President Obama will be delivering a big speech in Cairo this week. It will address U.S. relations with the broader Muslim world. What kind of message do you think he should focus on?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
55 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
I’d hope he reiterates his tough line on Israeli settlements and demands that Muslim countries and political entities either step up to the plate with recognition of Israel or quit pretending they want peace for their people. Unfortunately the Muslim states do not depend on US favor the way Israel does, so Obama can’t brandish the big stick or wave the big carrot as convincingly as he could with Israel.
Who are all these Muslim states and political entities that need to recognize Israel in to order to have peace for their people. Indonesia? Egypt? Morocco? Muslim this and Muslim that. Just let Israel get its ass out of the occupied territories, dismantling all settelments, then Mr. Obama will have the moral authority to read the law to the ‘Muslim countries’. Israel is forced by no one to stay in the occupied territories. Israel CHOOSES to do so. After all, Israel is the U.S. and the U.S. is Israel. Or not? Mr. Obama will smile his way through Egypt, the Egyptians will smile back, but he will realize that his ‘charisma’ has its limitations because most people live in a world of hurt and they expect him to do somthing about it, rightly or wrongly.
what, exactly, do they expect him to do for them?
Change the music. That’s what. What do people in the U.S. expect him to do? If he’s not planning to do something like at least improve relations what is he going there for. Exposure? Or is it just a royal progress through the Empire?
I still have no idea what you’re talking about. He’s come out strongly about expanding settlements. He’s unambiguously backed the two-state future. “Change the music” and “improve relations” are words without meaning. Apparently you don’t think there’s anything for him to do or say.
All we have heard from Obama so far is the same kind of talk we have heard from his predecessors. Bush also unambiguously backed the two-state future. How many U.S. presidents since 1967 have come out strongly about expanding settlements.
Words, words, words
I’m so sick of words
I get words all day through
First from him now from you
Is that all you blighters can do?
Is there some reason why my question is met with this kind of response? It’s a totally open-ended question that allows you to craft the exact kind of response you would like to hear, with any amount of specificity you desire.
And yet the answers seems to be so cynical as to not even allow for the possibility of a positive and productive speech.
I, for one, am tired of speeches. I want to see some meaningful action.
Okay then, turn Booman’s question into that. What actions do you want Obama to take? What do you think is going to work? What would you announce you were doing if you were giving this speech?
I gotta say – I wouldn’t want the job of trying to figure out how to unshit the bed that is US involvement in the Middle East. Even putting aside domestic political considerations (which no politician can), US policy is messed up and trying to untangle it is something that I doubt any US President would be able to manage in two terms. I have no idea what line I want Obama to take, other than I really want to either see the US use its muscle to get Israel to take action on the settlements (as in shut them down, forcibly move the settlers back across the border, and tell the Palestinians “enjoy those swimming pools and gated communities these idiot settlers built for you”) OR dispense with the idea of the “two state solution” entirely (as the whole thing is seriously starting to become a bad joke at this point) and start treating Israel like South Africa during Apartheid.
But those are simple-minded solutions that probably would never work in the real world. The forcible removal of settlers is a non-starter because the current government of Israel is only in power because of the settlers – remove them from the equation, the government falls, and no government ever acts to intentionally cut off its own head. The South Africa solution wouldn’t be swallowed domestically – the sanctions would never get through the Congress.
So given that my fantasy solutions have zero chance of being implemented in the real world, I have no idea what I’d like to see happen. I can only wait to see what gets proposed and see if I think it’s a good idea or not. My guess is that, in the end, I will be disappointed. Because this is a huge problem, it’s been a huge problem since before I was born, and there isn’t an easy answer that can actually be implemented politically – if there were, it would have been done already.
You are halfway there. You’ve outlined the parameters of the possible. Add in a pinch of ‘Yes, We Can’ and let me know what you’d like to see.
So far, Obama has done two things right.
That is already more that I would have thought possible.
