Ever since Barack Obama announced his intentions to run for US president, he was seen as a mere effigy of former President Jimmy Carter. Parallels were drawn linking their message, charisma and persona. As Obama undertook change and initiated more programs, thereby expanding government, he looked more like Carter. Even those that were skeptical of the comparison shockingly agreed when it came to the current administration’s foreign policy approach – particularly when it came to Israel. As Obama reinvented himself and shifted positions on his Middle East policy, he largely rid this conception. Yet, as the tension in Egypt rises with the only Arab ally in the Middle East in flames, the Carter image is back to haunt him.
When Barack Obama ran for president, he was criticized by many in both parties as purely naive. His approach was criticized as immature and dangerous. He proposed dialogue with those that supported terror and believed that “As-Salamu Alaykum” will solve our problems amongst the radical Jihadists. As his presidency settled and his honeymoon ended he soon realized that his rhetoric was indeed naiveté. He abandoned the closure of Guantanamo and continued Bush’s war in Afghanistan. But as we see history repeating itself in Egypt with radical extremists taking over a pro-American country, questions linger whether Obama’s naiveté led to this chapter – an episode that will remain as a flaw in US history.
Jimmy Carter initiated a policy to create democracies around the world with a plea for “human rights”. This call led him to call on the Shah to relinquish power of Iran and release Islamic terrorists from prison. Those prisoners led the revolution which eventually turned Iran into a fundamentalist state; one that is anti-democracy and anti-American. This was a direct result of Carter’s indecisiveness and abandonment of the Shah. It was the defining moment for Carter that ended his career and placed his legacy in shambles.
Ronald Regan strongly advocated for democracy around the world. He led the war against communism and pushed for more freedom around the world. It was under his watch that much of Europe turned toward democracy and remained subsequently. However, he took a different and effective approach. He understood that a dictator cannot and should not be replaced with another authoritarian that’s singing the tune of democracy. He pushed for true democracy where freedom would reign and the people would be in charge forever.
George W. Bush also called for democracy in the Middle East and Egypt when he said that they “should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.” Barack Obama took a direct swipe at Bush at the largely publicized Cairo speech when he said: “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” Today many question why Obama didn’t foresee this revolution and whether it would be avoided had he pushed for more democracy in the region.
As chaos brewed in Tunisia and expanded to Egypt, the protestors showed that a totalitarian government cannot exist for too long. As the protestors called for Mubarak’s resignation the Obama administration was wavering. Gibbs declared that it was “not for me or our government to determine” as the uprising escalated. However, behind the scenes Obama pressured Mubarak to resign as it met with the opposition. As the US reexamined its relationship with Muslim Brotherhood, a group that supported Hitler and continues opposing America and Israel, it troubles many that fear for another tyranny state in the Middle East. While many Republicans called for Mubarak’s resignation, they don’t want to replace him with another tyrant simply under the name of democracy. Democracy isn’t the choice to elect another dictator; it’s a recipe for destruction.
A terrorist state in Egypt is troubling. An Islamic government in Egypt immediately threatens Israel and the west. It won’t take them thirty years to become a nuclear power; they will be a major power instantly. Although Mubarak has no immediate future – being that tensions will continue to rise and the violence will escalate leading to the ousting of Mubarak – we must ensure that his successor is a moderate of some sort and one that has our support. This moment is Obama’s Carter moment; Obama will be remembered as the one that held discussions with terrorists and supported their takeover of a pro-American ally.
Dave Hirsch is an orthodox Jewish political analyst and columnist. His opinions were featured in numerous newspapers and publications. He can be reached at [email protected]
NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
3 Responses
A lot I wrote about this in the CR. I posted many of the same points. But one difference I’d like to make. Mr. Carter became the anti-semite that he is after his stint in office, but during he brokered the peace agreement between Israel & Egypt. What has our current President done for Jews or Israel, except every few days I read about some lip service to us? All those Jews who voted for him must be shepping nachas. He gives them recognition which the assimilated Jews want, but he does nothing for Israel or Jews!
First of all, what does the last paragraph (not counting the bold-face disclaimer) have to do with the balance of this opinion? No where does the opinion say that it is written by “Dave Hirsch”. Second of all, the last sentence of the antepenultimate paragraph says, if one reads it intelligently, that democracy is a recipe for destruction. I shall be charitable and assume that the author did not intend that, but the people who edit this site should, perhaps, eat more bananas – according to my great aunt, it’s good brain food.
There is no coherent theme in this opinion, just some disconnected and unsupported rambles. The first sentence starts off with a statement linking Obama and President Carter, written in the passive voice, with no indication of who, if anyone, holds the opinion stated therein, and no explanation of the similarities in their approaches to the Middle East. Jimmy Carter was the US president who brokered the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and it stayed in place for 32 years, or, by Middle East political standards, an eternity or two. President Mubarak, now past 80, has been the President of Egypt for most of that time – since 1981 – way too long to believe that he has won all his elections in open, democratic contests. I am disappointed that Mr. Mubarkak’s reign is, apparently, coming to an end, but for the last 10 years, the US government should have known that that was going to happen sooner or later.
More to the point, how has the security of the State of Israel been enhanced since the signing of the Egypt-Israel treaty, a period of 32 years, in which Republicans controlled the White House for 20 years? I would suggest that many of Israel’s staunchest Jewish (frum and otherwise) supporters have drunk the Kool-Aid of Republican tough talk without carefully evaluating whether things have gotten better for Isreal. Current reports about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt suggest that it is not in favor of a theocracy and does not have the support of more than 25% of the people of Egypt. That 25% is about the same percentage that communist parties would garner in elections in Western Europe before 1989, representing a protest vote but not a serious committment to communism. How the Muslim Brotherhood behaves if and when it becomes a participant in the next Egyptian government is unknown to me, and I suspect to Dave Hirsch as well, but it does no good to spread baseless fear. We must understand that the last major move in the direction of a secure State of Israel happened on President Carter’s watch. I do not believe that President Obama is another Jimmy Carter, but 30+ years of peace between Egypt and Israel is a respectable record, and so if Dave Hirsch is right, that is a reason for optimism.
The outcome of the current turmoil in Egypt is undoubtedly critical to the future well-being of the State of Israel. If we are to understand it and evaluate what US policies will work to the advantage of Israel, we should limit ourselves to the facts, not gut feelings about a US president who has been out of office for 30 years.
Charlie Hall you should hide yourself in shame that you still support Obama!