By Barry Rubin
One of many scary things about Senator Barrack Obama is how mistaken
his ideology makes him, even when he thinks he's getting it right. If
Obama shows disastrous positions even when still trying to make voters
think him sup****tive of Israel or tough on Hezb'allah what would he do
if he actually were to become president?
Let's examine two official Obama statements to see why they appear
good superficially and incredibly worrisome when analyzed.
Senator Barrack Obama's official statement on Israel's sixtieth
birthday is, on the face of it, good. But it is in fact almost
contemptuous. It is boring boiler plate, which could have been written
by anyone at any time in the last forty years, with no personal
touch.
One thing he doesn't do is to associate himself personally and his
program with Israel. It would have been easy if he cared -- or if his
campaign saw this as anything but throwing a bone to the Jews -- for
him to put in something distinctive like: "Israel is living proof that
change can happen. It is a country that has always said `Yes, we can!'
despite great obstacles."
But no, he just puts in a few clich=E9s as if to highlight his belief
that he can get away with anything and still keep gullible Jewish
voters.
When, however, there is something distinctive it is negative
intentions disguised as idealism. The statement says:
"Still, there is no greater gift America can give to Israel -- no
better way we can salute our Israeli friends on this im****tant
anniversary -- than to redouble our commitment to help Israel achieve
its goal of true security through lasting peace with its neighbors.
The United States does Israel no favors when it neglects op****tunities
for progress in Arab-Israeli peacemaking.
"Israelis can always count on the United States to stand with them
against any threat, from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran, and to
ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself. Israel has real
enemies, and we will face them together. But standing with Israel also
requires America to do everything it can to reduce and ease the
conflict with the Arab neighbors. To do any less would be to prevent
Israel from achieving its full, extraordinary potential."
Obviously, peace is good. But it is no longer the Oslo era. Things
should have been learned. A combination of factors, notably Hamas,
makes the chances for peace quite low, a point unrecognized in the
statement. And despite the fine, carefully worded sentence the
subliminal message screams out: Pressure Israel for its own good AND
peace at any price.
What if the neighbors don't want to make real peace? What if they
don't keep commitments already made? Is there some point where the
United States reaches this conclusion and gives Israel strong sup****t?
What happens after Obama talks to Bashar al-Asad of Syria and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hamas and Hezb'allah? Is it possible that he
could conclude that dialogue is no good and full backing for Israel is
required? No.
And how about sup****ting a strong Israel as a means of getting the
radicals to back down and the semi-radicals to act a bit moderate? No
sense of this concept.
Compare to what he could have said. My rewrite:
Still, there is no greater gift America can give to Israel -- no
better way we can salute our Israeli friends on this im****tant
anniversary -- than to redouble our commitment to help Israel achieve
its goal of true security through providing it with military
equipment, isolating and pressuring its hostile neighbors, demanding
an end to terrorism and incitement, and remembering who is America's
true friend in the region.
Also, while of course the United States must set its own policy, there
is no hint of consultation, or that Israel should itself be able to
determine its security needs and goals. If America must "do everything
it can to reduce and ease the conflict," it will be Obama who will
decide what that is. Bargain with Iran and Syria? Engage with Hamas
and Hezb'allah? Demand Israel close down roadblocks which -- I will
trust Israeli services on this matter -- stop terrorists?
Senator Obama has zero experience on this issue. And the idea that he
-- and some of the people he will appoint (judging by the terrible,
overwhelmingly anti-Israel choices he has made as advisors) -- is not
likely to make choices in determining what makes Israel better and
more secure.
If this is the best Obama can do as a candidate courting Jewish votes
I shudder to think what he would do if elected.
Yet it is very im****tant to understand that this is not at all about
Israel. It is about the Middle East as a whole. The question is how
Obama would manage the issues of Iranian nuclear, Iraq, Lebanon,
radical Islamism, and terrorism. In each case, there is much to worry
about. And a lot of the worrying is being done by Arabs.
The relative moderates have good reason to fear an Obama victory.
Consider, for example, Obama's May 10 statement on Lebanon. He starts
out sounding tough, talking about "Hezbollah's power grab in
Beirut...This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs
to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press
them to stand down immediately," sup****t for the Lebanese government,
"strengthen the Lebanese army," and "insist on disarming Hezbollah."
But how to do this? By "working with the international community and
the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its
feet."
In other words, according to the Obama world view, it's a problem of
economic development. If people have more money they won't be
terrorists. (Presumably, like people in Pennsylvania, only the lack of
jobs makes people in Lebanon cling to guns and religion.)
Of course, however, an energetic (albeit flawed) economic development
policy was what Hariri tried and it worked to some extent.
Nevertheless, the Syrians blew him up. In politics, bombs trump
business. And anyway you can't have a strong economy with political
chaos and armed militias. If you ask Hezb'allah sup****ters whether
they prefer guns, Islamism, and power or Western economic aid, they
will not say, "It's the economy, stupid."
Obama then goes to his second way to avoid the need for a tough stance
and the use of American power -- the UN. His statement continues: "We
must sup****t the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions
that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701
banning the provision of arms to Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran
and Syria."
Great. But that only begs the question. Are you willing to fight on
this issue; commit troops; defy, if necessary, an "international
community" which opposes action? And, again, there is the paucity of
serious analysis of an issue, instead merely sweeping a magic wand.
There are reasons why those resolutions have not been implemented:
doing so requires some shooting and dying.
Of course, a lot of Obama's appeal is his offer of painless solutions,
vague and soothing. At every turn, however, we see that he has no
concept of the use of political power, deterrence, sanctions,
leverage, military assets, facing down an enemy rather than having
face time with him.
His third way to avoid all this is the idea that the Lebanese army
will solve the problem. Perhaps he isn't aware that its commander is
Syria's presidential candidate, its soldiers are mostly pro-
Hezb'allah, and it is famously ineffective. Unfortunately, giving
money to the Lebanese military may be only one step better than giving
it to Hezb'allah or Syria.
But here's the worst part that few in America but everyone in Lebanon
will understand all too well:
"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new
Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the
current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy
that provides for a fair distribution of services, op****tunities and
employment."
This is the Hezb'allah program. It wants a new Lebanese consensus
based on it having, along with its pro-Syrian allies, 51 percent of
the power. It advocates an electoral reform that will give Hezb'allah
more votes. President George W. Bush helped elect Hamas in the
Palestinian territories by a similar strategy; Obama would put
Hezb'allah into power in Beirut.
What's needed in Lebanon is not consensus -- the equivalent, which
Obama would probably favor, is getting Fatah and Hamas to bury their
differences, and another he openly sup****ts is bringing in Iran and
Syria to determine Iraq's future -- but the willingness to fight a
battle. In effect, Obama is arguing for a Syrian-, Iranian-, and
Hezb'allah-dominated Lebanon. Such talk makes moderate Arabs despair.
The Lebanese-American blogger at "From Beirut to the Beltway" shows
how Lebanese government sup****ters regard Obama's dangerous naivet=E9:
"Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hezb'allah all those years....If
only we had engaged them and their masters [i.e., Syria and Iran] in
diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables,
welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet
decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back
when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-
Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of
developing `national consensus' with them, we organized media
campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who
voted for them.
"During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel,
treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have
been `building consensus' with them. Because what we did back in 1982,
1993, 1996, 2000 and 2006 -- all that was plain betrayal and
unnecessary antagonism, a product of `a corrupt patronage system and
unfair distribution of wealth.'
"We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely
spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into
our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them."
One can debate about the efficacy of Obama's world view and (lack of)
experience applied to domestic American issues. In the Middle East,
however, it would be quite disastrous.
|
