web analytics
August 27, 2014 / 1 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
News & Views
Sponsored Post
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat (L) visits the JewishPress.com booth at The Event. And the Winners of the JewishPress.com Raffle Are…

Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event



Democratic Platform: No Mention of Islamist Challenge, No Support for Arab Liberals

President Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination Thursday night

President Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination Thursday night
Photo Credit: DNC

Visit Barry Rubin’s Blog, Rubin Reports. 

When the authors of the Democratic platform’s sections dealing with the Middle East—I dealt with the section on Israel in a previous article—finished it they were no doubt quite satisfied. They felt that they had built a strong case for reelected President Barack Obama along the following lines:

America is more secure and popular. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are on the run. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ending. America is supporting democracy, women’s rights, and gay rights around the world. Isn’t this great leadership? How could anyone not vote for Obama?

When I read the platform I am shocked and disappointed. I can pick at the issues of popularity, Afghanistan and Iraq. But the failure to deal with revolutionary Islamism is ridiculously glaring (they didn’t use the tiniest fig leaf to cover themselves), making a mockery about the democracy and human rights’ pretensions. The treatment of Middle East allies is shockingly insulting. The issues of Syria and Egypt are simply dodged. There is not a single mention of the opposition in Iran. All terrorists not involved directly in the September 11, 2001, attacks are ignored. There is not the slightest hint that any regional strategy exists at all.

Not a single word implies that the United States is willing to help allies fight revolutionary Islamist threats. In fact, the words “Islam” and “Muslim” do not appear once, even in some discussion of good Muslims versus bad radical heretics. They could have said something like: “Islam is a religion of peace but there are some extremists who wish to distort its teachings, take power, and institute repressive and anti-American dictatorships. We support our allies in defending themselves against these threats and support true democratic reformers in fighting against such oppressive forces that deny equality to women, religious minorities, and gay people.” But they didn’t even do that.

If they don’t even see the main threat at all how can one trust such people to rule the country and provide leadership in the region? What can American allies in the region—aside from Israel–expect from President Obama to protect them from internal revolutionaries, international terrorists, and revolutionary Islamist states?

Here’s the passage in its entirety:

“President Obama is committed to maintaining robust security cooperation with Gulf Cooperation Council states and our other partners aimed at deterring aggression, checking Iran’s destabilizing activities, ensuring the free flow of commerce essential to the global economy, and building a regional security architecture to counter terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, piracy, and other common threats.”

That’s all you get, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates! How confident are you in Obama’s leadership?

Well, here’s the lead of a Reuters story on this topic that came out during the Democratic convention “The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideological affiliates in the Arab Spring uprisings has stoked fears among Gulf Arab governments that the United States may one day abandon its traditional allies as it warms up to Islamists.”

Back to the platform. Let’s get the bragging out of the way first:

“When President Obama took office in January 2009, our armed forces were engaged in two wars. Al- Qaeda, which had attacked us on 9/11, remained entrenched in its safe havens. Many of our alliances were strained, and our standing in the world had diminished. Around the world and here at home, there were those who questioned whether the United States was headed toward inevitable decline.”

On one hand, whatever George W. Bush’s faults he had already essentially won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (as much as that was possible) and dislodged al-Qaeda from its “safe havens.” Obama criticized the strategy that won in Iraq. So that’s a lie.

Quite true, alliances were strained, standing in the world had diminished, and there were those who asked if the United States was in inevitable decline. The problem is that, generally speaking, the situation is worse—certainly in the Middle East–in all three categories three years later.

There follows a long section on “Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq,” which credits Obama for pulling out American troops and implying that Romney and other Republicans would have left American combat troops there forever. In fact, I think it is quite fair to say that there was a consensus that the U.S. role was coming to an end. I believe a Republican president would have done precisely the same thing that Obama did. Pulling out the troops was a correct move so Obama can claim credit for it but not as his unique idea.

The optimism about Iraq’s future is even more questionable:

“Moving forward, President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to building a robust, long- term strategic partnership with a sovereign, united, and democratic Iraq in all fields—diplomatic, economic, and security—based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”

In fact, Iraq analysts discuss how difficult and dangerous the situation is in the country today and how the Obama Administration has done nothing to try to make it better.

