Obama Takes on the Muslim World
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush recognized that Israel’s endless war on the Palestinians, a grossly unequal struggle waged with the military, financial, and diplomatic support of the United States, had put America at risk. For a brief moment, Bush spoke strongly of the need to establish a Palestinian state and bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a speedy and just conclusion. Bush even demanded an end to Israeli incursions into the West Bank and the targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders.
In very little time, the president realized that acknowledging America’s own foreign policy in the Middle East had put America in the terrorist crosshairs was unlikely to be a vote-getter, particularly among the Republican Party’s Evangelical faithful, who view the establishment of the state of Israel as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. So the president, with the eager support of both parties and a tame corporate media, chose the explanation that foreigners willing to fly airplanes into buildings must hate America’s freedom and openness, our margaritas and miniskirts. This facile and entirely specious assertion was a much more palatable explanation for 9/11 than that American intervention, particularly U.S. support of corrupt Arab kings and potentates, a blank check for Israeli adventurism, and a murderous embargo on the Iraqi people, had provoked an intense hatred of the U.S. among a small but growing percentage of Muslims around the world.
Fast forward though the invasion of Iraq, justified by entirely bogus intelligence, through years of fighting in Afghanistan, bringing nothing but misery to the Afghan people, and through Israel’s brutal pounding of Lebanon and Gaza, to the election of a new American president determined to make a fresh start with the Muslim world. Barack Obama’s visit to Cairo in June of last year to deliver a much-ballyhooed speech seemed to break with the policies of the Bush administration, which had been perceived, especially in the Arab states, as blatantly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. As part of Obama’s determination to change America’s profile among the world’s billion Muslims, he subsequently insisted that Israel end all settlement activity in Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, a stance consistent with international law and favored by most of America’s allies.
As Bush learned in 2001, pressure on Israel, no matter how justified, takes courage and has political costs. The Democratic Party has long received a large proportion of its financial support from Israel’s friends in the United States, and Israel has many advocates in the Obama administration, the best example being the president’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who served in the Israeli army. So President Obama quickly surrendered to Israel’s American constituency, dropped his insistence that settlement of Palestinian lands cease, and began to pressure the Palestinian Authority’s weakling President Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations without preconditions.
To put a seal on Obama’s humiliation at the hands of right-wing Israeli politicians Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, the Obama administration sidelined the Goldstone Report detailing war crimes during the Gaza war (“willful killings and willful causing great suffering” to the civilian population and “collective punishment intentionally inflicted by the government of Israel on the people of the Gaza Strip”), signed a multi-year, $30 billion defense protocol with the Israelis, and rebuked U.S. Middle East negotiator George Mitchell for saying quite accurately that the U.S. had once withheld U.S. loan guarantees as a way showing displeasure at settlement activity.
At the same time, President Obama did nothing to alleviate the sufferings of 1.4 million desperate Palestinians under Israeli siege in Gaza. How bad are conditions in Gaza? Some 80 percent of its residents rely on foreign assistance, and unemployment is above 40 percent. Medical supplies, fuel, and food are routinely held up at the Israeli border. Half of Gaza’s schools have not been repaired from Israel’s onslaught a year ago. Almost unbelievably, the Obama administration has made suffering in Gaza worse by pressuring the Egyptian government to close smuggling tunnels connecting Gaza with Egyptian Sinai, which provided an alternative means of moving a trickle of goods around the Israeli blockade. Although Americans may close their eyes to the miserable existence Israel is inflicting on the people of Gaza, who have done nothing to harm the United States and do not threaten us in any way, Americans may be certain that our complicity has not gone unnoticed across the Muslim world.
The Obama administration has also maintained the Bush administration’s hostility to Syria. The Commerce Department recently vetoed the sale of European-manufactured Airbus commercial airliners to Syrian Air, which the Commerce Department was apparently able to do because 10 percent of the aircraft’s components are made in the U.S. Just what American strategic objective is furthered by forcing Syrians to fly around in clapped-out, Soviet-vintage commercial aircraft is unknown. Will the Syrian man in the street love us for putting his life at risk when he flies from Damascus to Aleppo? Or is this simply another case in which the interests of Israel trump those of the U.S.?
It is also worth noting that Gen. David Petraeus, that most political of all generals, has continued to accuse Syria of supporting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. This charge is beyond absurd. Why would the government in Damascus seek to undermine the regime in Baghdad when both governments are closely allied with Iran? It is of course possible that some of the 1.5 Sunni Iraqi refugees in Syria are covertly supporting resistance in Iraq, but that is as might be expected and reflects the desperate mess the U.S. has created in Iraq, where some 25 percent of the population has fled to Syria or Jordan, or are internally displaced.
