Obama and the Palestinian Case
Published in Al-Quds
(Palestine) on 11 August 2009
by Abd Al-Ilah Balkiz (link to original)
Barack Obama gave a well-received speech at Cairo University, denoting some definite changes in American policy towards the Muslim and Arab world. Inspired by his speech, Obama’s supporters pointed to the commentary and analysis written in newspapers and magazines in the last eight months as proof of real changes in U.S. policy.
Although the speech did indicate some changes, it was not a definite break from past American policy and was probably used to serve a greater political purpose. Some people defended the speech, stating that it contained many positive features such as Obama’s different political tone in addressing Arabs and Muslims, his respect for their religious symbols, his emphasis on the “two-state solution”, his demand for Israel to stop the settlements and his tacit readiness to recognize the Hamas movement without describing it as a terrorist group, as is common in American political speech. Also important were his promises for economic support and cooperation with Islamic and Arab countries in addition to reiterating a desire to establish a dialogue with Iran instead of isolating it and pushing it to more extremism.
We don’t argue that the tone used while addressing the Arabs and Muslims was more civilized and modest than the language used by George Bush. Moreover, citing from the Koran had it positive effects on the spirits of many Arabs and Muslims. However, what the audience must not neglect is the political function of the speech.
It’s a flagrant mistake looking at it outside the framework of its political function and thinking that it's a mark of definite changes in American policy concerning Arabs and Muslims. Its political functions include easing impediments in the Arab and Muslim world and restoring the broken image of America. An old policy doesn’t change in a speech – this is possible only in Congress or the White House and not Cairo University.
Concerning Obama’s emphasis on the “two-state solution,” his words didn’t produce any hope or even surprise, not because his attitude on this matter has been known since his presidential campaign, but because it’s been the American stance since the George Bush era: strongly sympathetic towards Israel. When Obama mentioned the two-state solution in his speech in Cairo, he was repeating parts of an American policy whose features were established over 20 years ago. This viewpoint has been stated since the administration of President George H.W. Bush and has been confirmed by his son, President George W. Bush in 2001, a few months before the September 11 attacks. Obama’s emphasis on the “two-state solution” is just following Bush’s “roadmap” plan. Why, then, are the participants celebrating?
Obama’s demand for Israel to stop the settlements is theoretically within the requirements of the “roadmap”. Netanyahu and Lieberman have challenged this publicly and Netanyahu did reply to Obama’s speech, ignoring all his demands in Cairo. The White House didn’t find anything to comment on about the challenge Netanyahu sent to the president of America, except that Netanyahu made significant progress towards the “right track.”
This astonishing response encouraged Israel to go too far in expanding the settlements—they moved into the al-Sheikh Jarrah Quarter in eastern Jerusalem. The U.S. response to this was to demand that Arab countries normalize relations with Israel in order to help “stimulate the peace process”. In other words, Arab countries were to drop the “Arab peace initiative” (which assures normalizing relations with Israel if they withdraw from the occupied territories, confirm the right to return and the formation of a state) in addition to ceasing pressure on Israel. What, then, are the participants celebrating?
Finally, when people applauded the readiness of Obama to establish a dialogue with Hamas instead of confronting it, they forgot that this choice was not a precedent in American policy: the U.S. had participated in a dialogue 20 years ago in Tunisia, with a delegation from the liberation organization headed by Yasser Abd Rabou, following 25 years of considering it a terrorist group. Moreover, America established a dialogue with the factions of Iraqi resistance after considering them terrorist organizations for a long time.
More important than this is that Obama’s dialogue with Hamas is conditioned on them ceasing resistance activities and affirming all conventions signed with Israel. These conditions are sufficient for the creation of an entirely new Hamas: tamed and domesticated without teeth or nails. By then, what will the dialogue with Hamas signify and what will be its value and importance if it loses its identity and essence? Why, for the third time, are the participants celebrating?
