SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
June 7, 2009
Exclusive: Notes on Obama’s Cairo Address to Muslims
Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning.
[The word “beacon” usually suggests “light.’ Perhaps we should shed light upon some of the fatwas that have come out of Al-Azhar to understand true “Islamic learning.”]
And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.
I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu-alaikum.
(APPLAUSE)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.
More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
[All of these examples are of Muslims being victims. Is the “tension” solely a result of Western actions or were those actions in some way or another appropriate or necessary? What about centuries of ruthless Muslim slaughter of non-Muslims and Muslims alike? Does that have anything to do with these “tensions?” Why don’t you add the creation of Israel to this list here as isn’t that what you would consider the West’s greatest horror foisted upon the Islamic world?]
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.
[“Violent extremists” here are mere exploiters of the pre-existing tensions caused by Westerners? And only a meager few support violence? In the UK alone, more than 33% of Muslim students believe it can be acceptable to kill in the name of Islam while more than that number prefer to live under Islamic law and that is not YET even a Muslim controlled country.]
The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries but also to human rights.
[Has led “some?” Are you kidding? Also, it is not 9/11 that led many to conclude that Islam is hostile to human rights. It is centuries of behavior following Islamic law that makes absolutely clear Islam’s “hostility” to what the West calls “human rights” and “peaceful co-existence.” As typical, Obama is (if only subtly) suggesting that anti-Muslim attitudes derive from fears which result from events such as 9/11. This shifts responsibility away from Muslims themselves and onto those Westerners who experience the fear. Shifting responsibility is one of Obama’s hallmarks.]
All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
[This is the beginning of President Obama’s abuse of false equivalences. Here he presumes that the fear and distrust is equal on both sides and comes from equally “hostile” behavior on both sides. History clearly indicates otherwise.
This equivalence technique is deployed by Obama in part in order to establish one of his most common distortive maneuvers. In this sleight of mouth, Obama positions himself between two parties to a dispute and then plays the judge, arbiter, therapist, or God in order to appear to be the great resolver. Taking an issue, he often demonstrates how “thoughtful” and “reasonable” he is by articulating some recognition of the arguments on each side. Most of his devotees respond favorably, becoming comfortable that Obama must have thought through the issue, and then accept his conclusion. His conclusion is usually packaged as a “decision” evolved from great deliberation.
The trick here, however, is that Obama, not at all a mediator but quite the advocate, has already chosen one side of the issue, and, as usual, it is radical. He uses this “I am the wise judge” posture to help sell it to his audience. Careful to always maintain a tempered tone (something the West now places great emphasis upon), he persuades powerfully simply through the appearance of being reasoned and reasonable. This charade has, for most of Obama’s devotees, elegantly disguised and rationalized very irrational policies. Consequently, whenever one hears Obama engaged in this “Solomonic” dance, one should be trained to question which radical agenda is being smoothed over.]
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
[This introduces Obama’s grand approach. Having presuppositionally positioned himself as judge, he attempts, under the guise of a “new beginning,” to move the language to a more general level in order to look for propositions with which both sides could not disagree. Most mediators start with identifying things that both sides can agree with as a method to establish rapport and trust. Obama does this by claiming that both sides (Westerners and Muslims) share common principles. Then he will attempt to identify actions that can fall within each side’s acceptable range.
The primary problem which pervades this entire speech is that both sides do NOT share these “common” principles. One of the greatest obstacles to any real resolution between the Islamic and Western words is that each side has different meanings for the critical concepts involved. Unless and until these differences are thoroughly exposed and clarified, no true advance can be achieved. Far from being a “new beginning,” this speech simply ushers in the latest round of irrational attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable.
“Peace” as used by Westerners typically suggests some long term arrangement in which both sides agree that force should never be necessary to resolve any disputes. There are two Arab concepts that enter the range of meaning for “peace.” One used by Muslim diplomats such as Sadat and Arafat in their negotiations, “salaam” suggests the absence of conflict or truce. The other word, “sul-kh” which more closely resembles Western “peace,” means a form of long term reconciliation. (see Joel Gilbert’s brilliant film Farewell Israel). Yet Islamic law and history are clear that truces or treaties, typically entered into by Muslims at times of military disadvantage, can be broken when the Muslims have re-armed. Further, they can not last more than ten years without renewal. Hence, the Palestinian announcement of “peace” bares little in common with what Israelis and Westerners are seeking. Nonetheless, the extortion of land and other concessions in exchange for Palestinian temporary and breakable cessations of violence continues as an acceptable diplomatic transaction.
Nor is “justice” a commonly agreed upon concept. For Muslims, “justice” ultimately means Islamic justice which references Islamic law and leads towards the establishment of worldwide Islamic control. Justice can only occur within an Islamic controlled land. Westerners nonetheless hear these words and apply their own sense of morality and legality which often bares little in common with Islamic intentions. As Gilbert demonstrates, Sadat (as many Arab representatives continue to do today) repeatedly used the phrase “peace with justice” in his speech to the Israeli Knesset to convey one meaning to Westerners while suggesting something quite different to the Arab world.
A true source of discord also comes with “tolerance.” To Westerners, tolerance suggests the parties are equal. With religious tolerance, Westerners tend to characterize religion as a private activity or set of beliefs and rituals. Westerners then, in general, agree that each person is entitled to hold whatever beliefs they want and carry out whatever rituals as well as long as neither side seriously jeopardizes the other.
