It was a
relatively short response to a question in a town hall-style meeting in
Florida, yet it said much about President Barack Obama's lack of
concern about human rights in his foreign policy. The question came not
from a hostile Republican opponent, but from a young college student
who had volunteered on Obama's campaign. She spoke directly to an issue
that has alienated much of Obama's Democratic base since the president
took office: ongoing U.S. support for Israeli and Egyptian human rights
abuses. The Israeli and Egyptian governments, both of which have
notoriously poor human rights records, are the two largest recipients
of U.S. security assistance.
The student's question was simple: Given that Obama had spoken about "America's support for human rights," she asked,
"Why have we not condemned Israel and Egypt's violations of human
rights against the occupied Palestinian peoples [while continuing to
support such oppression] with billions of dollars coming from our
taxes?"
Obama didn't even try to answer her question. He didn't even utter
the words "human rights" at any point in his rambling
four-and-half-minute response (though he did praise Israel as "a
vibrant democracy").
Perhaps he could be forgiven in some respects. Obama looked tired.
It wasn't a formal White House press conference or a one-on-one
interview with a knowledgeable reporter, but a town-hall meeting with
an audience for whom he may have felt he needed to frame the larger
subject. Perhaps he was intimidated by right-wingers in the audience,
who booed the student's question at the outset.
Yet Obama's fumbled answer seemed to underscore the administration's
dismissive attitude toward human rights overall. Indeed, at the end,
Obama even implied that the student's question was inappropriate,
saying, "I think that it's important, when we're talking about this
issue to make sure we don't use language that's inflammatory." What the
president apparently found inflammatory was the very suggestion that
the United States should object to human rights abuses committed by its
"strategic allies."
At the UN
Obama directed the U.S. delegation at the United Nations last week
to vote against a General Assembly resolution, which called on the
Palestinians and Israelis to conduct "independent, credible"
investigations into alleged war crimes by their forces during the Gaza
War of December 2008-January 2009. The United States was one of only
seven countries to vote no.
Previously, Obama administration officials denounced
the Goldstone Report as "unacceptable" and "deeply flawed." The
meticulously researched 575-page report, led by the eminent South
African jurist Richard Goldstone and a blue-ribbon panel of
investigators, documented likely war crimes by both Israel and Hamas. A
similar report by Amnesty International called for an international
moratorium of arms transfers to both Israel and Hamas. After that
report was released, the Obama administration announced increased
military aid to Israel.
Obama has also failed to show any greater concern about human rights
abuses by Egypt, even when Egyptian security forces charged and beat
hundreds of Americans and other internationals seeking to deliver
humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip late last year. In
an interview
with the BBC, Obama rejected the journalist's characterization of Hosni
Mubarak as an authoritarian ruler, and praised the Egyptian dictator as
a "stalwart ally" and "a force for stability." He then evaded a
question on the thousands of political prisoners being held by the
Egyptian regime by saying the United States shouldn't impose its values
on other countries.
Tongue-Tied
The young woman's question at the Florida town hall appeared to trip
up the usually articulate Obama from the outset. He began his response
with a tautology reminiscent of former Vice President Dan Quayle: "The
Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for
centuries." After setting the audience straight on that score, he goes
on to say that "both sides are going to have to make compromises,"
ignoring the fundamental asymmetry between one side, which is an
occupying power, and the other side, which is under foreign military
occupation. If Obama had been president in late 1990, he wouldn't have
told Iraqis and Kuwaitis that "both sides are going to have to make
compromises." Obama appears to share his predecessors' view that issues
of conquest and self-determination shouldn't be based upon universal
legal principles, but on whether the occupier is seen as an ally or an
adversary. The call on both sides to compromise is also rather bizarre,
given that the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) have recognized Israeli control of 78 percent of
historic Palestine, while Israel has insisted that Palestinian demands
for an independent state on the remaining 22 percent are too much and
that it should control much of that territory as well.
"As a first step, the Palestinians have to unequivocally renounce
violence and recognize Israel," Obama also insisted. However, he failed
to likewise insist that the Israelis unequivocally renounce violence
and recognize Palestine - as a "first step" or at any other time. The
ratio of Palestinian civilians killed to Israeli civilians killed in
recent years has been roughly 200:1, which makes his one-sided demand
particularly bizarre. He also ignored the fact that the Palestinian
Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization - the recognized
ruling bodies of the Palestinian territories - have already renounced
violence and recognized Israel. He seems to imply that until Hamas,
which illegally seized control of the Gaza Strip three years ago, also
unilaterally renounces violence and recognizes Israel, which it won't
do until Israel is willing to reciprocate - then Israel can continue to
deny statehood to the majority of Palestinians who live under the
PA-administered West Bank.
The only thing that Obama insisted that Israel needed to do was to
"recognize legitimate grievances and interests of the Palestinians." He
is unclear as to what that entails, other than a brief reference to the
right to education and employment. He didn't insist, however, on their
right to be free of the threat of massive bombardments against civilian
population centers, like an Israeli assault on Gaza that killed more
than 700 civilians, nearly 300 of whom were children.
Such lack of concern for human rights not only raises serious
ethical and legal concerns, but makes the prospects of
Israeli-Palestinian peace even more remote. It's also bad politics.
Thousands of young people, like the student who posed the question,
volunteered for Obama and other Democrats partly because they thought
the party would offer a foreign policy based upon strong ethical and
legal principles, such as respect for international humanitarian law.
Until the Obama administration is willing to live up to that
promise, and governments like Israel and Egypt know they can no longer
get a blank check from the U.S. government no matter how terrible their
human rights record, U.S. complicity in war crimes and other abuses
will be obvious to all. As a result, many who worked for Obama and the
Democrats in 2008 - like that young woman from Florida - will question
how different they are from Republicans, and whether they deserve their
continued support.