Thursday
Jun042009
President Obama's Speech in Cairo: The "Right Path" Runs Through Israeli Settlements
Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 13:56
Latest Post: After the Obama Speech - Israel Re-Positions on Settlements, Two-State Solution
Latest Post: After the Obama Speech - Hamas Asks, “Is He Ready to Walk the Way He Talks?”
Near the end of his hour-long speech in Cairo, President Obama declared, "We must choose the right path, not just the easy path." An Enduring America colleague blurted, "How very Obi-Wan Kenobi".
Of course, Obama's address wasn't just Star Wars. It also drew from the Koran on at least five occasions, concluding, "May God's Peace Be Upon You", the Bible ("Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You", "Blessed are the Peacemakers", and the Talmud. It tried to bring Heaven and Earth together from democracy to religious freedom to women's rights to economic development. It rejected the "clash of civilisations" by calling for mutual respect based on an overlap of common principles.
It was, in short, a speech that will draw acclaim from many in the US for its high vision and lofty rhetoric (even though I have no doubt that the Koran references, the self-citation of his name "Barack Hussein Obama", and the President's identification with his audience through his experience from Kenya to Indonesia to Muslims in Chicago will be duly castigated by the Usual Critics). And that general ambition, I think, will ensure the warm applause of the listeners at Cairo University will echo today for many people overseas, including Obama's primary audience in the Middle East.
But what will be heard tomorrow? The "right path" may be laid out with ideals of distant Nirvanas, but Obama has to get there through more immediate, less-exalted territory. And it is in his self-defined three tests that the President's sweeping call to live together will be confronted by people still dying and suffering in different camps.
1. THE HOPEFUL CLIMB: THE IRAN TEST
Obama actually labelled this "rights and responsibilities on nuclear weapons", but that was a clumsy excuse to raise the Tehran issue.
Indeed, it was initially a very misguided sleight-of-speech since it immediately put the case that Iran is close to nuclear weaponry and, more importantly, that it was the only case worthy of notice. (The Twitter boards immediately lit up with, "Nuclear weapons? Israel?")
Obama, however, rescued himself with a shift to an acknowledgement of shared historical blame --- the US acknowledges trying to knock off the Iran Government in 1953 while the Islamic Republic has its own acts of violence since 1979 --- and then the key declaration. Talks will move forward without preconditions. No mention of deadlines, either.
In short --- are you listening, Tel Aviv? --- "engagement" is on.
2) THE DIVERSION: "VIOLENT EXTREMISM" (AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN-IRAQ)
This was Obama's lead item on his seven challenges, and it could have come straight from the George W. Bush playbook (although not delivered so eloquently). The US was "not at war with Islam" but it was "relently confronting extremists who threaten our security". Afghanistan was a war of necessity, as "Al Qa'eda killed nearly 3000 people on that day" of 11 September 2001. Al Qa'eda had continued to kill in many countries, and many of those killed were Muslims.
The President's message? Eight years after 9-11, the US would withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan if there were "no violent extremists". Or, turned around, since "violent extremists" are likely to be present in those two countries, the American military --- overtly and covertly, leading operations and pushing for them from Pakistan and Afghanistan allies behind the scenes ---- will be on a long-term mission.
Of course, Obama balanced the military dimension by talking about the economic aid the US is giving to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's the omissions, however, that were striking. No reference to US bombing, missile strikes, or drone attacks; indeed, the President did not even put a number on the troop escalation.
If this speech had been given closer to the affected areas, I think Obama would be facing some very bad press tomorrow. As it was, a more distant audience in Cairo could greet the call for the Long War against Violent Extremism (former known as Terror) with a shrug, apart from applause for the line that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.
As for other battlefronts in that LWVE, the President's discourse on Iraq was also received patiently but fairly quietly --- this, in comparison with other issues, appears to be yesterday's conflict. There was a much heartier response to the brief but pointed declarations of an end to torture and a closure of Guantanamo Bay.
3) THE TOUCHSTONE: ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
"Here we go," my colleague and I said. Obama, after 25 minutes, had finally said, "We need to discuss...the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world."
It was an almost breath-taking rhetorical dive. The President immediately made clear, "America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable." He buttressed that with an extended emphasis on the Holocaust: "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful."
Having linked support of Israel with historical memory and the fight against anti-Semitism, Obama could put the other half of the equation just as boldly: "Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
Yes, George W. Bush had also mouthed "Palestinian state", but not with this force. And there was more. While Obama went to great lengths to say, "Violence is a dead end," he offered a political opening. His call was not just on the Palestinian Authority to prove its "capacity to govern". He also held out recognition of Hamas, provided that organisation "put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist".
As one listener wrote, "[It was] refreshing to hear a US President go further than any previous in relation to the [Israeli] occupation." However, that listener also added, "Now we need action."
And it is here that Obama's words and post-speech reality meet. The test case for his policy is now the a defining test:
The President added equally important demands: "Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society....Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress." For now, however, the line is drawn: Tel Aviv concedes on settlement or Obama's Middle Eastern plan falls at the first hurdle.
