Obama: A New Direction in the Middle East?

Like many, I watched yesterday’s speech.  More than not, I liked what he had to say.  I am pleased with his support for Arab Spring and his pledge to assist Egypt and Tunisia.  I support his calls for religious freedom and equality for women.  I agree with promise to sanction Syria.  And I also believe that the Palestinian state must be based on Israel’s 1967 borders.  While I disagree with his Afghanistan stance, I can’t claim betrayal, because he had made it clear before I voted for him.  My problems are more with what he did not say.  Here are the speech, Republican reactions, and more commentary.

If you prefer, the text of the speech is here.

While Obama mentioned the autocrats in Bahrain, Yemen and Jordon, he ignored them in Saudi Arabia and the UAR.  If Syria deserves sanctions, why not Bahrain?

I support the unification  of Fatah and Hamas, because there can be no peace, excluding the latter.  I would like to see Obama take a more active role using carrots and sticks on both sides, especially Israel.  Look at what has happened over the years.

Israel has been ignoring the Helsinki accords and annexing major areas of Palestinian land, apparently attempting a de facto takeover of all the land.  Both sides need to stop fighting and return to what was previously agreed.

Here are some of the Republican Reactions.

Michelle Bachmann:

Michele Bachmann said Obama had “betrayed our friend and ally Israel.”

“Obama’s call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division & more aggression in Middle East and put Israel at further risk,” Bachmann said on Twitter, linking to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s sharp statement.

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul said the Obama administration had again "proven that it does not understand a proper foreign policy for America."

“Israel is our close friend," Paul said in a statement. "While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations. Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."

Tim Pawlenty:

Tim Pawlenty called a return to 1967 borders "a mistaken a very dangerous demand."

"The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided," he said in a statement. "To send a signal to the Palestinians that America will increase its demands on our ally Israel, on the heels of the Palestinian Authority’s agreement with the Hamas terrorist organization, is a disaster waiting to happen. At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it’s never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem.”

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL):

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) of Florida, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized the president for imposing “new pressure on Israel to make concessions on its borders,” without calls on Palestinian leaders to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Mitt Romney:

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” said former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in a statement. “He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace.”

Rick Santorum:

Rick Santorum said the speech as a whole hearkened to the "sad state of American diplomacy.”

"The fact that the President took six months to simply say that our policy is to oppose violence, support universal rights, and support reform epitomizes the sad state of American diplomacy," Santorum said, calling Obama’s foreign policy confused and dangerous.

Pat Toomey:

“The president’s reference to pre-1967 borders as the basis for peace undermines our ally Israel’s negotiating position, demonstrates insensitivity to the security threats Israel faces on a daily basis, and ignores the historical context that has shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for more than 60 years,” said freshman Sen. Pat Toomey (R) of Pennsylvania, in a statement.

The Republican reactions have one thing in common.  All are lies.  Netanyahu may want to renege on Israel’s treaty obligations, but it is not a betrayal to call upon all signatories to abide by an agreement we helped negotiate.  Period.   That covers all but Santorum, and the speech clearly goes beyond what Santorum said.

Lawrence O’Donnell and columnist E.J. Dion discuss the speech and the duplicity of the Republican reaction.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Although no speech is perfect, this one was far superior to anything any Republican has said on the subject lately.

There is a new direction in the Middle East, a direction that comes from the people there.  Obama would be wise to continue to follow their lead.