Although President Obama also sought a “new beginning” with Iran, he never directed any of the policy changes that would make that possible. Crucially, the U.S. continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to bring about regime change in Iran, prompting Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to remark, “Money, arms, and organizations are being used by the Americans directly across our western border to fight the Islamic Republic.” U.S. anti-Iranian activities range from protecting the MEK terrorist group in Iraq for use in cross-border raids and subversion to funding American NGOs, whose support of “Twittering revolutionaries” on the streets of Tehran may be passed off as “promoting democracy” in the West, but which looks to the Iranian government like just another American attempt to destabilize the Islamic Republic.
American diplomacy certainly does not aim for reconciliation with Iran. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sought international help, particularly in Europe, to impose “crippling” sanctions on the country. After a meeting with Bibi Netanyahu, Obama himself agreed to set up an American-Israeli working group to consider what coercive steps could be taken against Iran if it did not abandon nuclear enrichment. And American officials have continued to threaten military action over Tehran’s nuclear program, even though there is no meaningful data to overturn the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which held that the country gave up work on an atomic weapon in 2003. To suggest that Iran, with a military budget one one hundredth of what the U.S. spends on its armed forces, is a threat to the U.S. is the height of absurdity. To brand Iran a proliferator for its low-level enrichment of uranium while ignoring Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons is the height of hypocrisy.
In Afghanistan, the Obama administration added 17,000 U.S. troops last year and is in the process of adding 30,000 more. In eight years of war, the U.S. has brought misery to the civilian population and a gang of corrupt politicians to power in Kabul in an obviously bogus election. What is the Obama administration going to do in the next seven years that hasn’t been tried in the last eight? To give the situation a bit of perspective, the last man to pacify Afghanistan was Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C. Why Gen. McChrystal thinks an American-trained Afghan army recruited from various ethnic minorities in the north of the country will ever suppress an insurgency centered on Pashtun tribes, which comprise almost half the population of Afghanistan, is difficult to fathom. Well, no one would ever confuse McChrystal with Alexander, except maybe Victor Davis Hanson.
The war in Afghanistan has now spilled over into Pakistan, where administration pressure on the Pakistani army to fight the Taliban and its allies has produced hundreds of thousands of refugees and is destabilizing the country. America’s contribution to the widening war has been drone strikes on suspected Taliban leaders. The U.S. is also conducting anti-terrorist operations in Somalia and Yemen in the same way. The problem with this strategy is twofold. First, the drone would be a great weapon if it only killed the bad guys. Many drone strikes (and strikes from conventional aircraft, for that matter) have killed completely innocent people, undoubtedly increasing the number of America’s enemies. Second, where the U.S. relies on an ally’s intelligence service for targeting data, as in Yemen, there is a very good chance that enemies of the local regime, not al-Qaeda, are being hit.
Sometimes the Obama administration lashes out at the Muslim world in ways that are difficult to comprehend. In the wake of the failed underwear bombing, the TSA named 14 countries whose citizens would receive “full-body pat-downs” before boarding U.S.-bound aircraft: Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen. Obviously, any suspicious passenger ought to be selected for special screening, but the TSA’s message seems to be that if someone hails from Syria or Algeria, they possess murderous intent, thus confirming to millions of Muslims that the U.S. is deeply prejudiced against them.
As long as the Obama administration believes it can bomb, starve, invade, occupy, and intimidate the Muslim world into submission, and as long as the administration willingly makes Israel’s enemies America’s enemies, the U.S. will be a terrorist target and locked into endless wars in faraway places.
Read more by John Taylor
- Mahmoud Abbas: Obama and Bibi’s Man in Palestine – March 25th, 2013
- Deconstructing A Peace to End All Peace – July 15th, 2012
- Yellow Journalism at Its Nastiest – June 19th, 2011
- America in the Middle East: US Policy Fails Its Purchasers – March 1st, 2011
- Rumsfeld Revives Old Lies in New Book – February 14th, 2011





MvGuy
January 27th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
''In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"George Orwell …& Yes the Orwellian
"They hate us for our freedoms" Hey, another page out Orwell….. But I like the Wizard of Oz better to characterize political life in the U.S…. &….. the yellow brick road to Tehran passes through Baghdad..