On Afghanistan we are told: Obama “”refocused our efforts there in 2009, setting the clear goal of defeating al-Qaeda and denying it an ability to reestablish a safe haven in Afghanistan,” as if Bush had never thought of that idea. But in fact it also claims Obama was able to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and to give the Afghans the time and space to build the capacity of their security forces. We have accomplished that, and now we have begun the process of bringing our troops home from Afghanistan,”

While I support the withdrawal it is well-known among Afghan experts that the Taliban is actually doing well, that the Afghan security forces are seriously flawed, and that Obama’s administration has played footsy with the Taliban. After a U.S. withdrawal anything is possible. Also the whole problem of Pakistan’s betrayal of U.S. trust (and ample funding) is not mentioned anywhere.

The section on al-Qaeda includes legitimate Obama Administration successes but can’t help but tendentiously imply that Bush was losing the war and that only Obama succeeded. The closing line of this section though contains a very important hint for understanding the problem with Obama policy:

“…We are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our interests around the world.”

This is nonsense. There is an unrelenting pursuit of al-Qaeda but hardly of terrorists attacking allies, partners, and even interests. Think: Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, Hamas, Hizballah, the Syrian regime (until it broke down in civil war), terrorist forces in Syria, and even Iran (whose operations in Iraq to kill Americans are an open secret).

Two of the most interesting of the platform’s sections deal with Iran and support for democracy. Revealingly, the discussion of Iran is under the heading, “Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons.” In other words, it isn’t that Iran poses some special threat but is just part of the overall need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, including the American ones.

Naturally, it talks about the sanctions put on Iran—nicely sharing credit with “international powers and Congress.” But it also includes some whoppers:

“When President Obama took office, Iran was ascendant in the region, and the international community was divided over how to address Iran’s nuclear violations.”

Really? The fact is that Iran was hardly ascendant and the international community—except for such countries as Turkey, Russia, and China that have never changed their line—was ready for serious action. It just took Obama two long years to show leadership.

“Working with our European allies and with Russia and China, the administration gained unprecedented agreement for the toughest ever UN sanctions against Iran….” That’s true but doesn’t mention that their agreement was gained by exempting them from the sanctions. The rest is pretty much standard policy that using diplomacy and pressure is best but other options including military force remain on the table.

The problem, though, is that Iran is never addressed as a strategic problem, involving its wider strategy of subversion and seeking regional hegemony. That is a big weakness in Obama policy, for example not mentioning Iran’s sponsorship of anti-American terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere. Why? Because this might add pressure to do something about Iran and also bringing up the dreaded subject of radical Islamism and the fact that Tehran leads a bloc of allies that Obama was reluctant to touch.

Finally, there is a section extolling the kind of policy that the very same people would have ridiculed and reviled (and not incorrectly, by the way) a couple of years ago as Bush’s “neo-conservatism”:

“Across the Middle East and North Africa, we have stood with the people demanding political change and seeking their rights during the Arab Spring. Since the beginning of the protests in Tunisia, the United States has consistently opposed violence against innocent civilians, supported a set of universal rights for the people of the region, and supported processes of political and economic reform. When the Egyptian people flooded Tahrir Square in Cairo demanding democracy, the administration actively engaged the Egyptian government, military, and people in support of a transition away from decades of dictatorship and towards democracy.”

What can one say? The administration pushed out an allied government, then pressed against America’s best friends there, and helped produced a “democracy” that is hourly now headed toward being an anti-American dictatorship. There is no hint of any of these problems. And by the way—let’s make this clear—the administration didn’t just support the moderate liberal reformers but the anti-democratic Islamists. Incidentally, do any of those “universal rights” contradict Sharia law?

There’s a sentence on Libya (a relative success story) and Yemen (a disaster but what else is new?) Most interesting is the discussion of Iran and Syria.

Here is Iran, officially declared by the United States as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, a country murdering Americans in Iraq and elsewhere, and a place where a massive opposition has been crushed. So what does the platform say about that?

“In Iran, President Obama spoke out in support of the pro-democracy protestors and imposed human rights sanctions on the Iranian government.”

Yes, that’s it. What human rights sanctions? How about: We support the Iranian people in struggling against and overthrowing a brutal dictatorship. And by the way we’re sorry we didn’t say anything when the regime stole the election and shot down demonstrators in the street but instead congratulated President Ahmadinejad on his reelection.

Concerning Syria:

“We have led the international community to politically and economically isolate the regime, to increase pressure on President Assad to step down, and to provide assistance to unify the Syrian opposition in order to enable a stable transition. Moving forward, we will work to hasten the end of the Assad regime and support a political transition to a stable and democratic Syria.”

Or, in other words, we acted as if Assad was our good buddy for more than two years and flattered him, then when we had to we finally recognized what he was like and we are giving guns to the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists to take over. Oh yes and we organized a transitional council dominated by anti-American Islamists.