Islamic tolerance, however, has a very different meaning. Islam sees itself as the ONLY true religion. Historically, it forced all others to convert or face the sword. The key exception comes with Christians and Jews (and sometimes a few others) who, because they had lived by their books, were allowed to continue their faiths so long as they agreed to live under the degrading status as “dhimmi.” Not unlike Mafioso demands for payment in exchange for protection money, dhimmis are required to pay a special jiyza tax as well as essentially minimize the appearance of their religion. Various humiliations were foisted upon dhimmis such as being forbidden to restore houses of worship, wear conspicuous indicators of religion, never carry oneself higher than a Muslim and so on. Bat Yeor has written extensively on the details of what she calls “dhimmitude.”
Therefore, tolerance to Muslims does not in any manner suggest equality among the parties. Islam is unparalleled and all others must act in order to demonstrate such. Accordingly, when the Islamic world is asked or agrees to tolerance, it means something truly unacceptable to Westerners.
Accordingly, Obama’s uber-approach, which is premised upon the notion that both sides are so similar, falls apart from the start. What he presumes as “common interest” is not common at all. Consequently, the entire exercise embodied in this speech is fraudulent.
This can further be seen at the end of the speech where he says “There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” This does lie at the core of Judaism and Christianity as well as many other philosophies. It does NOT, no matter how many times Obama wishes to assert otherwise, lie at the foundation of Islam. Rather, Muslims regard Muslims as superior to all others and are commanded to treat only Muslims in this manner. That is why Islamic history is replete with behavior examples that defy this principle.
So much for Obama’s grand approach.]
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.
[Even Messiahs have difficulties from time to time. Until light is fully shed on the fundamental LACK of common interest, the change he seeks is impossible. Worse, by perpetuating a false equivalence, the Arab world is both able to benefit from further concessions granted it while allowed to harden its behavior away from ultimately sharing common ground with the West.]
But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.
As the Holy Koran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.
[As we have seen, truth is often a luxury for Obama. When in the Islamic world, he refers to the Koran as the “Holy Koran,” he uses the traditional Muslim phrase “May peace be upon him,” bows to the Saudi king and so forth. Demonstrating the asymmetry of the religions, he fails to show similar respect for the other “great religions.”]
(APPLAUSE)
That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.
As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...
[Given the suspicions among many Westerners that Obama is either Muslim, a former Muslim, a non-U.S. citizen, etc. it is no wonder that he fluffs his personal historical record here.]
(APPLAUSE)
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
[Here is ‘tolerance” and ‘equality” again in their distorted meanings. It is interesting, however, that he only speaks well of Islam. He will somewhat rebuke certain “violent extremists” (refusing to even use the word terrorism) but nothing is ever found lacking with Islam. It is forbidden under Islamic law to so criticize Islam so it is little wonder that Obama stays true to that injunction. Still, many would find this list of accomplishments lacking, if not false, despite the historical narratives of Islamic excellence for many centuries. Nonetheless, it is too curious that he is so willing to talk of America’s and the West’s great failures but never of Islam.]
(APPLAUSE)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,
The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.
[He cleverly fails to identify the brutal Muslim history off the Barbary Coast that gave rise to this very treaty. The history is clear that those Muslims thought they were following their religion and the commandments of Allah by their behavior. Has anything changed that understanding since?]
They have fought in our wars.
[And 40,000 of them fought against us in the form of Bosnian SS troops in World War II. Similarly, Obama never mentions how America has freed more Muslims than anyone in recent history, fighting for roughly 50 million Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq.]
They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes,
[Is that a reference to Yasser Arafat as an example of truly honorable Muslim behavior?]
built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Koran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.
[Should we explore what Jefferson really thought of Islam? Why does Obama, (and for that matter Keith Ellison, the Congressman referred to above) not inform us of that? I am sure many of our most prominent politicians owned relics of those they despised- Hitler, Stalin, etc.]
(APPLAUSE)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
[So Obama will tell us all what Islam “is?” Anything negative has hereby been deemed a function of improper stereotyping; not the result in any fashion of Islam itself or the behavior of Muslims or those who have acted under the banner of Islam. This is simply one of endless examples of Obama echoing the cry of victimhood that Muslims throughout the modern world have used to shift responsibility for their conditions onto others.]
(APPLAUSE)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as...
(APPLAUSE)
Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.
[This supposedly establishes rapport with the followers of the revolutionary Mohammad.]
We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal.
[Again, not Islam.]
And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.
We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.
Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.
[Now, contrary to the campaign period, it is fashionable for him to flaunt his Muslim roots. Is it ok for the rest of us as well?]
(APPLAUSE)
But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.
[The numbers have been disputed. Is it possible that he chose 7 in order to outnumber the 6 million American Jews?]
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt...
(APPLAUSE)
... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America.
[He has resisted identifying America as a Judeo-Christian country but with 7 million Muslims, Islam is enough of a “part of America.”]
And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
[This has been repeated among Westerners for years such that all listeners accept it without question. And given its generality, it is difficult to disagree. Nonetheless, for Islam, this is true ONLY for Muslims!