Yes, your politically incorrect utterances are the truth that no one dare to say…that make America blind..
jojo
January 27th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Quote:"the U.S. will be a terrorist target " You are right, because the anthrax and 911 attacks had nothing to do with moslim terrorist activities.If America keeps blaming and killing the wrong guys–they will get even. Keep poking the donkey,it surely kick back.
Time to look back at USS Liberty bombings and killings–them actual terrorists planned it to be blamed on the Arabs. Did America invade that "THEM" country? Oh no!
Connestee
January 27th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
This is what we are. The lack of protest in the US over our policies in the middle east and southeast Asia speaks volumes as to what kind of people we have become. Is anyone really surprised that Obama has turned out to be a spineless weakling? Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to read and support this site, not because it is bad, but because the truth is so depressing. I keep asking myself how, how, how, and why, why, why, have we come to this condition.
Jaime
January 27th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
"Although Americans may close their eyes to the miserable existence Israel is inflicting on the people of Gaza, who have done nothing to harm the United States and do not threaten us in any way, Americans may be certain that our complicity has not gone unnoticed across the Muslim world." It hasn't gone unnoticed in other parts of the world either. Regardless of religion, the people of the rest of the world cannot accept policies that are so obscenely unfair and hypocritical. These Israel firsters are so treacherous that they don't care about their president saving face at least. Netanyahu swaggers about having the US president wrapped around his finger. How pathetic a superpower. I doubt the Romans allowed one of its provinces dictate policy for them.
Tweets that mention Obama Takes on the Muslim World by John Taylor -- Antiwar.com -- Topsy.com
January 27th, 2010 at 11:17 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Antiwar.com, Adrianne George, M Bushra, M Bushra, Bobber and others. Bobber said: Israeli policy obscures the truth about Muslims. http://icio.us/iyvzwq [...]
Noya Khobor » Blog Archive » Obama Takes on the Muslim World by John Taylor — Antiwar.com
January 27th, 2010 at 11:44 am
[...] Here is the original post: Obama Takes on the Muslim World by John Taylor — Antiwar.com [...]
LibertarianToday
January 27th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Weak leaders: Following the same limp trajectory as Bush, Obama starts brash but quickly rolls over for the Israel lobby to "take on" the Muslims. Clinton and Blair followed pretty much the same trajectory, too.
Perhaps it's Baby Boomer syndrome: selfish, no principles other than self-preservation and comfort at any cost, shallow, compassionate on a superficial level that is more of a calculated pose out of personal vanity than a philosophy, highly materialistic to the point of completely selling out the country, its interests, and future generations of Americans for temporal luxuries; craven and cowardly — bent on studiously averting their gaze as Israel rapes the Palestinians and America because noticing might effect their careers and personal bottom line…
MvGuy
January 27th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
''In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"George Orwell …& Yes the Orwellian
"They hate us for our freedoms" Hey, another page out Orwell….. But I like the Wizard of Oz better to characterize political life in the U.S…. &….. the yellow brick road to Tehran passes through Baghdad..
Yes, your politically incorrect utterances are the truth that no one dare to say…that make America blind..
January 27, 2010 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
January 27th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
[...] As Bush learned in 2001, pressure on Israel, no matter how justified, takes courage and has political costs. The Democratic Party has long received a large proportion of its financial support from Israel’s friends in the United States, and Israel has many advocates in the Obama administration, the best example being the president’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who served in the Israeli army. So President Obama quickly surrendered to Israel’s American constituency, dropped his insistence that settlement of Palestinian lands cease, and began to pressure the Palestinian Authority’s weakling President Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations without preconditions. “ http://original.antiwar.com/john-taylor/2010/01/26/obama-takes-on-muslims/ [...]
Syria News Portal | ... BreakingtheNewsBarrier.com ...
January 27th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
[...] Obama Takes on the Muslim World [...]
Robert Hutchinson
January 28th, 2010 at 3:16 am
"[T]he president realized that acknowledging America’s own foreign policy in the Middle East had put America in the terrorist crosshairs was unlikely to be a vote-getter, particularly among the Republican Party’s Evangelical faithful, who view the establishment of the state of Israel as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy."
What non-interventionists need to do is switch a voting block to their side. As surprising as it may sound to some readers on antiwar.com, I propose flipping the evangelical vote.
1. We need to distinguish different groups of 'Evangelicals'. The block referred to in this article is Dispensationalist wing of evangelicalism. The author accurately states the Dispensationalist position that the establishment of the state of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy. The Dispensationalist are opposed by the 'Covenant theologians' who would argue differently.
