The U.S. President came to the region and gave his speech to the Islamic world, which was certainly unlike what was said or done by his predecessor Bush. They are both very different in terms of their cultures, convictions and policies.
It was for this reason that President Obama has been welcomed ever since he announced his candidacy. We felt that he was the closest to us than anything related to Bush, his party and their conduct. We said that we were pleased with every aspect of the new president, such is our habit regarding public opinion towards everything; we even measure national welfare by our emotions.
Some people see only a change on people’s faces, and that U.S. policy will remain as is. In their view, it is up to the U.S. president to subdue Israel, order it to give back the Occupied Territories and establish a Palestinian State after also withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. Some have [also] demanded that he apologize for what his predecessor has done.
In short, some people wanted the man his speech to create a solution to all the problems of the region so that, upon leaving for home, Israel would have withdrawn to the 1967 borders, the establishment of a Palestinian state would have been announced and all the outstanding disastrous issues in our region would have been solved.
Does this not show our superficiality and overstatement in what we expect from others while being ignorant of what is required of our own people? Even Hamas issued a statement commenting on Obama’s visit and speech. It is a dull and insipid statement, as if [Hamas] controls every option along with the power to accomplish them. We hear neither apology nor revocation for the breaking up of the Palestinian camp and the internal conflict that has divided the land, people and the decision-making. They said that the American president was required to do many things and issue decrees during his speech. And they deliberately forgot that they are the ones who must protect Palestinian national interest first and then they can say to America as it is changes: “We also have changed and we are ready for any step forward. The ball is in [Obama’s] court after the Israeli occupation has lodged a thick wrench in the works.”
Some commented and doubted the President’s intentions, saying that he came merely for the sake of America’s image. Now if we reflect a little we will realize a simple and fundamental truth, which is that the new president recognizes the interests of his country in this period following everything that the Bush administration has destroyed. He realizes – vis-à-vis the Arab and Islamic world – that perceptions are not changed by mere words and that his credibility lies neither in being eloquent nor by remaining a great orator. Change begins by announcing one’s intentions, which he has done by announcing that he will offer his hand and his country to the Islamic world. He has begun with steps within his country to lighten restrictions. His people and the peoples of the Western world listened to his condemnation of all acts that degrade Islam as a great religion. Likewise, he has emphasized mutual benefit and respect. They need us as much as we need America in our development and our affairs. So why do we insist upon seeing through black-tinted glasses?
As for myself, I saw the speech as a statement of intention. He said nothing other than that, whether he said what pleased us and might do us justice or not. There are many issues, whether they are to do with an absence of trust or of legitimate rights. However, just as we need an honest American role (a role which needs to be restored as a superpower) so too does our nation have to prepare itself to deal with the orientations of the current U.S. administration.
The culture of rejection has, regrettably, become deeply rooted in judging the other in the same way as Bush: “Whoever is not with us is against us.” However, it has turned on itself by an Arab and Palestinian fragmentation which went too far.
Some people insist on a policy of “axis [of good and evil].” They hide behind the classification of “moderation” and “opposition” while seeking to harm and distort the meaning of “moderation.” They were very wrong when they described themselves as the “opposition”; what kind of opposition is this? And against whom or what? The opposition themselves court Israel before America, even though they claim otherwise in public. There is no harm if their opposition lasts for many decades until no voice is heard above the voice of opposition.
If they start wars they are keen to ensure that they do not reach their own borders. If not, then the war against Gaza was an opportunity for confrontation and true resistance on the land from other occupied fronts, not via satellite television screens. As for America and its interests and Obama and his speech, they will remain grist for the mill for whomever it pleases. Meanwhile the situation will remain exactly as it is!