Indeed, that line is so stark that the President did not even refer to other significant issues. He referring to the general responsibilities of Arab States, but there was no mention of Syria (and thus an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement), no reference to Lebanon, let alone Hezbollah, no place for Saudi Arabia apart from an allusion to "King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue".
And so the paradox of Cairo: at the end of Obama's hour, his exaltation of values across faiths comes to Earth in those buildings in East Jerusalem and across the West Bank. It is their spread, rather than the spread of goodwill or religious blessings, that will determine the fate of this President's "right path".
Latest Post: After the Obama Speech - Hamas Asks, “Is He Ready to Walk the Way He Talks?”
Near the end of his hour-long speech in Cairo, President Obama declared, "We must choose the right path, not just the easy path." An Enduring America colleague blurted, "How very Obi-Wan Kenobi".Of course, Obama's address wasn't just Star Wars. It also drew from the Koran on at least five occasions, concluding, "May God's Peace Be Upon You", the Bible ("Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You", "Blessed are the Peacemakers", and the Talmud. It tried to bring Heaven and Earth together from democracy to religious freedom to women's rights to economic development. It rejected the "clash of civilisations" by calling for mutual respect based on an overlap of common principles.
It was, in short, a speech that will draw acclaim from many in the US for its high vision and lofty rhetoric (even though I have no doubt that the Koran references, the self-citation of his name "Barack Hussein Obama", and the President's identification with his audience through his experience from Kenya to Indonesia to Muslims in Chicago will be duly castigated by the Usual Critics). And that general ambition, I think, will ensure the warm applause of the listeners at Cairo University will echo today for many people overseas, including Obama's primary audience in the Middle East.
But what will be heard tomorrow? The "right path" may be laid out with ideals of distant Nirvanas, but Obama has to get there through more immediate, less-exalted territory. And it is in his self-defined three tests that the President's sweeping call to live together will be confronted by people still dying and suffering in different camps.
1. THE HOPEFUL CLIMB: THE IRAN TEST
Obama actually labelled this "rights and responsibilities on nuclear weapons", but that was a clumsy excuse to raise the Tehran issue.
Indeed, it was initially a very misguided sleight-of-speech since it immediately put the case that Iran is close to nuclear weaponry and, more importantly, that it was the only case worthy of notice. (The Twitter boards immediately lit up with, "Nuclear weapons? Israel?")
Obama, however, rescued himself with a shift to an acknowledgement of shared historical blame --- the US acknowledges trying to knock off the Iran Government in 1953 while the Islamic Republic has its own acts of violence since 1979 --- and then the key declaration. Talks will move forward without preconditions. No mention of deadlines, either.
In short --- are you listening, Tel Aviv? --- "engagement" is on.
2) THE DIVERSION: "VIOLENT EXTREMISM" (AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN-IRAQ)
This was Obama's lead item on his seven challenges, and it could have come straight from the George W. Bush playbook (although not delivered so eloquently). The US was "not at war with Islam" but it was "relently confronting extremists who threaten our security". Afghanistan was a war of necessity, as "Al Qa'eda killed nearly 3000 people on that day" of 11 September 2001. Al Qa'eda had continued to kill in many countries, and many of those killed were Muslims.
The President's message? Eight years after 9-11, the US would withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan if there were "no violent extremists". Or, turned around, since "violent extremists" are likely to be present in those two countries, the American military --- overtly and covertly, leading operations and pushing for them from Pakistan and Afghanistan allies behind the scenes ---- will be on a long-term mission.
Of course, Obama balanced the military dimension by talking about the economic aid the US is giving to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's the omissions, however, that were striking. No reference to US bombing, missile strikes, or drone attacks; indeed, the President did not even put a number on the troop escalation.
If this speech had been given closer to the affected areas, I think Obama would be facing some very bad press tomorrow. As it was, a more distant audience in Cairo could greet the call for the Long War against Violent Extremism (former known as Terror) with a shrug, apart from applause for the line that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.
As for other battlefronts in that LWVE, the President's discourse on Iraq was also received patiently but fairly quietly --- this, in comparison with other issues, appears to be yesterday's conflict. There was a much heartier response to the brief but pointed declarations of an end to torture and a closure of Guantanamo Bay.
3) THE TOUCHSTONE: ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
"Here we go," my colleague and I said. Obama, after 25 minutes, had finally said, "We need to discuss...the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world."
It was an almost breath-taking rhetorical dive. The President immediately made clear, "America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable." He buttressed that with an extended emphasis on the Holocaust: "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful."
Having linked support of Israel with historical memory and the fight against anti-Semitism, Obama could put the other half of the equation just as boldly: "Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
Yes, George W. Bush had also mouthed "Palestinian state", but not with this force. And there was more. While Obama went to great lengths to say, "Violence is a dead end," he offered a political opening. His call was not just on the Palestinian Authority to prove its "capacity to govern". He also held out recognition of Hamas, provided that organisation "put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist".