If you’re so pessimistic about Obama’s options in actually improving the facts on the ground then why do you think it’s a good thing to promise the moon? So that it appears that some in America are sympathetic to Muslim concerns but it just isn’t possible to do anything about them?
Speeches can be positive but eventually words end up having the opposite effect when they not matched by action. Trying to put a P.R. spin on something to create a reality is uniquely American and while it may be working in the U.S. many in the rest of the World are not inflicted with such irrational thinking.
There is a long history here of the U.S. unfairly supporting Israel and it is totally unrealistic to expect a speech alone to be enough. It simply infuriates people more when you take the tone that these people should be sympathetic to the scraps being thrown them (hey, Obama made a speech, what more do you losers expect?).
I’m reading “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” and it’s striking to me to read the author’s recollection of a puppet show put on in Indonesia in the early 1970s and the author’s surprise at the political sophistication of Indonesians. Unlike Americans, Muslims are not in denial about American Empire.
And they’re not as dumb as some imply. Pretty speeches only go so far. And then they start having a negative effect.
Obama is a good politician. But hope does not spring eternal in the Muslim world regarding future relations with America.
afflicted with irrational thinking that is
I was extremely disappointed in that book. It needed footnotes and it had none. Probably the biggest let down I’ve experienced from a book in years.
As to your other point, I am not suggesting he make a bunch of promises he cannot or will not keep. I am asking what you think he should focus on. You can take it from there to anywhere you want to go.
I can see that. For instance, in the puppet show referenced above he describes the shaman (or whatever the term is for a Indonesian puppeteer) has a puppet of Nixon, or Uncle Sam, and the money men in a suit representing the World Bank and a local politician that stands up to U.S. empire and then later that same day the local politician is killed in a traffic accident. It would have been helpful to know the name of the politician and to footnote who that individual was to make the story more believable, etc.
I’ve only got about 75 pages in so far but most of the book seems to come from his personal experiences, like the story above, and I can see how some would think the “hitman” part of the book is oversold. The premise of his book seems to come from general understanding of economic reality–like most conspiracies, this one is the open, and it’s not like American economic hit men sign some secret document spelling out their intentions.
It’s interesting to me because I share the author’s view of the role of American empire and the spread of capitalism, American-style, and it’s interesting to hear some of the details but it’s stuff I already knew. So yeah . . . I can see how one would be underwhelmed after the title promises so much (kind of like Obama’s speeches).
I don’t think anyone doubts he will give a positive and productive speech (as long as by ‘productive’ you mean make Muslims feel better about America). That is, after all, what Obama does. And they are as ready as possible for that speech, after all of Bush’s cowboy BS.
It’s not the speech that matters, it what happens in the coming 2-3 years that matters. That is the true meaning of ‘productive’.
What the muslim world needs is not another speech (no matter how well received) but bold daring ACTION.
nalbar
And yet again be hear about this generic all-purpose ACTION. Like what? Seems like you’re afraid to spell it out.
Well then, Dave W, why don’t you spell it out for us? For a starter let Obama stop speaking with forked tongue and put his reputation and authority on the line.
Lay off Iran. Stop talking about Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions as he just said in his BBC interview being broadcast today all over the world.
Totally, publicly reject Israeli meddling in U.S. foreign policy and gaming of the U.S. Israel gave the Iraq war a boost and now it’s the turn of the Iran intervention(airwar?).
Force – FORCE – all the Israeli colonists out of the occupied territory. He can’t do that, you say. Israel is a sovereign country. Yes, but the occupied territories are not part of Israel, no matter what Israel and colonists might say. Maybe he can’t force them out, you say, domestic politics, practical considerations and, I suppose, personal preferences will certainly hold him back. But he can go a long way to achieving this goal.