Nothing in Obama’s speech encourages a warm reception or indicates intent to change the foundations of American policy. Therefore, the problem doesn’t come from Obama, because this man is honest and faithful to the foundations of his government; the problem, instead, comes from those who read their fortune in his political cup.
Although the speech did indicate some changes, it was not a definite break from past American policy and was probably used to serve a greater political purpose. Some people defended the speech, stating that it contained many positive features such as Obama’s different political tone in addressing Arabs and Muslims, his respect for their religious symbols, his emphasis on the “two-state solution”, his demand for Israel to stop the settlements and his tacit readiness to recognize the Hamas movement without describing it as a terrorist group, as is common in American political speech. Also important were his promises for economic support and cooperation with Islamic and Arab countries in addition to reiterating a desire to establish a dialogue with Iran instead of isolating it and pushing it to more extremism.
We don’t argue that the tone used while addressing the Arabs and Muslims was more civilized and modest than the language used by George Bush. Moreover, citing from the Koran had it positive effects on the spirits of many Arabs and Muslims. However, what the audience must not neglect is the political function of the speech.
It’s a flagrant mistake looking at it outside the framework of its political function and thinking that it's a mark of definite changes in American policy concerning Arabs and Muslims. Its political functions include easing impediments in the Arab and Muslim world and restoring the broken image of America. An old policy doesn’t change in a speech – this is possible only in Congress or the White House and not Cairo University.
Concerning Obama’s emphasis on the “two-state solution,” his words didn’t produce any hope or even surprise, not because his attitude on this matter has been known since his presidential campaign, but because it’s been the American stance since the George Bush era: strongly sympathetic towards Israel. When Obama mentioned the two-state solution in his speech in Cairo, he was repeating parts of an American policy whose features were established over 20 years ago. This viewpoint has been stated since the administration of President George H.W. Bush and has been confirmed by his son, President George W. Bush in 2001, a few months before the September 11 attacks. Obama’s emphasis on the “two-state solution” is just following Bush’s “roadmap” plan. Why, then, are the participants celebrating?
Obama’s demand for Israel to stop the settlements is theoretically within the requirements of the “roadmap”. Netanyahu and Lieberman have challenged this publicly and Netanyahu did reply to Obama’s speech, ignoring all his demands in Cairo. The White House didn’t find anything to comment on about the challenge Netanyahu sent to the president of America, except that Netanyahu made significant progress towards the “right track.”
This astonishing response encouraged Israel to go too far in expanding the settlements—they moved into the al-Sheikh Jarrah Quarter in eastern Jerusalem. The U.S. response to this was to demand that Arab countries normalize relations with Israel in order to help “stimulate the peace process”. In other words, Arab countries were to drop the “Arab peace initiative” (which assures normalizing relations with Israel if they withdraw from the occupied territories, confirm the right to return and the formation of a state) in addition to ceasing pressure on Israel. What, then, are the participants celebrating?
Finally, when people applauded the readiness of Obama to establish a dialogue with Hamas instead of confronting it, they forgot that this choice was not a precedent in American policy: the U.S. had participated in a dialogue 20 years ago in Tunisia, with a delegation from the liberation organization headed by Yasser Abd Rabou, following 25 years of considering it a terrorist group. Moreover, America established a dialogue with the factions of Iraqi resistance after considering them terrorist organizations for a long time.
More important than this is that Obama’s dialogue with Hamas is conditioned on them ceasing resistance activities and affirming all conventions signed with Israel. These conditions are sufficient for the creation of an entirely new Hamas: tamed and domesticated without teeth or nails. By then, what will the dialogue with Hamas signify and what will be its value and importance if it loses its identity and essence? Why, for the third time, are the participants celebrating?
Nothing in Obama’s speech encourages a warm reception or indicates intent to change the foundations of American policy. Therefore, the problem doesn’t come from Obama, because this man is honest and faithful to the foundations of his government; the problem, instead, comes from those who read their fortune in his political cup.
Previous article![]( "Dreams from My Father’s Continent")