As one listener wrote, "[It was] refreshing to hear a US President go further than any previous in relation to the [Israeli] occupation." However, that listener also added, "Now we need action."
And it is here that Obama's words and post-speech reality meet. The test case for his policy is now the a defining test:
Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
The President added equally important demands: "Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society....Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress." For now, however, the line is drawn: Tel Aviv concedes on settlement or Obama's Middle Eastern plan falls at the first hurdle.
Indeed, that line is so stark that the President did not even refer to other significant issues. He referring to the general responsibilities of Arab States, but there was no mention of Syria (and thus an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement), no reference to Lebanon, let alone Hezbollah, no place for Saudi Arabia apart from an allusion to "King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue".
And so the paradox of Cairo: at the end of Obama's hour, his exaltation of values across faiths comes to Earth in those buildings in East Jerusalem and across the West Bank. It is their spread, rather than the spread of goodwill or religious blessings, that will determine the fate of this President's "right path".
tagged Barack Obama, Bible, Gaza, George W Bush, Guantanamo Bay, Hamas, Hezbollah, Holocaust, Iran, Israel, Israeli settlements, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Koran, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Pakistan, Palestine, Star Wars, Talmud, Torture, West Bank in Afghanistan, India & Pakistan, Iraq, Middle East & Iran, US Foreign Policy, War On Terror
Barack Obama, Bible, Gaza, George W Bush, Guantanamo Bay, Hamas, Hezbollah, Holocaust, Iran, Israel, Israeli settlements, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Koran, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Pakistan, Palestine, Star Wars, Talmud, Torture, West Bank in Afghanistan, India & Pakistan, Iraq, Middle East & Iran, US Foreign Policy, War On Terror
Reader Comments (5)
Obama also said this about nukes that one could interpret as referring to Israel:
"I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons."
For what they are worth, these were my immediate thoughts on Obama's speech in Cairo.
Good points:
A characteristically well delivered speech full of good intentions. The president comprehensively debunked the clash of civilizations thesis with reason, compassion and effective Koranic references. Obama is always on strong ground when he talks about common aspirations and the human condition. His emphasis on softpower in Af-Pak campaign, though not a new strategy, was the obligatory corollary to his explicit military commitment. Obama also subtly distanced himself from GWB's Iraq debacle by emphasising his lack of ambition there.
On Arab-Israeli conflict, he struck a reasonably balanced critique of Israel's false notion of security and Palestinian's false notion of resistance. Stopped short of severely embarrassing Israel but showed clear opposition to settlements. At least mentioned Hamas's domestic mandate (rather than pretending they don't exist) but also strong on need to recognise Israel's right to exist.
On Iran, at least no hint of time limit for negotiations but not much new here. This wasn't a speech really aimed at Tehran. Interestingly, Obama received considerable applause for comments on non-proliferation. Obama did just enough to show his determination to avoid an Iranian bomb.
I though the encouragement for educational schemes/exchanges promising and effectively linked to his own father's experiences. In my view, the sooner these schemes are accelerated in Iran the better.
Obama's obvious good will should resonate strongly amongst moderate Muslim voices.
Bad points:
Maybe a bit long and sometimes lacking in the substance the Muslim world craves. Opposition to settlements seemed strong but hardly sent strong message to Israel on definition of 'natural growth' or possible US sanctions for continued expansion. Very vague on human rights (unsurprising given location.. but crowd clearly amenable to more on this subject). Confused on democracy.. "we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." What exactly does this mean and how is this reflected in US policy in the region in any meaningful way?
Points on religious freedom and women's rights seemed a rushed mish mash of observations without any real policy relevance.
Can America's exit strategy in Afghanistan really be the elimination of every violent extremist in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Nothing on the drones.
Nothing on Hezbollah (or Syria actually).
In sum, Obama brought his own brand of optimism and elegant prose that appear to have been well received in the region. I have no doubt that it will improve his broad standing in the region but the cynics (not to mention Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran) will continue to wait until genuine pressure is placed on the Israelis.
I'm wondering if these takes are underplaying the significance of what Obama had to say about the Palestinians. Has any previous President referred to the Palestinians "daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation"? That alone is surely a revolutionary statement from a U.S. President. Furthermore, he referred to the Palestinians as offering "resistance" and compared their struggle to the ending of slavery and the civil rights movement in the U.S. These are remarkable words. It is too much to expect in such a speech that he would lay out steps to be taken against Israel over settlements.
I don't think I could say it any better than Chris E and Canuckistan (the point of him saying "occupation" and "resistance" deserves the attention) but I'd also like to throw in this piece by Dana Milbank, as I think it offers a useful nugget of context...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303173.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
and here's a piece from the Washington Post that addresses some of the commentary about Israel, including Obama's possible reference to Israel's nuclear program
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060404553.html?hpid=topnews