Publicly expose the supporters of the so-called Taliban/al Qaeda complex of violence. Because someone, real people, who live outside Afghanistan and Pakistan are keeping this tragedy going. It is not Iran, you can be sure. Who? The den of thieves on the Arabian peninsula? I have no idea. The politcal world seems to regard the violence as a natural phenomenon like a virus which has no roots in specific political and economic interests. The weapons come from somewhere. The money too. These are not supplied domestically in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Or if they are, we can rest easy in the knowledge of Pakistani connivance. Oh I forgot about the opium. Okay, who’s organizing that trade. Poor Afghan farmers. Yes, I’m sure. Whose game is being played that the U.S. is willing to destroy itself and its people for? Or is it, like Iraq, for the most part, a complete U.S. exercise in manipulation?
Let Obama tell us all about this in Cairo, the day after tomorrow, and we’ll gasp. Obama has no business going to Cairo and holding a nice, uplifting speech. This is in the class of a publicity stunt and holds no true promise for anyone. That’s why I said he can only change the music and improve relations. Or is he going to tell somthing about the real world which he is now running? No.
I can’t remember anybody except maybe Carter being this plainspoken and uncompromising about settlements and the two-state solution. They may have said some similar words, but not this convincingly. Obama consciously put his own credibility on the line with this. That’s what’s new.
It’s all still nothing more than words, which Israel is, as usual, thumbing its nose at.
So, what has changed significantly? Stronger words? So what?
.
The essence of the coming speech …
Consider: Lebanese go to the polls just three days after he speaks, Iranians will be preparing for pivotal elections June 12 and both contests pit moderate parties against radical forces. Afghans and Pakistanis are girding for increased U.S. military and political engagement. Palestinians and Israelis have conflicting stakes.
Obama won’t lay out a detailed vision for resolving the Arab-Israeli crisis. “I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world,” the president said.
Many Egyptians fear their own autocratic president, Hosni Mubarak, and have mixed feelings about Obama’s at least tacit support of the regime by his decision to speak there.
Dalia Mogahed, the Egyptian-born executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, also serves on the White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which provided input for Obama’s speech.
“If I were to convey the three major themes that I think would be important to cover in the speech, they would be the idea of respect, cooperation and a demonstration of empathy.”
“The speech just can’t be only about culture and religion,” Mogahed said, “without dealing with the very real policy issues that have divided the societies.”
I think Obama will relate to the heroic step of President Sadat’s travel to Jerusalem and his assassination by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Just more BS coming from the latest American ‘we are always right’ imperialist.
Maybe while he is there he can encourage the Saudi’s to open more of their schools, they are working out so well in Pakistan.
nalbar
What do Saudi schools have to do with Obama? “No new settlements” is BS and imperialist? You want the US to just keep out of the Middle East? Is that your point? Somehow I don’t think that would advance your apparent interests.
““No new settlements” is BS and imperialist?“
How many American presidents have recited the “no new settlements” verse to the song? How many American presidents have actually back it up with action?
And by the way, thanks to the above, it is waaay to late for “no new settlements”. Thanks to the U.S. policy of e Israelis have succeeded in its plan to create facts on the ground that, if they are allowed to remain in place, make a viable Palestinian state completely out of the question. “No new settlements” is equivalent at this point to telling a terminal lung cancer patient to cut down to one pack a day.
“You want the US to just keep out of the Middle East?“
Yes.
What do Saudi schools have to do with Obama?
MAHAHAHA!
The Saudi madrassas are a leading and constant thorn in America’s ass.
My ‘point’ is that while talk is an improvement over the last 8 years, it is also true that talk is cheap, and eventually it has to be backed up with acts. Obama has not shown he has the desire to take on the status quo of American feeling it can do what ever it wants, when ever it wants, including kidnapping those that pose a FUTURE threat and keeping them locked up FOREVER without charges.
THAT is imperialist, and your inability to see it as such is not surprising, because Americans are taught exceptionalism at their mothers breasts.
This will be another of Obama’s soaring speeches, asking all of us to aspire to more than what we are, to reach for a better world. Yes, he will tell Israel to stop settlements (tearing them down is national suicde, and Obama knows that), but it will be meaningless talk.
