On the morning of Tuesday, January 27, President Barack Obama gave an interview with Al Arabiya, an Arab news network based out of Dubai, in an attempt to quell Arab distrust and hate of America. He also sent former Senator George Mitchell to the Middle East as an envoy to help broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

On the surface, it seems the right thing to do: former President George W. Bush was highly unpopular in the Arab world, so fences need mending; according to Al Arabiya, "75 percent of Egyptians think Obama's top priority should be mediating peace between Palestinians and ... Israel"; and the major European nations want America's president to be humble yet provide world leadership. With predictions that a gesture of reconciliation and friendship to the Arab world would do more to stifle al-Qaeda's recruiting than any other possible measure, how could Obama say "no"?

But it's not that simple.

Bringing a message of good will to the Middle East, while laudable in principle and seemingly beneficial no matter what the outcome, will likely backfire and lead to renewed bad blood in the Arab world toward the United States, for the simple reason that the hand of friendship will undoubtedly lead to involvement.

In addition, the United States is viewed throughout the Arab world as Israel's lackey (and vice versa), and interceding in the conflict will mean choosing a side. And any choice that amounts to less than fully supporting the Palestinian cause will be seen as pro-Israel bias. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum has already said, "President Obama must adopt positions backing the just Palestinian cause, putting an end to Zionist crimes and recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to defend itself."

Al Arabiya, in a previous article about Obama's inauguration, quoted "Egypt's government-owned daily al-Ahram" about American foreign policy in that region: "We know the kind of pressure the Jewish lobby puts on the presidents in the United States and the degree of influence this minority exercises daily in departments and organs of political decision-making."

A perusal of Al Arabiya's coverage of Israel's recent foray into Gaza to stop incessant rocket attacks by Hamas militants revealed that the prevailing Arab terminology for the attack was the "Gaza massacre." The Iranian government's main newspaper Kayhan, called Obama "a big fan of Zionists."

It is likely that as far as the Arab world is concerned, Obama has already chosen a side because he publicly said, "For years Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people." (The Palestinians, on the other hand, argue that if they don't blow things up, they will be ignored by all parties.) Plus Obama intends to redeploy U.S. troops from Islamic Iraq to Islamic Afghanistan, which will surely be used by Muslim extremists to vilify America.

So what should be done?

Apply the policy of the Founding Fathers — avoiding foreign entanglements, minding our own business in foreign affairs — to the Middle East as well as to the rest of the world. Such a policy would include ending foreign aid to Israel (approximately $3 billion per year) as well as to the Palestinian Authority (hundreds of millions of dollars per year). It makes no sense to fund both sides in a conflict.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Blogengeezer said:

... Interesting thing about funding both sides in a conflict, it is used all of the time...in politics. No matter which party wins the debt is owed and must be repaid with favors. The funding of all wars, historically has been done by the same strange philosophy. Which part of the world supplied the oil used in the last 6 years of warfare in the exact same part of the world? To end the conflict against 'their friends', they only had to shut off the oil. Of course it is not quite that simple, as this neophyte leader is going to discover. DaFlikkers.blogspot

January 29, 2009 | url

Wesley Mcgranor said:

... They'll call him a dreamer.

January 31, 2009 | url

William N. Grigg said:

What's the problem? - I With all proper respect to my friend Kurt Williamsen, I'm having difficulty the point he's trying to make here: "Bringing a message of good will to the Middle East, while laudable in principle and seemingly beneficial no matter what the outcome, will likely backfire and lead to renewed bad blood in the Arab world toward the United States, for the simple reason that the hand of friendship will undoubtedly lead to involvement." Mr. Obama's effort to cultivate good will with the Muslim world was the first worthwhile thing he's done, and a gesture that was badly overdue. Should he have simply left the region to fester in the poisonous hostility that is among the most dangerous elements of the Bushling's legacy? It hardly stands to reason that professing a desire for improved relations will "undoubtedly" lead to the kind of political and military entanglements Washington, Jefferson, and their fellows urged us to avoid.

February 03, 2009 | url

William N. Grigg said:

What's the problem? --II Granted, there is a possibility that a less bellicose posture by Washington could lead to expanded commercial involvement with Muslim countries, but from the perspective of George Washington, that would be a good thing: "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all....[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.... The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." (Emphasis added.) Kurt concludes his piece by urging that the current administration follow "the policy of the Founding Fathers — avoiding foreign entanglements, minding our own business in foreign affairs — to the Middle East as well as to the rest of the world." This would include, as he says, ending foreign aid to Israel, the PA, Egypt, and the other nations of the region (and everywhere else). More importantly, it would mean pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately as part of the draw-down of Washington's global empire, on which it spends at least $1 trillion a year. Unfortunately, Obama shows little interest in that variety of "change," and he's surrounded himself with the kind of left-interventionists who simply delight in "humanitarian" slaughter (vide the events in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq during the Clinton era).

February 03, 2009 | url

CK said:

... The U.S.A. doesn't need to be concerned about the entire Arab world; only the Islamic extremists. And as long as the U.S. continues to support Israel, and as long as our nation is viewed as an infidel, the U.S. is going to continue to get attacked by Islamic terrorist organisations. The only way to "quell" al Queda and other terrorist organisations is to send black ops to destroy the terrorist cells and so called "madrasas" that are teaching twisted definitions of shahid and jihad. "...recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to defend itself." In other words, Hamas is asking the U.S.A. to turn a blind eye when they send terrorists into Israel.

February 03, 2009