Additionally, while this is a pleasant “new age” fantasy, it is not supported by history. Arab Islamic history reflected attempts to unite disparate and warring tribes under the banner of Islam. The offer of such concepts as “peace” and “security” and “love” as Obama suggests, were, if at all, rewards for joining and expressly do not apply to those who do not join, much less “all humanity.”]
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.
When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
[Again, the appeal to common “humanity” is powerful to us as Westerners but much less so to Muslims; precisely because they are taught to see otherwise.]
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.
Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely.
[Very true and, as he quoted from the Koran, we must speak the truth. The problem is that Obama’s constructions are false and his approach to addressing them is disingenuous as he quite effectively avoids facing the true tensions.]
And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
[In fairness, Obama proceeds to raise seven critical issues which very much need to be raised. Yet, as we have discussed, they must be examined from correctly understood premises.]
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.
[Unfortunately, various Muslim groups have declared war on America, including al Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Is Obama announcing that no matter what they do he will make sure America does not join that war? A pre-emptive surrender? Or will he counter by simply claiming that this is not true Islam? If so, where exactly is the example of true Islam? And is that just his typical arrogance seeping through that suggests he will and can bind America for the future?
In addition, Obama seems to now be allergic to the word “terrorism.” Hasn’t that been the critical issue non-Muslims globally have been confronting?]
(APPLAUSE)
We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.
[Obama has been accentuating the common division made between “moderate” Muslims and “extremist” Muslims, or, in this case, “violent extremists.” This distinction is a Western invention. To many Muslims, violence towards non-Muslims is often a necessary tool and is both not discouraged and, in certain situations, proscribed. Muslims who are not engaged with their religion or those who know little of what their religion has said and done can choose to not indulge these aspects of Islam but the attempt to sever violence from the religion is a disingenuous activity and one that leads us into even greater delusion as to with whom we are dealing. Rather, recognizing and fully exploring the violent injunctions in Islam is a more truthful venture and a better way to arrive at the understanding Obama says he seeks.
And, indeed, there are many so-called “liberal” or “secular” Muslims who enjoy modernity and would just as well have it as Obama suggests. That does not change the facts. It is also true that Islam does not permit suicide. It does, however, stress the value of martyrdom in Jihad.]
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military - we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
[Not so with many Muslims who find honor in losing their sons and daughters in Jihad! And such behavior is honored and sold almost daily on Arab and Palestinian television almost daily.]
We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.
[The Afghanistan narrative is an easy one for Obama to “go tough” on as very few can argue against such a clear description of self-defense. Obama uses it to show Westerners how strongly he can appear and argue with clarity. It creates the impression we have a serious president willing to do all it takes to defend us appropriately. Do we?]
The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as – it is as it if has killed all mankind.
[Unfortunately, to many Muslims, the Holy Koran and Islamic law do not consider non-Muslims “innocent.”]
(APPLAUSE)
And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.
That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
[The construct that Afghanistan was a war of necessity while Iraq was one of choice appears to accurately lay the foundation to properly criticize the Iraq venture. But all wars are of choice and the failure to recognize that is a surrender of responsibility. Afghanistan was an easy choice. Iraq involved a much more complex balancing of interests to reach a decision. This construct is simply a way to throw support to that which received support and pile onto that which, especially in hindsight, did not. The decision to go into Iraq was based on a variety of considerations for which it was deemed more prudent to act than to further delay acting. It is only in hindsight, after much mishandling and the failure to find wmd, that it can be deemed a war of choice. And what happens if WMD are found tomorrow in Iraq or even Syria? Does it then revert to a war of necessity? The Afghanistan war was also by choice, just an easier choice to make. And if the critical distinction is whether our allies agree with us, we will often have to wait until much disaster has already occurred before that happens. Exporting our foreign policy will prove even more devastating than exporting our jobs.
If one honestly examines what happened with Afghanistan, the Bush administration was able to marshal its forces before the American left could marshal enough anti-war forces to dissemble the effort. With Iraq, the left was simply able to accomplish much more and more quickly. Not enough to stop the actual war but plenty to subsequently help sabotage the post-war occupation.]
(APPLAUSE)
Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people...
(APPLAUSE)
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.
(APPLAUSE)
We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.
[This is Obama channeling Bush. Bush left Iraq resources to Iraq, helped establish and protect Iraq’s sovereignty, wanted to get out of Iraq as soon as feasible and signed the SOF agreement, spent years training security forces and attempting to fortify the economy. Is not this the Bush that Obama so detested and constantly tried to humiliate?]
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
(APPLAUSE)
[“Torture” is the manna of Obama and the left. Almost half a year after a new administration, left wing channels such as MSNBC can not go a day without various stories on “torture.” Yet torture as a legal matter did not occur. Legal “torture” is a specific intent crime where the torturer is shown to intend to inflict long lasting pain and damage. All the evidence shows that this could not be the intention of those who engaged such acts such as waterboarding. Consequently, many use “torture” in a non-legal manner meaning something that they would not like to endure, something terribly unpleasant and so forth. These all reduce to matters of personal judgment and that is a very different concept than the notion of violating various codes of conduct. Nonetheless, despite the fact that his Attorney General has under oath agreed with this legal analysis of “torture,” Obama continues to abuse the confusion over the use of the word in order to keep an aged issue alive and to distract the public form more serious and pressing concerns.]
