Obama’s Middle East speech and rhetorical misdirection

It has been several days since President Barack Obama gave his speech on US policy in the Middle East. Having a few days to ponder the comments by Obama gave us time to look at what independent journalists have to say on the matter.

Listening to the President talk, one might be seduced by the now familiar rhetoric coming from Obama about human rights and freedom. However, he has been using these kinds of words for two and a half years now in regards to the Middle East and with no real evidence that this administration is truly committed to justice in that part of the world.

Middle East analyst Phyllis Bennis noted, “Obama’s speech failed to match the extraordinary events of the Arab Spring with a transformed U.S. policy in the region.  Beyond some new economic commitments, the speech was far longer on soaring rhetoric of democracy and freedom than it was on real policy changes.

The announcement of significant new economic assistance, particularly $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt, will be important; but its significance is already undermined by the U.S. imposition on the newly democratizing country to accept the kind of “free trade” policies that have been so disastrous in other parts of the developing world.”

Long time Middle East reporter Robert Fisk also addressed Obama’s lack of substance in a speech “as boring and as unfair as all the other ones, with lots of rhetoric about the Arab revolutions which Obama did nothing to help.”

Obama’s lack of substance and rhetorical misdirection was particularly evident on the matter of Israel/Palestine. Here Fisk notes, “It was the same old story. Palestinians can have a “viable” state, Israel a “secure” one. Israel cannot be de-legitimized. The Palestinians must not attempt to ask the UN for statehood in September.”

Obama did call for an end to the Israeli occupation, but it is a meaningless statement since he did not call for a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops or the end to the construction of Israeli settlements. Obama also made mention of the 1967 borders, which has by far been the most misinterpreted statement in mainstream commercial media.

US Foreign Policy analyst Stephen Zunes said of Obama’s 1967 border reference:

“The unspecified variations from the pre-1967 borders, Obama insisted, should be made through “mutually agreed-upon” land swaps. Unfortunately, despite Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas agreeing to such reciprocal territorial swaps — even though it would leave the Palestinian state with a bare 22 percent of Palestine — Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has refused to consider trading any land within Israel while simultaneously insisting on annexing large swathes of occupied Palestinian territory. How such “mutually agreed-upon” swaps will take place without the United States exerting enormous leverage — such as withholding some of the annual $3 billion in unconditional aid provided annually, which Obama has already ruled out — is hard to imagine.”

Indeed, it is hard to imagine that anything will change as long as the US continues to provide Israel with unconditional funds to do whatever they please.

Obama’s rhetorical deception was made even more evident when just days after his speech he addressed the Israeli lobby at the annual AIPAC meeting. Obama told the pro-Israeli audience that there will be no return to the pre-1967 borders.

Glenn Greenwald provides some useful analysis of Obama’s speech to AIPAC and the role that lobby plays in US foreign policy. In addition, there is a good article on Electronic Intifada by several authors that also addresses Obama’s speech to AIPAC. This type of analysis has not been presented in mainstream commercial news and coverage of Obama’s AIPAC speech has been almost non-existent outside of a few major newspapers.

After two and a half years it seems clear that the Obama administration is continuing a decades long policy of unconditional support for Israel and despite all of the President’s rhetoric we should not be fooled to think otherwise.

Here is a brief interview that Al Jazeera did with Robert Fisk that frames what Obama’s speech really means.