Like always.
nalbar
Our allies in the War on Terror;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/journalists-traveling-wit_n_209912.html
Wouldn’t want Americans to find out what really happens outside our borders, would we?
nalbar
While I agree with you on most points, I do not agree that decolonizing the OPT (i.e. tearing down the “settlements”) would be national suicide. In fact, I think that is just another of the endless collection of propaganda ploys Israel uses to avoid doing what it needs to do to make peace. It’s right there with their refusal to discuss even a symbolic acknowledgment of the Right of Return.
So you don’t think the settlers are a threat to present day Israel? As armed as they are?
Interesting.
nalbar
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44864
and
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56995.html
It’s not propaganda. A previous PM was KILLED in Israel by one of the pro-settlers.
In 04 when Sharon removed just a few of the settlers the Israeli media was awash with civil war talk. There are over 400,000 `illegal’ settlers in occupied territories. All armed to the teeth, with more than a few members of the military being sympathetic.
And you think they will just leave their homes and towns?
Interesting.
nalbar
If the assassination of a PM poses an existential threat, then Israel is a whole lot more fragile than it appears to be.
The overwhelming majority of the colonists are not “armed to the teeth”. In fact, the majority are not armed at all. Further, a very significant percentage of Israeli colonists want out of the colonies, but are stuck there because no one wants to buy their houses, and they cannot afford to abandon them and start over.
Only a minority of colonists are there for ideological reasons, and of those not all are of the violently fanatic sort. Most of them are there because of the very low prices and generous subsidies provided by the Israeli government for moving and living there. Others, such as those Jews – or is it “Jews” – who were miraculously discovered living in a remote village in the Peruvian mountains, and who were hastily converted so they could qualify for immigration, are there because that was one of the conditions under which they were allowed to immigrate.
Polls indicate that the majority of Israeli citizens do not support the colonists at all.
The only existential threat to Israel does not come from the colonists, or from any external entity.
So you’re thinking the colonies could be peacefully abandoned if the government paid enough for the houses to allow settlers to start over in a legal place? That would seem like a tiny price to pay if it’s really feasible. From the noise coming out of Israel though I have to seriously wonder if Israel could survive the reaction. A majority may not support the colonists, but, as in the US, it isn’t necessarily politically relevant what a majority wants — I imagine a large majority of Americans would support Israel moving out of the settlements, but that seems to make no difference, and we have infinitely less to lose by it.
Do you always think in binary? Do you really only see life only in extremes where the only two possibilities are talking versus destroying, or peaceful abandonment versus destruction of the State?
So you believe that a few thousand Jewish Israeli fanatics have both the power and the will to destroy Israel if it tried to decolonize the OPT? On what basis would they do that – if we can’t have all of Palestine, then we’re gonna destroy the only Jewish state we’ve got? And how, exactly would they destroy Israel, one of the most powerful military forces in the world, with the relatively rather pathetic collection of weapons they have?
So, are you suggesting that the real existential threat to Israel is a group of extremist Jewish Israelis?
I am saying that the ONLY existential threat to Israel is extremist Jewish settlers, and those who support them.
400,000 is not a ‘few thousand’.
And civil war can destroy any power.
nalbar
Thank you for reminding me of the last “soaring speech” Obama gave. . . a mere coupla weeks ago. That speech consisted of pretty words which only disguised his kick to the gut to the few of us that still support the American Constitution.
In effect, he made a big PR show of closing Guantanamo but he kept the American Gulag open for business . . .
Being American and focusing only on Obama’s betrayal of me and our country I forgot that the Muslim/Arab world probably takes it more personally. And they probably don’t deceive themselves with the same fairy tales America is telling itself about what it did (few bad apples, it’s not torture!, just water dunking, we only imprison terrorists and you have to take our word for it, we didn’t kill any innocent civilians . . . ).
I’m just a white liberal in America and I was pissed off so of course the Muslims and Arabs are going to be even more ticked off at the rhetoric that passes for American debate.