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
[This is a productive call for Muslims to take responsible action to isolate those Muslims that are counterproductive to our concept of “peace.” This is so even though he limits the issue to the presumed small number of “extremists.” The only problem is that this should have been upfront rather than buried at the end of the topic.]
Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
[To Jews, it is also rooted with God and throughout the Torah. And the tragic history covers some 3,000 years. To suggest a homeland was in some sense earned through the holocaust may satisfy Obama’s desire to demonstrate his “empathy” (and further allow him to tie future policy concerning Israel to this limited narrative). It is also consistent with the approach Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken with respect to the rights Jews have to their Holy Land. Nonetheless, it demonstrates his profound ignorance of or desire to ignore the history both of the Jewish people as well as the creation of the Israeli state.]
Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.
Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.
Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
[What an excellent opportunity to discuss how the Islamic world has been spreading lies about Jews since its founding, how modern Islamic controlled media is actively engaged in rewriting Middle East history in order to deeply implant falsities in the minds of children, and how Islamic governments, and particularly the Palestinian Authority under the control of Israel’s supposed “partner in peace” Mahmoud Abbas, have been inciting children and others to violence against the Jews. Perhaps, a firm demand that all of these must cease immediately, (something Hilary Clinton had done in part when she was courting the Jewish vote but has ceased since working “for” Obama) could have been made here to offset Obama’s one-sided demand of Israel regarding settlements.]
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.
[Is Obama really drawing an equivalency between the holocaust and the “occupation” (or more appropriately the “liberation” of) of Israeli land? There is no “homeland” for Palestinians, an identity invented by Yasser Arafat to keep him in power. “Palestinians” was the name primarily for Jews in the area during the first third or so of the 20th century. The Arabs on these lands became “refugees” only after the invading Arab forces told them to leave the Israeli lands in advance of planned attacks upon Israel. The fantasy of a long quest for some mythological homeland was created by Arafat to support his power base and used to justify a 60 plus year UN refugee operation-originally slated to last only three years.
To equate Jewish suffering to Palestinian suffering is perhaps the most abusive distortion in this reckless speech. And for Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel to allow his president to do so tells us exactly what kind of Jew he is! Palestinian “suffering” could have ended at anytime Palestinians desired simply by forfeiting the victim pose they have assumed and giving up the use of violence as a weapon. Unfortunately, the value of such violence and the goal of destroying any Jewish state outweighed their desire for what the West would call a “peaceful” existence.
And to equate the two “pursuits” of these so-called “peoples” is equally malicious. Palestinian “pursuit” was essentially manufactured when Yasser Arafat recognized that there were limits to his use of terror. After the Lebanese war and Arafat’s removal to Tunisia, he began to adopt what Joel Gilbert in Farewell Israel describes as “The Diplomatic Strategy.” This is the use of diplomacy to accomplish what military efforts had failed to carry out- the destruction of the Sate of Israel as a Jewish homeland. Essentially, the goal is to diminish the size of Israel through staged negotiations in order to weaken it over time so that a final assault can succeed. Arafat used to tell Westerners that he favored a two state solution while talking to his own people he would make clear it was only a step in the process of destroying the Jewish state. In fact, the critical political difference between Arafat and Hamas was that Arafat sought to carry out this “Phased Plan” while Hamas had no interest in staging Israel’s destruction; put better, no interest in deploying the Diplomatic Strategy. What Obama is labeling as “pursuit” is very different from what Western listeners would understand. It is the strategic use of diplomacy to disguise what is otherwise an extremely aggressive plan.]
For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation.
[The use of the term “occupation” shows how deeply Obama aligns with Palestinian rhetoric. While during the campaign Obama’s affiliations with Rashid Khalidi and Reverend Wright were barred from critical scrutiny, this word demonstrates the poisonous thinking Obama has ingested from those who surround him. Given Obama’s incredible attention to avoid the use of the word “terror,” the presence of this word speaks volumes.
To suggest that checkout lines, endless searches, waiting in lines, and other inconveniences are unique to Palestinians is simply another rewrite of reality. Israeli life is thoroughly plagued by these same items as Palestinian terror has forced them to make drastic changes to adapt to the terror threat. The refugee camps result from the UN’s need to maintain the Palestinian victim narrative for its own purposes. No other refugee operation functions under the rules generated for this one.]
So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
[It has been Palestinian leadership that has demeaned its people and denied it of dignity, opportunity, and a state of its own; no more complicated than that! Obama simply refuses to look squarely at the facts.
And where are these “legitimate aspirations” of the Palestinian people expressed and acted upon? This is precisely the problem. While we can easily fantasize that many Palestinian people simply wish to live in final peace (as Westerners view peace) with Israel, such is not at all what their leaders demonstrate. Given that both Fatah and Hamas aspire and call for the complete elimination of Israel as a Jewish state, it is quite a leap for Obama to assume otherwise, much less rely in any significant manner upon it.]
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive.
[To view the history as a “stalemate” is to gravely misunderstand or intentionally distort the record. Obama is trying to reinforce the concept of a “peace process” in which two sides are part of some form of organic dance. The actual behavior reveals something very different—The Extortion Process. Everywhere else that “peace” (as Westerners understand it) or the cessation of violence is used in a bargain for something concrete, the process is labeled “extortion” and is usually punished. Since the formation of the State of Israel, all diplomacy has resulted in the format where Israel gives land and other concrete, measurable, and difficult to regain assets in exchange for a mere promise not to be assaulted. This is no different from the intrinsically Islamic concept (as made famous in Islamic Sicily out of which the Mafia developed) of demanding protection payments.