Oh, I forgot they cannot talk about revolutionary Islamism.

If you want to talk about a war on women, note that the platform has a whole section of vague promises about “Standing up for Women’s Rights around the Globe” followed by one on “Gay Rights as Human Rights.” Given the failure to deal with the treatment of women and gays (not to mention Christians) by Islamists, this is a joke. Radical Islamism trumps everything including “universal values.”

Let us imagine a party platform in, say, 1950, that didn’t mention Communism, devoted just a few sentences to the USSR, ignored supporting the liberation of the satellite states, and put forward no strategy for dealing with this challenge. Liberals and Democrats (some because they are radicals in disguise; others because they are intimidated) met the challenge of the Cold War. They are not facing up to this one.

At first glance and to the general public, the Middle East and international affairs sections of the Democratic platform might seem impressive. In fact, they show an administration while it can claim some credits—often for merely continuing predecessors’ policies—is going to be extremely dangerous if it rules for four more years.

Visit Barry Rubin’s Blog, Rubin Reports. 

About the Author: Professor Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

16 Responses to “Democratic Platform: No Mention of Islamist Challenge, No Support for Arab Liberals”

  1. Mark L. Shane says:

    very honest, inciteful and we hope Barry can find a hiding place for his honest appraisals ; hiding place from obama's black shirts.

  2. Charlie Hall says:

    The Democratic platform specifically threatens Iran with military action. The Republican platform does not.

  3. thats because its a no brainer. the republicans are friends of Israel so they don't have to spell it out. You need a prime minister like Harper, not a president like Obama.

  4. Charlie Hall says:

    You think Ron Paul is a friend to Israel???

  5. I think you have dissenters in every party but Obama is about as wishy washy as they get till he gets elected. at that point he clearly will not be

  6. Chaiya Eitan says:

    Right from the beginning of his term, he was 'warming up to the Islamists.'

  7. Charlie Hall says:

    'Finally, there is a section extolling the kind of policy that the very same people would have ridiculed and reviled (and not incorrectly, by the way) a couple of years ago as Bush’s “neo-conservatism”:'.

    If that platform statement isn't support for Arab liberals, I don't know what is.

  8. Charlie Hall says:

    Ask Osama bin Laden how wishy washy is President Obama. Note that the policy that led to bin Laden's death was explicitly opposed during the 2008 campaign by both McCain and Romney.

  9. Charlie-To me this is the most important foreign policy question.

    The DNC platform "… clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options — including military force — remain on the table.”
    believes that there is a clear threat to use military force, but since the language is not clear, there is no mention of the word military by President Obama, just the vague options, there is no threat at all.
    If Iran thought the US would strike it would not risk staying in power and would have given up its nuclear weapons program.

    You can draw a parallel with the issue of Jerusalem. The DNC platform, after 3 loud floor fights, supports Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, but The Obama Administration does not, even though it was the President that made the call to change the platform.

    The Obama Administration also has made it clear that it will not support Israel's right to self-defense with a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

    Mitt Romney has come out that he would support Israel in that case.

    This issue is too important to use as a political football.

    The question has to be what will really be done about the Iranian nuclear weapons threat.

    To me it is crystal clear that if you cannot even commit to force verbally, under any scenario, you will never use force.

    This also lines up with a pattern of only supporting Israel when it is politically expedient.

    So when you look at both sides, even though the RNC platform does,t spell out military

    The platform warns that President Barack Obama’s “failed engagement policy with Iran will lead to nuclear cascade.”

    This is much more helpful than the DNC platform that says that the diplomatic engagement should not be open-ended when it is obvious that it is open-ended.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Umm no..Obama pulled out of Israel. 2/3 of the American troops are GONE & they know he has betrayed them. THEN to make matters much worse, he sent a US delegate to the Iranian Unaligned movement (for the 'caliphate'), so endorsing that 100% & THEN sent a pandering hand written kiss up note to the Iranian President saying he is not with Israel! Got it? He's out! Please catch up on the past 48 hours events. This usurper is NO friend to Israel or America!

  11. Anonymous says:

    Because he is one. He just loves the tyrannical Muslim brotherhood sooooo much. Sending them billions of taxpayer dollars & arming the bastards so they can cause Christian genocide & are preparing to go after Israel! What a traitor to free people everywhere!!
    He is clear & present danger to the planet! When he decided it was 'policy' to host the radical muslims to host a 2 hour opening prayer at the DNC; the same ones that speak openly of overthrowing the 'filthy' US govt to insert Sharia law the dems should have gotten a clue. But the Obots are friggin clueless. 110%!
    Here his entire foreign policy has been about enslaving people & inserting Sharia law in other countries & yet the idiot feminazis & homosexuals think he cares about them & their rights?? It's laughable if it wasn't so damn tragic how stupid these people are. And then he goes on TV today stating Romney has a bad foreign policy?!?! THE NERVE! Liberals that do not clearly see what he is doing need professional help. Period!