2. Understanding this difference is crucial. Critical blocks of evangelicals reject the theology underlying the John Hagee view of the Middle East. We must expose this difference and promote it, eroding the basis for the Dispensationalist-driven support for Israel.
3. Inside churches that reject Dispensationalism, we must work out the practical implications of their view that there is no 'Holy Land' in the sense that was seen in the OT. One example is by the late John W. Robbins, a Calvinist, Presbyterian elder, and chief of staff to Ron Paul.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=7…
Eric Siverson
January 28th, 2010 at 2:13 am
I thought the Pa;estinians wanted Gaza with no Jews in it ? Now you say the Jews are making the Palestinian suffer greatly . The only suffering the Palestinians are suffering is of their own making .
[ 1 ] they cant kill Jews becuase all Jews left Gaza , so sad it must be terrible suffering . { 2] They have no healthcare becuase all the doctors are gone . 3 ] We have no schools accept in our mosgues for training muslim terrorists So sad take down your mosgues and build real schools .
[ 4 ] We have no mediciene or food ,the Jews had the medicine and grew the food , again so sad make your own medicine and plant your own food .
Shane E.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Something at the beginning of this article is of interest to me. You say that Pres. Bush switched from pressuring Israel to saying that terrorists "hate our freedom" and that is why they hate us. You further imply that this is an excuse, and not a fact.
I heard Bush make that statement, and much like his divisive and point-of-no-return "Axis of Evil" speech, I spit out my coffee, asking "WTF?" I thought it was just generic political rhetoric to define an enemy, explain why it's the enemy, and then continue with the war. But I've thought about that 'hate our freedom' statement a lot since then.
It seems to me that many Muslim men around the world see women's rights as a threat to their culture and religion. What actions do these women take that create this 'threat'? Well, in general, they wear clothing from the western world, want education, want the ability to make decisions for themselves, want the same basic rights as men, and want to participate in government and choose their own job, without restriction or persecution. I'm not trying to imply that all Muslims restrict women in this way. But there ARE many Muslims who do. And they are the angriest ones.
A few of examples of freedom being hated… Girl's schools in Afghanistan are fired upon by angry Muslim men who don't think they should be educated, and they are threatened daily to the point that many girls are educated in secret. Woman are targeted and killed after voting, as well. In Iraq, a tennis coach and two players were shot for wearing shorts, reportedly. A man was shot in an Iraqi village for wearing soccer shorts, too, after signs were posted warning that would happen. In Iraq & Afghanistan, women are threatened if they don't wear veils. You can easily find news articles of women in Iraq shot for wearing western style clothing, sometimes by their own family. You could expand this list to 1,000 statements if you watched the news closely enough. The majority of the violence centers around women's issues, too. Also, many of the Al-Qaeda (and similar groups, there are SO many) messages over the years have targeted Western ideas in Muslim lands, in general.
The idea of freedom was not created by the United States. However, it is displayed as an example of freedom, hate what you want about US foreign policy, but Americans are essentially free and the world knows it. Make a site like this in China as a Chinese citizen and see how long it stays up and how long you remain free. Freedom isn't exclusive to the US, by any means. That's why the extremists hate most of Europe as well, though countries like France seem to want to give them extra reasons.
If you read the statements from Muslim militant groups, or read their recruitment materials, what is pretty common is a hatred and dislike for Western governing models, women's rights, Western style of dress, political ties to Western nations, and just a general dislike of non-Muslims and a hatred of non-Muslims on Muslim soil. They do occasionally mention the US occupation of certain countries or Israel (just the word, they don't need any description for that one).
Sure, many Muslims are angry about US bombs on people they know or identify with. Many of them are innocent civilians. That is a very justifiable anger. I am definitely not trying to say there isn't grounds for real outrage.
What I am saying is this. George Bush said that the terrorists wanted to destroy our freedom. Well, you can hate George Bush and you can say he is the biggest jerk alive, if you like. You can even say he started it. But he is right. The terrorists DO hate our freedom. And that is biggest part of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq now.
Obama Takes on the Muslim World – John Taylor | khanfactor.com
November 28th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
[...] As long as the Obama administration believes it can bomb, starve, invade, occupy, and intimidate the Muslim world into submission, and as long as the administration willingly makes Israel’s enemies America’s enemies, the U.S. will be a terrorist target and locked into endless wars in faraway places.Source [...]