Obama: America's future bound to Middle East
President Barack Obama delivers a policy address on events in the Middle East at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, May 19, 2011. / AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Updated: 2:37 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama says the future of the U.S. is bound to the Middle East and North Africa by the forces of economics, security, history and fate.
Mr. Obama opened a major speech on U.S. policy in the region by trying to tell Americans why it matters to them even though the countries "may be a great distance from our shores."
The president spoke at the State Department in his first comprehensive remarks on the astonishing ripples of change in the Middle East. He hailed the killing of al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and declared that bin Laden's vision of destruction was fading even before U.S. forces shot him dead.
Mr. Obama said the "shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region."
Complete Coverage: Anger in the Arab WorldObama backs Palestinians' 1967 border claims
Obama to Syria's Assad: Democracy or leave
President Obama's Middle East speech (full text)
In his remarks, Mr. Obama also called for Syrian President Bashar Assad to lead his country to democracy or "get out of the way," his most direct warning to the leader of a nation embroiled in violence.
Mr. Obama said the Syrian government "has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens." He praised the Syrian people for their courage in standing up to repression in a bloody crackdown that has killed hundreds.
The president argued that Syria's brutal crackdown on pro-reform activists is unacceptable. He said Assad could no longer rule through repression and must change course if he wants international acceptance. More than 850 people are believed to have been killed in two months of unrest in Syria.
The White House on Wednesday announced the sanctions on Assad and six senior Syrian officials for human rights abuses over their crackdown on anti-government protests. It was the first time the U.S. personally penalized the Syrian leader for the actions of his security forces. More than 850 people have died since the uprising began in March.
Mr. Obama said the region's revolutions speak to a "longing for freedom" that has built up for years and has led to the overturning of tyrants - with perhaps more to fall. He embraced the call for change and compared it to signature moments of U.S. history such as the American revolution and the civil rights movement.
The president noted that some "true leaders" had stepped down in the recent wave of change in the region and that "more may follow." He quoted civilian protesters who have pushed for change in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen but noted that among those countries, only Egypt had seen the departure of a long-ruling autocratic leader.
Mr. Obama said that while there will be setbacks that accompany progress with political transitions, the movements present a valuable opportunity for the U.S. to show which side it is on. "We have a chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of a dictator," he said, referring to the fruit vendor who killed himself in despair and sparked a chain of events that unleashed uprisings around the Arab world.
Mr. Obama, however, skipped the chance to offer a strong new condemnation of Iran in his speech.
The president accused Iran Thursday of hypocrisy and reiterated U.S. opposition to the country's intolerance, illicit nuclear program and sponsorship of terror. The president also said those views were well-known and he did not dwell on them. Nor did he cast Iran as the bogeyman of the Middle East, as U.S. officials have in the past.
Iran merited little more than a paragraph in the 45-minute speech. The Obama administration's outreach to Tehran has gone nowhere, although U.S. officials still hope they can lure Iran into negotiations over its nuclear program and other issues.
Mr. Obama addressed the Israel-Palestine conflict, and, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel, endorsed the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war. Israel says the borders of Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.
Mr. Obama sided with the Palestinians' position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.
Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel's desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.
In a statement following Mr. Obama's remarks, Israeli Prime Minister rejected the president's endorsement, and said a return to his country's 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish state.
Calling the 1967 lines "indefensible," Netanyahu said such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders.
The tough stand could set the stage for a tense meeting Friday when Netanyahu goes to the White House.
Popular in Politics
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 185 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 356 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups 69 Comments
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 328 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare 40 Comments
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016
- Immigration deal reached in House
If Hamas is unwilling to renounce violence as its instrument of intimidation and power and cease hostilities against Israel, then it should be given no voice in the peace process. It has not made its intentions to destroy Israel a secret. Its involvement will be a clear vexation to the peace process. With its violent and hostilite record in the past, any Palestinian State that emerges would itself be jeopordized by instability and conflict. The need for a demilitarized Palestine State is non-negotiable. Unless, Hamas is willing to lay down their arms and demilitarize, it cannot be part of the Palestinian State. Besides before it is welcomed back in the folds of the Palestinian State, it should be first made accountable for the crimes it has committed in Gaza.
