US President Barak Obama's Middle East speech at the State Department on Thursday was positively received in Washington. Middle Easterners, however, find it disappointing, or worse, irrelevant.
First off, to avoid major disappointment, it is always wise to lower expectations. Despite its eloquence, the speech was simply not going to wash away the reality that the United States has been irrelevant throughout this Arab Spring.
It was also not going to remove or ease the enduring and profound tension between America's short-term security interests and its long-term aspiration to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Obama can say all he wants that the two objectives are not incompatible. But until he makes a compelling case to Middle Easterners as to how the US intends to achieve both goals simultaneously, and until he explains why the US continues to fall short in reaching them, it is just empty rhetoric.
Without any doubt, the chief question that Obama asked in his speech — and that the entire world was waiting for — was what role the United States will play in this historic episode in the Middle East.
Unsurprisingly, there was no clear or persuasive answer to that question. Obama insisted that the "status quo was unsustainable" in the Middle East and in US foreign policy toward that region, but he did not flesh out a new, bold vision that breaks with the past. And he did not call for a road map for the future.
So here's what we can do to make the discussions and evaluation of Obama's speech more fruitful. If we put these two issues aside — America's irrelevance in this historic episode and its inability to drastically change its strategy in the region — we can address other elements that were missing in the speech. Let's start with the positives.
Obama was at his best when he discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (although many Palestinians and Arabs will be disappointed that he decided to address the most important issue to them at the very end).
It was crucial that Obama mentioned very clearly that the foundation for the resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians is the 1967 borders. That is quite a welcome change in US approach.
Territorial and security issues should be discussed first, simply because progress on those matters, assumed to be easier to make, will build confidence between the two parties and create a positive momentum to tackle the thorny challenges of occupied Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees.
Obama was also genuine and creative when he discussed the importance of economic reform in the Middle East and how the United States intends to provide timely assistance on that front.
Obama is right to state that closed economies in the region do not advance the cause of freedom and prosperity. He should be applauded for coming up with specific plans to help the countries of Egypt, Tunisia, and others in the their quest for economic development. Kudos to the USAID team at the State Department for the work they have done on that front.
The negatives of the speech, however, can easily overshadow the positives. On a broader level, the speech did not fully appreciate the historic and game-changing nature of events in the Middle East.
Mr President, this is not about reform, it is about renewal. When Obama calls Syrian President Bashar Al Assad to reform and lead the transition to democracy, knowing full well that the leader in Damascus will do neither, his words are not credible, to say the least.
Worse, they undermine the cause of freedom in Syria. What the Syrian people want is no less than what their Egyptian neighbours got — regime change. For Obama to call for a serious dialogue between the Syrian protesters and the regime is naive and counterproductive. Obama should call on Al Assad to immediately step down. There simply is no alternative.
Also, where was Lebanon and its 2005 popular uprising in the speech? Lebanon's one-million-people demonstrations should have been credited for instilling hope in the people of the region and setting the stage for the present revolutions. Obama's deafening silence on Lebanon's fate is unjustifiable.
Ultimately, America will be judged on its actions in the Middle East, not its words.
Take any professional Arab public opinion poll and it will show that Arabs perceive America through the prism of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not through its economic assistance packages to the region.
The United States is asked to do more to ease the suffering of the Palestinian people and help both Israelis and Palestinians reach the vision of two states for two peoples. Until Israeli-Palestinian peace happens, no speech will drastically change America's image in the Middle East.
— Christian Science Monitor
Bilal Y. Saab is a PhD candidate at the University of Maryland's Department of Government and Politics.