To characterize the history as a “stalemate” is to blind the listener to the simple reality that a Western “peace” could be obtained whenever the Palestinians would wish. To paraphrase historian Bernard Lewis answering the question whether a peace is obtainable: Tell me what is sought? If this is a real estate deal then yes. If it is about Israel’s existence, then no! Obama is colluding to obfuscate the simple reality that the only process that properly deserves the label “stalemated” is the Palestinian drive to eradicate the Jewish state.
Contrary to Obama’s assertion, the Israelis have repeatedly compromised. Their objective has been a secure state and they have turned over land in successive steps. Arafat had been granted numerous opportunities for a state of his own and famously declined an offer of 97% of the West Bank lands. This very year, Ehud Olmert reportedly offered more than 98% of the West Bank land and was turned down. It is the Palestinians who refuse to compromise on their fundamental objective (which Obama is mislabeling here as a legitimate aspiration)-the elimination of the Jewish state. Obviously Israel can not join in such a transaction.]
It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding,
[The displacement was caused by invading Arab states commanding them to leave, not Israel’s founding. Here again, Obama’s recitation is so decorative, it suggests intentional deception.]
and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
[The critical element of the “Extortion Process” is that is asymmetrical. Superimposing Obama’ egotistical desire perhaps to get a Carter-like prize and to appear as the grand facilitator does not justify distorting the fundamental differences between the two parties. Palestinians extract from Israel by temporarily ceasing what international law would everywhere else find punishable and not deserving of reward. Trying to reconcile the irreconcilable may appear noble but is, at best, more accurately naïve.]
That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
[It is a “lovely” approach to try to teach Muslims, who have for decades been poisoned by the incitement to violence in their textbooks and media, the value of non-violence as a strategy to win friends and so forth. Yet if Israel is meant to rely on this pontification for its security, this stage of the Extortion Process will go nowhere.
And it must be remembered that Islam manifests differently when it exists as a minority than when as a controlling government. This type of violence does not gain Western moral authority but, within assorted Islamic communities, can be condoned if not compelled and can be a sign of the greatest guarantee of Allah’s acceptance- martyrdom in Jihad.
More importantly, Obama is outlining his concept of the next stage in the Extortion Process. Palestinians agree to abandon violence and Israel gives back land provides economic assistance and so on. Obama is merely providing a “new beginning” to just the next step in the decades old abuse of Israel while making himself appear as the great wise mediator. The horrible irony is that each successive stage of the Extortion Process rewards the very behavior Israel seeks to eradicate.]
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people.
[Here Obama does speak the truth. Any true advance along Western “peace” does require suitable Palestinian institutions. But such behavior must be a condition precedent to (not simultaneous with or subsequent to) the most minimal of actions demanded of Israel in order to break the repeated spiral of the Extortion Process.]
Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
[And the sun must learn to cease bombarding the earth with harmful UV rays in order to earn its proper place in our solar system. Obama, and many like him, has spent years stating that parties “must” do this or that. It is a proposition that conveys a sense of strength, possibility, determination to see the outcome, and reason. Unfortunately, as here, it masks a complete lack of all of these. And, should these “musts” ever occur, their execution must be structured as an ante to enter the diplomatic field, not as a reward for the use of The Diplomatic Strategy.]
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
[Perhaps the most standout line in the entire speech, Obama is announcing here a clear cut change in fundamental U.S.-Israeli relations. The legal issues of whether a violation of agreements has occurred and whether, if so, it is excused by reciprocal violation that make the agreement moot should not be the subject of a speech of this nature. Even if there is a violation, this is not the place for a mediator to announce demands. But that assumes that despite Obama’s exorbitant efforts to posture his rhetoric as if he is the mediatingfacilitator, here he retreats to taking a position against his country’s long term ally.
If he truly wanted to sound Reaganesque in demanding that a wall be torn down, how about demanding that the Palestinian pursuit of the destruction of Israel must be terminated and verified as such? Upon such an occurrence, the settlements would cease immediately.
Rather, the critical proposition that has been asserted here is that the U.S. will now join and collude with the Palestinians (as well as the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Syrians (to name a few) to accelerate the next stages of the Diplomatic Strategy. Obama has shifted America from Israeli friend willing to assist in the reduction of conflicts in the region to a bona fide co-conspirator in the elimination of Israel. Since Obama utilizes legalisms here, it should be remembered that a co-conspirator need not engage in all the acts of the conspiracy in order to be guilty of conspiracy. Rather, by intending to aid the Palestinians and Arabs in their Diplomatic Strategy and taking steps towards that goal, is he not on the hook for all that the other metaphorical co-conspirators do?
Forcing Israelis to cease growing through settlements within their current state (whether or not deemed “occupied”) is to commit the very policy faux pas he insists elsewhere in this speech one nation should not do to another nation. The settlements, claimed to be some sort of emotional weapon against Palestinians (and Obama and his liberal comrades eat this tale for nourishment), have been alternatively described as the organic way for Jews to grow within their geographic. Would Obama, perhaps consider limiting Palestinian parents to one child each? One of the core tactics in the Diplomatic Strategy is to expand the Arab population while attempting to reduce the size and area of Jewish existence.]
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
[For all the “history” to which he alludes, Obama uniquely fails to mention that Israel has repeatedly lived up its obligations. From returning the land it captured following the two Arab wars (where else do victors return land?), to giving back the Sinai to Sadat, to evacuating Gaza, it is the Palestinians who have failed to deliver any enduring “peace.” To offload responsibility for Palestinian societal failure onto Israel is beyond insult. But then again, Obama’s Saul Alinsky training compels him to transfer responsibility away from acclaimed “victims” and onto those from whom he wishes to extract concessions. Obama’s U.S. domestic policy is replete with this maneuver as well. It is what he, as a community organizer, has been trained (if not programmed) to do.
It is also true that the Palestinian economy needs to be developed. Progress is very much a part of any real successful resolution in the area- even if progress is, to many who follow Islamic law, often non-Islamic. To blame the lack of development on Israel, however, could not be more false and counter-productive. It also avoids employing the “tough love” necessary for any population addicted to victimhood to address themselves.
Rather, we would have been better served if Obama had attempted to transform the Extortion Process into a respectable transaction. That is, the Extortion Process is allowed to continuebecause all that the Palestinians are held to perform is the cessation of violence; an act which may only be promised and can be unilaterally withdrawn whenever advantageous.
Instead, a transaction could be structured based on concrete assets the Palestinians could contribute. Instead of “enabling” the humiliating script that the Palestinians can only be victims, Obama should force the Palestinians to supply its labor source in secure fashion toward projects that can be jointly beneficial and teach both sides to work together. The Med-Dead canal project could be one such proposal in which water is made to flow from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea to retain the latter while supporting the construction of desalination plants to supply water to both Israelis and Palestinians. Surrounding Arab nations can help fund constructive projects such as this instead of destructive terrorism.
While Obama’s rhetoric hints at projects of similar nature, they are positioned as things the parties can do down the road, once Israel has ceased its settlements and perhaps returned land. Rather, such projects should be made the testing ground for whether the parties can actually live and function together in Western “peace.” Rather than reward the Palestinians for past violence, these projects should require them to “earn” any diplomatic cessation of settlements or return of land through concrete actions (not promises of continued cessation of violence). Measurements of success could be used to determine the process of settlement cessation. In this scenario, the cessation of violence is PRESUMED; it is not a chit to be traded. Most significantly, successful implementation will afford the Palestinians the dignity Obama suggests they seek as opposed to the dignity they believe they achieve through eliminating the Jewish homeland.]
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
[Obama correctly recognizes the utility of the Palestinian problem to surrounding Arab rulers, if not to non-Arab rulers as well. Needless to say the conflict could have been erased years back if other Arabs were willing to stop enabling its endurance. Yet it is no small obstacle that none of the fellow Arabs accept the Palestinians at all.
And to follow suit, Obama has already reversed years of actions taken to restrict the financing of terror through charitable financings. Plenty of Arab and Muslim money has flowed to the Palestinians as aid or contributions to private charity. Unfortunately, much of it has been and now will continue to be aimed at extending Palestinian violence.]
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away.
[An incredible choice of words! “Go away?” Where is it to go? This is another crafty example of Obama speaking to both audiences (as Yasser Arafat did) such that the Muslims hear it as a report on the enemy’s determination while the West tends to hear it as a suggestion that the conflict can not be easily resolved. Nonetheless, many Muslims, especially with power, are unwilling to give up on the desire to terminate Israel.]
Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
[Israelis do not “need” a Palestinian state. Israelis desire to live with security. Many Americans are starting to discover the Israeli state of mind for themselves and, unfortunately, under Obama, will likely be forced to discover more too quickly.]
Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear;
[Perhaps Palestinian mothers should stop taking pride in and celebrating their children who give their lives as Shahids or martyrdom in Jihad. That would probably accelerate this day of no fear!]
when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be;
[While Obama (as well as Bush) utilize this notion of the three great faiths, it must be understood again that to Muslims, there is only one great faith-Islam. To Muslims, Islam was what was given to Moses before the Jews distorted it into Judaism. Similarly, to Muslims, Jesus is a prophet who also was given Islam only to have later Christians distort it again. (Muslims get away with fooling non-Muslims that they accept these two religions by asserting that Moses and Jesus as well as the other biblical prophets are also prophets to Muslims. Unfortunately, Christians are then often appalled to find out that Muslims mean that Jesus was not divine and did not even die on the Cross and is subordinate to Muhammad.) Only Islam as given to Allah’s final prophet Muhammad correctly reflects Allah’s will. While Jews and Christians deserve the slightly elevated status as dhimmis, their religions as practiced deserve no respect, much less to share greatness with Islam.
Westerners may think that there is a common interest with this shared view of religious acceptance but they, like Obama here, would be wrong.]
when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
[Did he forget to throw a bone to the other two “great religions’ here as he does with this Islamic phrase?]
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known.
[Again Obama completely mangles history in order to preserve the illusion of equivalence. While the Moussadeq overthrow has meaning to Iranians, it in no way parallels the Islamic Republic’s “Death to America” campaign over the past 30 years. Rather, it seems to be a message that he, Obama, does not intend to similarly interfere with and overthrow this regime- perhaps the one threat that truly frightens the Iranian leadership.
To be clear, the Khomeini regime, furthered by the Khamenehi regime, have not merely “played a role” in acts of hostage taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. They have been the greatest single force underlying or in some other manner facilitating most of the world’s Islamic terrorism. The facts are too extensive to begin to enumerate here.
Here, again, Obama attempts to sell his policy by appealing to a higher more abstract level on which both sides can seek to find common interests. The narrative continues that once common ground is discovered and articulated, the two sides could join hands and jump back down to the more concrete details of co-existence and find ways to rearrange their behavior to better express those common interests. Again, it is a wonderful piece of poetic storyline and is easily digested by Westerners living in fear and desirous of easy outcomes.
Nonetheless, this narrative is, by definition, inapplicable because at that very higher level, the interests prove irreconcilable, not shared.]
Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
[Yes, this is an example of Obama speaking the truth.]
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.
[Again, the false suggestion that Bush’s America did not “talk to” Iran and that such talk is the path to compromise. As Amir Taheri makes elucidates in his extraordinary book “The Persian Night,” for the Islamic Republic’s Shiites, steeped in the storylines of Martyr Hussein, compromise is humiliating and to be avoided. We can offer an endless bag of concessions but that will only serve to tighten their resolve. And the history of “talks” with the regimes has resulted only in hostile acts as soon as the American (whether it be Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeline Albright, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton etc.) leaves the room.]
But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
[What could have been cast as sheer naïveté above now takes its place as clever positioning of a new American policy with respect to Iran. No longer does Obama refuse to allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons nation on his watch. Rather, he is announcing (as he had sent out a test flare days before this speech) that it is perfectly acceptable for Iran to have nuclear power for peaceful civilian purposes.
This is perhaps Obama’s most arrogant test of his electorate’s stupidity and willingness to be gaslighted despite clear evidence to the contrary. As Taheri writes:
“The only nuclear power station under construction in Iran, in the Bushehr peninsula on the Persian Gulf, was designed by Germans in the 1970s and is being built by a Russian company that constructed Chernobyl. The Bushehr plant is designed to use a specially graded and codified fuel that is produced only in Russia; it cannot use the uranium enriched by Iran.”
Further, Taheri continues:
“It [Iran] is building a heavy water plant at Arak, west of Tehran, supposedly producing fuel for a nuclear power station using plutonium. However, the Islamic Republic has no such plant, nor has it even planned to build one. What is produced at Arak, therefore, can only have a military use.” P.249
Obama knows better. Allowing Iran to have nuclear power will allow them to weaponize on very short notice, if they have not done so as yet. His failure to articulate a policy of restriction indicates a new policy of containment. Containment resonates well with Obama’s constituency as a reasonable response to a situation where military force and regime change are to be avoided at all costs. Containment, however, as Taheri also makes clear, comes with prohibitive expense and endless commitment, if it can even be successful. And, containment of nuclear material is a very different proposition from that of a state controlled ideology and state actor.
Obama’s particular brand of containment appears based on mutual forfeiture. The entire world is somehow meant to join hands and together give up all nuclear weapons as a prelude to the paradisiacal fantasy Obama hopes to usher in. And the Islamic Republic is the one trapped in crazy Messianic fable?
It seems clear that Obama’s new policy seeks also to transfer responsibility to Israel. Earlier, Obama announced that any assistance to Israel in its efforts to forestall Iran’s nuclear objectives will be conditioned upon Israel’s acceptance of Obama’s virtually untenable staging for the two state solution. When it becomes clear that Iran has nuclear weapons, who will be blamed? The Jews of course.
This policy will also attempt to force Israel to disclose its nuclear arsenal and subject itself to the same regimen that will be asked of Iran. This is another effective way to avoid confrontation with Iran as it allows Obama to again blame Israel for refusing the unacceptable.]
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
[This seeks to distinguish Obama from Bush but Bush arguably never sought to impose government. That is precisely why he sought elections and was forced to live with election results-such as Hamas- that were destructive to his wider objectives.]
But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
[Did Bush write this? Bush was laughed at by the likes of Obama for basing his policy around this very principle that each human soul around the planet yearns for freedom. Perhaps one really does learn on the job.]
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.
[The issue never was whether America respects these rights or welcomes peaceful governments! The issue is whether many of the Muslim governments being addressed respect these rights. Yet once enveloped in Obama’s spin, it often becomes difficult for a listener to remember who’s who.]
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.
(APPLAUSE)
So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.
Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
[Absolutely true that democracy requires more than elections. Yet, the principles articulated present problems for Islam. For while Islam has its version of “consent” and, as discussed earlier, its own version of “tolerance” and “rights”, Islamic law commands that only Allah makes law. This is one of the most basic concepts upon which much of what Obama would call Islamic “violent extremism” is based. It is also another source of unending tension which Obama fails to shed light upon and to address.]
(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.
[Already discussed.]
We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.
[These narratives suggest that, because there is some record of Jews being allowed to live in Andalusa and Cordoba under a form of dhimmi status which was preferable to living elsewhere under the Inquisition, dhimmi status is acceptable today. It also suggests that the conditions then would not seriously offend any Western observer today. If Obama taught constitutional law the way he teaches history, we are in serious trouble as a nation. Then again, such is already observable.]
I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devout Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.
That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.
[Wonderful concept but not shared by Islam or much of Islamic history.]
This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.
[A “tendency?” Islam, to some degree, commands this.]
The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.
(APPLAUSE)
And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
[Good luck settling that score. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is easier to resolve and serves to take Muslim’s minds off of the fact that Muhammad said that there will be 73 sects of Islam and only one will be true Islam. Difficult to know if one has chosen properly.]
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
[This is an announcement that all of the recent advances made in uprooting terror finance in the U.S. and elsewhere will be reversed by Obama with the stroke of the pen. Since he doesn’t recognize or mention terrorism, no need to restrict its financing.
More importantly, it gives cover for a series of actions that will allow radical Muslims to enter critical levels of the U.S. government including the FBI, CIA, Department of State and so forth.]
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.
[Somewhat of a misdirection play, the true difficulties the West has had have been in allowing Muslims to avoid Western laws and restrictions and obligations by claiming their right to practice Islam supersedes any obligation they might have to U.S. laws. Obama mentions the hijab to avoid having to deal with the real tension- the “cultural Jihad” that has been taking place in Europe for decades and is beginning now in the United States.
Nonetheless, the West faces a serious dilemma often called “lawfare” in which Muslims with radical agendas utilize American “rights,” which courts will be challenged to enforce, in order to silence opponents and further anti-American activities. This is a difficult problem any free society faces and Obama is making clear which side of the tension he will favor.]
We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
[Yet, as he perhaps overstates the American Muslim population at 7 million and elsewhere states that America could be one of the largest Muslim countries, is Obama intentionally reframing America away from being a Judeo-Christian society to one in which the “three great faiths” determine together the nature of our culture? Obama is attempting to facilitate the alteration of America culture in order to reflect the world’s culture. That is, instead of spreading America’s values around the globe, he is attempting to “globalize America.” Since there are three “great” religions across the globe, America should reflect that as well. Is that the “Change” we voted for?]
That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.
[As if this is genuinely new?]
Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue – the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
(APPLAUSE)
[Excellent points Obama is making about the importance of women and women’s rights. Will it make any difference?]
I know...
(APPLAUSE)
I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.
[Once again, it is simply ridiculous, if not insulting in the extreme, to equate the legal issue in America over how American society should be forced to accommodate Muslim behavior, with the radical abuse of women which permeates Islamic law and is expressed throughout Muslim societies and Islamic history.
Nonetheless, the issue is of utmost importance and, on balance, Obama serves everyone better by addressing it here and rewarding those positive and constructive advances that have been made to date.]
(APPLAUSE)
And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.
(APPLAUSE)
Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.
That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
(APPLAUSE)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.
Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.
In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
[It is amazing what can be produced out of slave and dhimmi labor.]
And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.
Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too...
(APPLAUSE)
And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas.
[Underinvestment? How many hundreds of billions were spent on aid to the Palestinian Authority as well as to other Muslim communities? And that was when hundreds of billions was a great deal of money! Until the West is willing to impose serious restrictions and conditions on investment, Muslim corruption is likely to continue in the extreme. And judging by the way the Obama administration utilizes transparency and accountability at home, it seems poorly suited to impose such restrictions and conditions abroad.]
I am emphasizing such investment within my own country.
[Judging by how quickly Obama is destroying the U.S. economy, an investment in the Palestinian Authority may be a safer bet!]
And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.
(APPLAUSE)
At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities.
[So they can learn Jihad?]
And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
[Good luck freeing up communications between some of these countries.]
On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.
Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
[Will the promotion materials be Sharia-compliant?]
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure
[The Palestinians are already secure; they need only accept it. It is only the Israelis who truly suffer this legitimate anxiety from the other. Perhaps Obama can address how Fatah and Hamas are making each realistically fear the other?]
in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes,
[As Obama wills it, so shall it be!]
a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.
[Who told you this? Not according to Muslim rulers, Muslim groups, The Islamic Republic of Iran, not according to …]
But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort; that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.
[Still others wish to avoid the horrors involved in repeating the lessons previously learned in dealing with those who do not at all share these wonderful Obama dreams.]
Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years.
[The only thing we have to fear is Obama himself!]
But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to re-imagine the world, the remake this world.
[Is not that what the “virtual” world is for? A place to imagine that which by definition has no chance of materializing?]
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
[Already, this is “classic” Obama. Again, it is generally constructive and valuable, if not expected.]
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
[To close his hypnotic induction, Obama repeats his “wonderful” synthesis of the three religions. Unfortunately, it is built on falsity and will, therefore, likely collapse unless openly explored and challenged.]
(APPLAUSE)
This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.
[And Muslims understand themselves to be commanded by the Koran not to even be friends with Jews or Christians, much less place their faith in them!]
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Koran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.
The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.
The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
(APPLAUSE)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
END
[In summary, it is truly time for a “new beginning”, one which commences with exposing to the West the truth about Islam and confronting directly the very different worldviews, presuppositions, and agendas that underlie the Muslim and Western views. Only through a full exposition of true Muslim values and the principles expressed through Islamic law and history, will the real barriers to commonality be surfaced. Only through fully focusing on these true differences can anything resembling the harmonious relationship envisioned by Obama ever possibly emerge. Obama has avoided this task completely.]
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Bill Siegel lives in New York.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