The more I think about it the more I think it likely the Muslim/Arab world will be offended by Obama’s speech–these words may actually do more damage because they are meant to cover up an unjust act; the Obama administration’s cover up of past crimes and the continuation of an American gulag for Muslims.
Now if his actions on Israel/Palestine come up short as well and/or if Israel attacks Iran his words will do a lot more harm than good.
OK, so you apparently want the US to do something about the Saudi schools, while not being imperialist. You keep talking about “acts” but never say what those acts are supposed to be. Push Israel into the sea? Invade Saudi Arabia (while not feeling the US can do whatever it wants)?
How are the madrasas not a future threat, and yet you seem to think the US should get in there and take ’em out or something. Obama disappoints me with his softness on the Iraq crimes, but I don’t see what that has to do with Israel/Palestine policy. I get hating America for what it’s done. But feelings instead of practicality are what got us into all this shit in the first place.
Obama just recently took some concrete action regarding U.S. policy re its Muslim detainees. Obama has announced the continuation of U.S. policy to imprison Muslims/Arabs without basic human rights–like access to a lawyer, or without charging them with a crime, and even if they are only suspected of committing a crime in the future. Obama has also proffered a new legal system to “convict” these detainees when he can’t prove them guilty in a civilian or military court of law. Obama has also told the world he will not prosecute what he basically admits are war crimes because it is too harmful to the American psyche to look at its behavior and we have to look ahead. These recent “actions” speak much louder than his words.
Obama is also not winding down the Iraq war and is surging into Afghanistan and the military has expressed the need for the ability to take action in Somalia and other theaters in the larger war on terrorism. Predator drone attacks have increased in Pakistan.
So far he has taken a lot of significant action; although most of it is at odds with his rhetoric.
One of the first actions Obama took as President was to sign off on drone bombings in Pakistan, and that action resulted in the deaths of tens of Pakistani civilians, including an appalling number of children.
From Huff Post:
“TIME’s Michael Scherer, who will be accompanying President Obama on his trip to Saudi Arabia Tuesday, reports that he has been warned by the U.S. State Department that, while in Saudi Arabia, he is not to report on anything except the President’s visit lest he “risk arrest and detention by Saudi authorities.”
I hope Obama doesn’t hurt himself bowing and scraping to the prince. What is bad about this is the administration is ok with it.
I mean WTF? How about skipping the Saudi Arabia leg of the trip? They’re putting restrictions on OUR freedom of the press and speech and that’s OK with the Obama administration?
Oh wait- gas will go up to $10.00 a gallon if we don’t cooperate. I forgot.
Or why not go all the way and do some nation building?
Oh yeah, great idea – the U.S. has just a great success record at that.
Just trying to help, since you seem to think Obama could just walk in and change everything if only he wanted to. You keep saying words are nothing, so shock and awe is the obvious alternative.
Where did I suggest Obama could just walk in and change everything?
You keep complaining that Obama just talks and doesn’t “act”, like this acting would make all the difference. What acts is he supposed to do to fix things? That’s the part I’m not hearing. The only alternatives to talk I know about are nation building, bombing, and isolation. Do you want him to send the US army in to bulldoze the settlements? What more is he supposed to do at this stage?
Where did I suggest that acting would “make all the difference”? Exactly what difference do you expect more pretty words to make?
“The only alternatives to talk I know about are nation building, bombing, and isolation.“
Wow! Really? Those are the only alternatives to talk that you know about? Really?
Wow.
Again: what acts? Why is it so hard to give some examples?
And what are all these alternatives you know about? You apparently don’t want Obama to talk, so what should he do instead?
You go first. Tell me what, in your opinion, Obama should say to the Muslim world that will bring about a positive change.
What I said in the first post. But I didn’t complain about what he’s saying — I think it’s a promising first step. It’s you who keep saying forget talking, he should act, he should act. But you don’t say what kind of act he should be doing, so what’s the point?
