Obama’s Attitudes Between Overestimation and Uncertainty
Published in Al Shorouk
(Egypt) on 11 April 2009
by Clufis Maksoud (link to original)
(Egypt) on 11 April 2009
by Clufis Maksoud (link to original)
Translated from
by Asmaa Sharaf El Deen.
Edited by Bridgette Blight.
American President Barack Obama’s address last week implied the potential of a change in his administration’s dealing with thorny issues of the Middle East. This is the region where persuasion, even with a little twisting of arms, and paying attention replace the orthodox American tone of orders, dedication and change. The image depicted for American policies during the last decade was one of provocation, bias and abuse of power.
These initial signs of a U.S. president’s attitude explicitly and implicitly indicate Obama’s attempts to bring the slogan of his presidential campaign into effect. That slogan, “change,” shall remain incomplete until Uncle Sam stops taking Israel’s side, aborting the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in particular and those of the Arab nation in general. The U.S. must also stop saying that Arab regimes are either “moderates” or “extremists” on the basis of the country helping America bring about Israel’s goals and insisting upon the rights to self determination, freedom and human development.
Looking at the response of the Arab and Islamic public opinion to Obama’s address, we find two different things – overestimation and uncertainty. This overestimation, so the argument runs, can be attributed to the fact that Obama’s tone is the mere opposite of the provocative attitudes of former American administrations that always disrespected and appropriated other Arab and Islamic nations’ legitimate rights. The distrust is due to Congress’s inability to stand firm in the face of the Zionist lobby. It can also be construed as unwillingness to lend a hand to that herald of change lest it should mean adopting a positive reaction and, consequently, indicates exerting intellectual and political efforts, which would fruit deeds.
More importantly, how are we to deal with the new American address and understand its promising potential? An overestimating attitude may encourage the American administration to seriously consider our national commitments. Raising doubts and distrust denotes failure in creating a fruitful united Arab address accustomed to being suppressed by former U.S. administrations.
Indeed, the answer to this question lies in our ability to redraft an Arab national address. This address must recognize plurality in positions and unity in tendencies. Consequently, the address must grant national obligations a considerable deal of credibility and effectiveness. Only then can the Arab world win the respect of both friends and opponents and garner the continuity of dialog that hastens positive response. We must get out of the vicious circle of deviating overestimation and absurd doubts.
And to be right about that, the change Obama adopted to uproot the antagonism sponsored during Bush’s two successive terms can be pertained to his perception of what the U.S. and its allies committed in Iraq and Afghanistan by trampling over legitimacy and resolutions of the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly and tailoring laws to their own benefit. After assuming office, Obama considered procedures including the closure of Guantanamo prison camp and criminalizing torture and bodily abuse. Also, there is the heavy burden of feuds in his country’s relationships with the world, especially the Islamic and Arab world. This is in addition to the mistakes of the capitalist system that neglected the greedy and corrupted practices of tax policies, the attempts of privatizing social and health insurance and the other practices that widened the gap between socioeconomic classes. Above all, there is the current economic crisis that keeps swelling, which has suspended the necessary change in American policies toward the Arab and Islamic world.
However, we must not forget the world’s priority: the Palestinian cause. Here, we find Obama ruminating over the U.S.’s commitment to the “roadmap” and recognizing two independent states: Palestine and Israel.
Accordingly, can Arabs, Palestinian and the world community as a whole spur Obama’s administration to force Israel to admit being an invader so that negotiations can be set? Will the vicious circle of the Palestinian National Authority as an American follower, the Israeli Judaizing of Jerusalem and unceasing settling activities have an end?
Can we restore our self-esteem without overestimation and suspicions and make Obama a real counterpart?
These initial signs of a U.S. president’s attitude explicitly and implicitly indicate Obama’s attempts to bring the slogan of his presidential campaign into effect. That slogan, “change,” shall remain incomplete until Uncle Sam stops taking Israel’s side, aborting the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in particular and those of the Arab nation in general. The U.S. must also stop saying that Arab regimes are either “moderates” or “extremists” on the basis of the country helping America bring about Israel’s goals and insisting upon the rights to self determination, freedom and human development.
Looking at the response of the Arab and Islamic public opinion to Obama’s address, we find two different things – overestimation and uncertainty. This overestimation, so the argument runs, can be attributed to the fact that Obama’s tone is the mere opposite of the provocative attitudes of former American administrations that always disrespected and appropriated other Arab and Islamic nations’ legitimate rights. The distrust is due to Congress’s inability to stand firm in the face of the Zionist lobby. It can also be construed as unwillingness to lend a hand to that herald of change lest it should mean adopting a positive reaction and, consequently, indicates exerting intellectual and political efforts, which would fruit deeds.
More importantly, how are we to deal with the new American address and understand its promising potential? An overestimating attitude may encourage the American administration to seriously consider our national commitments. Raising doubts and distrust denotes failure in creating a fruitful united Arab address accustomed to being suppressed by former U.S. administrations.
Indeed, the answer to this question lies in our ability to redraft an Arab national address. This address must recognize plurality in positions and unity in tendencies. Consequently, the address must grant national obligations a considerable deal of credibility and effectiveness. Only then can the Arab world win the respect of both friends and opponents and garner the continuity of dialog that hastens positive response. We must get out of the vicious circle of deviating overestimation and absurd doubts.
And to be right about that, the change Obama adopted to uproot the antagonism sponsored during Bush’s two successive terms can be pertained to his perception of what the U.S. and its allies committed in Iraq and Afghanistan by trampling over legitimacy and resolutions of the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly and tailoring laws to their own benefit. After assuming office, Obama considered procedures including the closure of Guantanamo prison camp and criminalizing torture and bodily abuse. Also, there is the heavy burden of feuds in his country’s relationships with the world, especially the Islamic and Arab world. This is in addition to the mistakes of the capitalist system that neglected the greedy and corrupted practices of tax policies, the attempts of privatizing social and health insurance and the other practices that widened the gap between socioeconomic classes. Above all, there is the current economic crisis that keeps swelling, which has suspended the necessary change in American policies toward the Arab and Islamic world.
However, we must not forget the world’s priority: the Palestinian cause. Here, we find Obama ruminating over the U.S.’s commitment to the “roadmap” and recognizing two independent states: Palestine and Israel.
Accordingly, can Arabs, Palestinian and the world community as a whole spur Obama’s administration to force Israel to admit being an invader so that negotiations can be set? Will the vicious circle of the Palestinian National Authority as an American follower, the Israeli Judaizing of Jerusalem and unceasing settling activities have an end?
Can we restore our self-esteem without overestimation and suspicions and make Obama a real counterpart?