The Saudi people and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are very proud of what they were able to accomplish during this historic visit by President Donald Trump to the summit of a united Arab coalition. (Summit Production Video):
The entire region should be proud.
Despite the popular western dismissive media narrative, the summit was a resounding success. Beyond the royal pageantry, we can only imagine the internal anxiety if our beloved America was defined by the abhorrent behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Imprimipostest – This is an incredible American initiative, very pragmatic in its overall tone, yet filled with tremendous theoretical implications for future relations with Near-Eastern Islamic cultures.
Even the iconic symbolism of President Trump, Melania, Ivanka, and those accompanying the President (from the single Marine in dress uniform standing vigilantly behind him when walking down the reception red carpet, to the extremely competent cabinet members accompanying him in the conferences) that has been televised throughout those regions will have dramatic repercussions for the good.
The long-term potential shift of mentality within the general population throughout those regions may now include an enhanced awareness the United States and the true principles upon which it is founded.
As well, such may have implications long-term on how the Qur’an may be interpreted as critical historical scholarship concerning its historical sources and meanings will likely become more thoroughly examined and assimilated. This may be but one of the fruits to emerge from the President’s proposal of establishing a ‘Globalist Center for Combating Extremist Ideology’.
This dramatic American action may well have laid the foundation and conditions for a new and fruitful future for Islam, Israel, and Christianity. (link)
There are sure to be detractors, antagonists, who would choose the dismissive route even amid our own country.
Within that reaction from David Axelrod we find the inherent liberal disconnect known as projection. Notice his use of the term “we”, who said “we”?
President Trump is challenging Islam to cleanse itself of evil, not us; “them“, their fight, their struggle – our support.
[…] The expressed policy outlook of President Trump is for the United States to be the best; and through our actions and behaviors to lead on global initiatives that show how we define ourselves and our values.
This approach is specifically centered around a policy position stating we do not need to demand acceptance of those values, and we respect independent nations’ that may hold values or beliefs not identical to our own.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has cultured this approach throughout each of his diplomatic engagements. The U.S. leans forward on all Trump policy objectives through the perspective of our national needs first; but that does not necessarily mean we demand or force other nations into a compliance mindset.
Compliance implies aversarialism. President Trump and Secretary Tillerson do not view international engagements as necessarily adversarial.
The U.S. can engage eye-to-eye with the same level of respect to the smallest as we exhibit toward the largest (our own size does not need to be part of the equation, it is self evident), and work policy objectives toward the point of mutual benefit. If the engaged nation does not receive benefit from the policy, we do not demand an acceptance of it; and more importantly we express both an understanding and a respect of their position and inability.
This Trumpian approach, a willingness not to undermine and to accept the partners downside position within any policy, is grounded on inherent truth.
President Trump and Secretary Tillerson openly accept and admit when the engaged partner will be unable to meet our defined terms; we discuss what actions can be take to remove the inherent obstacle in the future; we make a commitment (or not) toward removing that obstacle; we shake hands and we part company retaining the position of friendship and optimism for the potential of re-engagement at a later date.
[…] This dynamic is unique – because no member of the Trump Administration’s policy team is approaching any of the policies from a position of their own inherent politics. Team Trump, writ large, represents America’s best interests, not the political construct of America’s best interests. [Coincidentally this approach is why Trump has so much domestic opposition]
This non-political approach and simultaneous respect exhibits honesty within the transaction. Yes, both Tillerson and Trump approach politics through the transactional prism, it’s what deal-makers do. (more)
Wisdom breezes gently, reassuringly, through the Tree House branches:
♦”Sorry I don’t know the answer, but Trump does not understand Islam. Wait and see.”
SHARON – If, on the other hand, he does actually understand Islam and as the President of our Sovereign Nation wishes to speak truth to a great assembly of Islamic leaders while demanding their respect and expecting a yielding response, how would he speak differently?
There are people I do not trust as far as I can throw them (including some in my own extended family) but I do not thereby refuse to speak with them or count every occasion in their presence as an opportunity to go after their worst foibles.
Are you assuming that Trump does not understand Islam because he is present with them? Do you assume that he doesn’t understand Chinese Communism because he met with President Xi? Do you assume that he doesn’t understand Catholicism because he won’t (as a Presbyterian) go to the Vatican and preach John Calvin?
Are you projecting your perceptions of what he should do instead of what he did do and assuming that his choice – different than yours – reflects lack of understanding?
This actually is the man who has persisted in stopping/restricting Moslem immigration into the United States. Seems to me that reflects some basic understanding of Islam. (link)
We, the proud deplorables, we band of brothers and sisters, are entirely clear-eyed as to the scope of the challenge. No-one amid our association is naive to the seemingly impossible scale against the backdrop of history.
It may be that their task is impossible. Yet, if they do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if they do not try, it most certainly won’t be done…
“You have a unique personality that is uniquely qualified to do the impossible”