Where did I even once say forget talking?
Exactly how do you think yet another president demanding that the Arabs “recognize Israel”* will bring about positive change?
Exactly how do you think yet another president telling Israel to freeze settlements will bring about positive change?
*The Arabs unanimously agreed to formally recognize Israel seven years ago, and have repeatedly unanimously re-agreed to that since then. In fact, the Arabs have gone beyond that and offered Israel full diplomatic and normal economic relations. All Israel has to do is comply with international law, and its own agreements and withdraw from Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese territory (i.e. to the pre-June, 1967 boundary), leave the Palestinians to enjoy self-determination in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and come to a mutually agreed-upon solution to the refugee problem. The Arabs have repeatedly offered this proposal to Israel, and Israel has repeatedly given the Arabs the middle finger. The very fact of making this offer constitutes a de facto if not a formal, recognition of Israel.
He should reverse his policy on detainees. He should charge every detainee with a crime or let them go free. Just as we would demand of an American that was held without charges. He should announce support of a special prosecutor for war crimes. He should announce that he will suspend payments to Israel for its war material unless X happens during X time regarding the settlements.
But I suspect the answer will be that it’s just not possible for Obama to take such political risk and apply human rights to Muslims/Arabs. . . .
wherein lies the rub.
and why we will get a pretty speech to try to paper over an uncomfortable reality.
I guess where we differ is two points:
— I think he will do some of the things you (and I) want. I think “pretty words” always have to be spoken to prepare for tough policies. You seem to assume he never will do anything. I’m still in waiting and seeing mode.
— I’m not ready to blame Obama for half a century or more of American imperialist aggression and assumptions, or to expect him to reverse that with a wave of his magic wand. I’m not at all sure that there are any viable solutions, words, or actions that can get the US and the world out of its current death march. But I still feel lucky we have Obama, and not any of the last 30+ years worth of presidents to give it one last try.
you are unreasonably reasonable.
That is a very reasonable position. And I’m sympathetic to it and can appreciate it.
I guess I’m just fast-forwarding to what I view will be inevitable disappointment. Obama is walking a very fine line and I just don’t think even as talented as a politician he is that he can walk it. So, as I say, his words offer a false comfort; they fill us with hope which in fact prevents us from facing reality and making the hard choices (or actions).
I also agree that Obama is a good spokesmen for the U.S. on this subject–or could be. And that is a political risk I suppose. Just look at how the right treats any sort of diplomatic outreach as appeasement and failure. But, my point is it’s reasonable to see this as a benefit now but is it really a negative?
Unfortunately we’re stuck. We are all stuck in this trap called empire. And our rhetoric reflects this. Obama and the Dems are so concerned with changing 50 years of empire too quickly and so scared of being called weak that they feel they can only offer small changes and diplomatic gestures, while allowing outright falsehoods and a completely dysfunctional discourse to occur.
I just seeing it ending badly. We need strong change. We need someone to challenge this assumptions that will end up destroying our country; that America can do no wrong and to continue to treat the Muslim/Arab world with hostility, contempt, and most of all denying them basic rights that the Western world gave to themselves centuries ago.
I guess I’m just not the type of person that takes comfort in words when I have a very reasonable suspicion that it may do more harm.
I was in my hotel room watching The Ed Show. I watched it until 7pm when Hardball came one and then I want down to a bloggers’ reception in a ballroom below. There on the dais was Ed Schultz. I was like “How did you do that?” The miracle of video tape!!
Hope you didn’t ask him if he’s magic. Don’t want him thinking you bloggers are unsophistacated hicks.
Haven’t figured out where you are . . . a convention? Near Woodley Park? I used to live a block away. Liked the neighborhood.
Hope you have fun rubbing elbows with the muckety mucks. And that the goofballs like Shultz and Mathews and the teevee talking heads in general reach out to you bloggers.
There’s a reason I haven’t watched cable teevee in a long time but spend too much time on blogs!