With regards to the refugees issue, Israel must be willing to relinquish control of territories which it has a lesser claim. A primary concern should be how much support does Prime Minister Netanyahu have not only from the Israeli Parliament but more importantly from his people. How much faith do the people have in his leadership. Unless the Prime Minister is fully committed to peace and is less concerned with political ramifications of concessions made to forge peace, any position he takes is likely to be a token for something he will not risk his political career for.
Brokering and negotiating peace and championing freedom and democracy is such a thankless job. The US is always the most committed and the one to take the initiative in such causes. It is the first to be blamed for setbacks and failures and the last to be given credit for success in such pursuits. It risks so much to achieve so little for itself.
It is criticized for not responding quickly enough and doing enough. What critics and detractors seem to have forgotten is that we are talking about independent and sovereign states. The US cannot intervene and dictate as it chooses to. It can only throw support and assistance to people's struggles for their own freedom. It is precisely due to US discretion, restraint, and subtle intervention that Egypians can claim to have won their freedom and democracy by themselves without foreign interference. But when people are deprived even murdered to repress their rights and freedoms. A more sustantial and material involvement is necessary preferably with the sanction of an international body such as the UN. But there are other countries such as in Iran and Myanmar, where the US must demonstrate more restraint and join the chorus in condemnation and calling for sanctions. The people uprising and struggles for freedom have been silenced in those places. And the international community must bid its time and prepare for a more opportune moment to lend a helping hand to the real sovereign will of the people. It is rather unfortunate that Syria have taken the path closer to Libya than Egypt. With the elections to be held next year and the images of change sweeping across the region. It would have been a more prudent course of action to demonstrate restraint and reach out to your people rather than persecute them. No doubt the battles and wars that the US have chosen are daunting and challenging. But if it is to remain true and committed to its ideals, values and principles then through brickbats, criticisms, and setbacks it will strive, aspire, and persevere. And since it is fighting and championing these causes not for the praises accolades, and self-serving agendas but for freedom, democracy, and saving lives, achieving and winning them for the people is the only gratitude they need.
I'm just asking.
I totally agree with going back to 1967 borders. A border should not mean that there wouldn't be free trade between the two countries.
The Middle East is indeed tied to America's future. If the young people there have their way, we will have some excellent democratically run countries to partner with in ensuing years. Israel might not like losing the bonus money we send them (if we begin helping build other democratically run governments in the region), but they are a strong country and will survive.
How can any of you not know that the world is shrinking... the USA does not have the ability to "go it alone" any longer. We already have a world economy -- we need markets that are open for our trading in order to come back to the economic giant we once were. Ideas are valuable, but having someone to buy our products is essential for our continued economic viability.
The narrow minded among you think American political ideology --Democrat/liberals or Republican/conservatives -- means a hill of beans in the big picture. Sorry folks. The horse has left the barn and the whole wide world is the new countryside.
Now since it is the policy of CBS to prevent anyone from telling the truth about Obama and the liberals They will bloc me from comments very soon as they have done to at least 30 other people I know of.
They let you denigrate an entire group of people you don't agree with above. If you take it to another level and attack members, then that member might report you for breaking the rules or terms of service.
If you did violate what you agreed in order to be allowed to post here C-NET (NOT CBS!) -- will delete your posts or your account.
If you know 30 other people that have been deleted, it leads us to assume you know a lot of aggressively disagreeable people who do not understand the concept of playing by "house rules". That does not speak well of you.
The speeches just lay out what policy will be and the direction the administration intends to pursue. But today with the twenty-four/seven news barrage -- they get all annoyed when they don't have specifics to debate and have opinions about.
It must have been easier to be president before cable and the internet. Maybe that is why I think the last best president was Ike!
So let me get this straight....America's the "greatest country on the freaken planet"....and other countries should tell America's President he has to go?