  12. Charlie Hall says:

    Jean Pierre Katz "This issue is too important to use as a political football."

    I agree. But this article, and lots of others, by Israel supporters, are doing just that — trying to make support for Israel a partisan one.

  13. Charlie Hall says:

    Jean Pierre Katz In fact, Obama HAS directly threatened military force with his own words. Here is one example:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/03/us-usa-israel-iran-idUSTRE82108520120303

  14. Charlie Hall says:

    "'policy' to host the radical muslims to host a 2 hour opening prayer at the DNC"

    This is a lie.

  15. Chaiya Eitan says:

    No…..Ron Paul is not a friend of Israel's. That is why he had no chance of winning the nomination.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman
Political Fallout Begins From Ceasefire
Latest News Stories
Engineering Corp soldier looking down a Palestinian-dug tunnel.

Hamas recently indicated to international press that it would continue building up its underground network while restocking arsenal, rockets and other weaponry

Teh Iranian weapons ship Klos C

Iran vowed on Monday to “accelerate” its rearming of PA Arabs in Judea and Samaria, one day after it claimed that it shot down an Israeli spy drone over its airspace.

Fears for the life of New Jersey yeshiva student Aaron Sofer, studying in Israel, grow with each passing day since his disappearance on Friday.

The case of missing U.S. yeshiva student Aaron Sofer, studying in Israel, remains unsolved after six days.

Perl Wolfe (left) and Dalia Shusterman

“We are strong chassidic women and we take the name, we embrace it, and we own it.”

After a month, should the quiet hold, Israel and Hamas will restart indirect negotiations in Cairo on easing Israel’s blockade of the coastal strip and disarming the enclave.

Israel’s political landscape awoke Wednesday to the latest ceasefire with a sharp round of criticism for Prime Minister Netanyahu, and jostling for position amongst senior politicians who have begun to smell the aroma of early elections, possibly in the first half of 2015.

Palestinian terrorists threw stones at Jewish-owned cars in the Wadi Joz section of Jerusalem Wednesday. Three children were injured and treated on the spot. A 22-year-old man was arrested, and police told Israel Radio the man has confessed to other incidents as well. In Shuafat, in northern Jerusalem, Palestinians threw rocks at the Jerusalem light […]

Nearly 90 percent of Gaza residents support attacks on Israel, say rockets help ‘deterrence’

Chaim Yellin: We don’t want government support. We need quiet in the morning.

Mortar fire crossed the border into northern Israel from Syria near Quneitra. Two cars were damaged. Accidental shelling?

NYC lawmaker Laurie Cumbo presses Miami-Dade officials to find Rabbi Joseph Raksin’s murderer.

Former US Middle East envoy Martin Indyk warns Israel’s self-defense in Gaza has increased tensions with Washington – again.

A baby was hurt when Palestinian terrorists stoned the car she was driving in near the Samaria community of Yitzhar this morning. According to reports on the Hebrew-language 0404 website, the driver of the vehicle escaped the scene of the attack and reached a nearby IDF base safely. There, the baby was treated for her […]

The Zara clothing firm fell ‘fashion flat’ with a toddler tee allegedly a “sheriff’s shirt” in Israel – bearing a yellow, 6-pointed star.

The majority of the reactions are against the truce, and all voiced skepticism about its viability.

Released for Publication: The IDF has released the names of the 2 killed by Hamas mortars yesterday…

More Articles from Barry Rubin
Youssef Ziedan

The interviewer responds, “There was also Balfour.”

peace_clowns

If the Obama/Kerry peace deal does go through, what would the risks be?

Let me make it plain. There will be mass murder, even genocide in Syria.

A large number of pro-Obama and radical or even anti-Israel cadre are Jews.

Does anyone think the Palestinian Authority will resist daily attacks from Hamas and Fatah radicals?

Secret Service security arrangements were overruled.

The Obama Administration plan is very simple, assuming that everything goes smoothly–which of course it will not.

The less you know about Islam, the better. Ignorance is strength.

    Latest Poll

    Do you think the FAA ban on US flights to Israel is political?






    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rubin-reports/democratic-platform-no-mention-of-islamist-challenge-no-support-for-arab-liberals/2012/09/07/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: