![]()
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
One of the problems with Obama's Middle East speech was that parts of it were so deliberately balanced — so meant to appease all sides — that they go nowhere. For example, look at the portions where he discusses democracy in the Middle East versus the alternative — Islamist rule, which he does not name. One sentence seems to say that a "true" democracy is necessary, only to be followed by one that seems open to Islamist rule, and so on. Consider the following excerpts:
This seems to say he's open to Islamists' having a prominent role now in the hopes that, in future, more liberal reforms will take place.
This implies the opposite: that Islamists can't just have a blank check, as it were.
This is very open to Islamist rule, since many Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are "peaceful and law-abiding," at least until they assume power.
This is another reverse implying that only "true" supporters of democracy are welcome.
This is immensely vague: What if a group restricts the rights of its minorities — but with consent from the majority, as is the case when a majority of Muslims support Islamist/sharia rule? In the end, however, when one moves beyond all the verbiage, it is clear where Obama is going with all this:
In short, let's take risks today in the hopes of achieving an earthly utopia tomorrow — a thing unprecedented in human history.
Related Topics: US policy | Raymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. |
||||||||
©1994-2012 The Middle East Forum E-mail: info@meforum.org Daniel J. Pipes |
||||||||