’s nuclear issue lead to clearing the region of nuclear arms? Can one be hopeful that IAEA inspectors would conduct at least one snap inspection of Israel’s nuclear installations? Can Hamas and Hizbollah be seen from a new and different look?
I am confident that the regional people’s candle of hope is still burning and many of them are precisely and carefully scrutinizing all the behaviors and reactions of President Obama to get a scent of change and rationality out of them. However, the US president must remember that candle of hope is not eternal and can be put out easily and due to a single incident.
On Sunday President Obama delivered a speech notable for domestic politics rather than foreign policy. Notre Dame is the most famous Catholic university in the United States. In the run-up to the address, protestors and some in the media tried to label the President as an unacceptable speaker because of the abortion issue and, more broadly, the idea of "culture wars".
Obama's response drew from established sources, including his books, and the standard of an exceptional "America". Still, as a statement of values --- in the context of not only domestic issues but also his recent decisions on issue from war to torture --- I found it well worth consideration.
OBAMA: Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all. Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.
I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that’s better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.
I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world - Bookstore Basketball.
Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” didn’t pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6’2” forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.
Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare - periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.
You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world - a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations - and a task that you are now called to fulfill.
This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit - an economy where greed and short- term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.
We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity - diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.
In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century - whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease - do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.
Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.
Unfortunately, finding that common ground - recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” - is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.
The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.
The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion. As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.
It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “...differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony.
This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago - also with the help of the Catholic Church.
I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.
It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help - to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.
And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.
At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads - unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”
My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.
You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.
In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.
But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.
For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.
So many of you at Notre Dame - by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens - when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another - all things are possible.
After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African- American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.
Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.
I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.
But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.
If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Last month Enduring America brought you the controversy surrounding Obama's apparent bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. We were sceptical, but after a link from a major news site brought us thousands of new readers, it was established that the bow could mean only one thing: President Obama was secretly a Muslim and a terrorist (cos al-Qaeda terrorists love the Saudi royal family, doncha know). Now he's at it again...and we have the picture to prove it.
The cat's out of the bag- President Obama is clearly bowing to this child. Just where do his loyalties lie? To the American people? Or to five-year-olds?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 7:44 
Enduring America, 16 May: "Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process."
