Leading article: Mr Obama makes his case for a historic rapprochement
The onus is now on the Muslim countries to give a positive response
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
It is not often in modern times that a single speech is delivered with a view to changing history; still more rarely that it achieves this end. But the address delivered by the US President at the University of Cairo yesterday has a chance, just a chance, of doing that. If the United States and the Islamic countries eventually succeed in banishing their mutual suspicion and inaugurating a new age of understanding – a distant prospect, to be sure – Barack Obama's bold efforts to make a new beginning, based, as he put it, on mutual interest and mutual respect, will deserve much of the credit.
As a President seeking to bridge the gulf that now yawns between the United States and the Islamic world, Mr Obama started out with three advantages. The first derived from his biography. His references to his Kenyan family, his childhood in Indonesia and his Chicago years all rang true. The second, not unconnected, is the cultural sensitivity that derives at least in part from that variegated background. When he quoted from the Koran – as he did several times and always to applause – the allusions flowed naturally, without the slightest affectation. And the third is his skill as a communicator, which encompasses not just his formidable rhetorical gifts, but his ability to explain a complex message in such a way that it will be heard and understood. These qualities, which played such a large part in winning him the presidency, were displayed to full effect again yesterday.
Nor were any of the intended recipients left with any excuse for misinterpreting what he had to say yesterday. Not only was the speech widely trailed by the US administration, it was also webcast live by the White House and supplied via text messages in Arabic, Urdu and Farsi translation, with invitations for the recipients to comment.
The speech was as pitch-perfect as we have come to expect from Mr Obama. But in content, too, it was hard to fault. This was an hour-long discourse on subjects that have been minutely analysed and argued about by experts over the years. It was a diplomatic and intellectual tour de force; a cool, logical and coherent argument for the ditching of stereotypes and the harmonious coexistence of two different, but not automatically conflicting, views of the world.
The US President had some uncomfortable things to say: to Israel about calling a halt to the settlements and accepting a Palestinian state; to Palestinians about not launching rocket attacks on Israel; to the whole Arab world about recognition for Israel and the permanence of the US-Israel alliance, and to conservative Muslim states about the place of women. But he did so in a way that made clear that he was representing American interests and that the US, during his presidency at least, had no claims on other people's territory, security or way of life.
It is true, as a few less benevolent critics noted yesterday, that words are not the same thing as deeds. But words set a tone, and Mr Obama's every nuance was calculated to say that today's White House, politically and philosophically, is as far from George Bush's as it is possible to be. A time will come when Mr Obama – and the US public on his behalf – will, rightly, expect his outstretched hand to be reciprocated. Foreign leaders will not be able to bask indefinitely in the US President's reflected goodwill. But this month sees crucial elections in Lebanon and Iran, and all leaders need to carry their people with them. If patience is the price of a new start in US-Muslim understanding, Mr Obama can afford to wait.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Perhaps because they're crazy and irrational, and it's impossible to deal with such people.
Unfortunately, such people are the leaders of the palestinains, the leaders of some of lebanon, the leaders of some of syria, and the leaders of iran
"While you're, yet again, on about Palestinian "crazies" - and I don't altogether disagree with you - do you also have a take on the bearded, be-ringleted, bespectacled guys with New York accents, in black hats and tephilin a-twitching, and their woolly-hatted wives, all comfortably camped out in lush West Bank settlements, who bawl on about how God gave them Judah and Samaria, back in the days of Moses, for all time and that's all there is to be said - and who then sally forth in a small mob to try to occupy some Palestinian family's olive grove, while their kids hurl rocks at the Palestinians' kids?
Strikes me that crazies aren't just the monopoly of one side ...."
Romans destroyed the temple and dispersed survivers all over the world, but failed to defend the promised land against muslim Arabs. Christian crusaders reclaimed it. Feuding they couldn't retain control for long. Returning to England King Richard the Lion Hearted was held hostage by treacherous fellow crusaders for ransom. Luckily the minstrel Blondel discovered the Jing in the dingeon of Duernstein Castle overlooking the Danube.
The dreamer Theodore Herzl was not taken serious for a long time. "If the British give us Jews a lanmd that doesn't belong to them, why nebbich Palestine, rather than prosperous Switzerland?" became the comic Fritz Gruenberg's most popular line.
It's a wrotten shame that Israel's very existence is still contested 60 years after declaring independance acclaimed by yje most powerful and prosperous nations at that time. That's intolerable.
More power to President Obama! Bless him for recognizing that the global village can't afford to play that dangerous game much longer. Bless American voters for electing him with an overwhelming majority. Given by millions of people the mandate to pursue new policy the popular US President repeated at an optimal venue what his unprecedented, sensational campaign promised.
Don't expect manna from heaven to provide for games Americans are neither willing nor able to fund.
This is a new beginning that offer hope for a more peaceful World.
His speech must have gained a lot of respect with the Arab world, as Iran, Al Qaeda, zionist extremists and Fox news are foaming at the mouth.
Shove him up your Obummer if you like him so much but keep your foul infatuation with this mass-murdering con man out of my goddamn face.
Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq - those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan.
So there may be hope ...
My other tactic, when I can find the time - he seems to spend hours posting in here that I don't have! - is to quote my analogy to him. So far, he hasn't answered it, but then I think it's unanswerable, at least for people with his agenda. See what you think ....
"Around the time Arabs, and Islam, arrived in Jerusalem, and over 500 years after the Roman government finally ejected Jews from Jerusalem and forbade them to live there, the bit of north west England where I live was largely populated by Welsh people. The English tribes were just beginning to settle in the area, and, by the 8th century, English culture had come to dominate. What happened here was what happened in lots of other places subjected to population movements: mostly, people just intermarried and intermixed. Presumably the Welsh folk who really couldn't abide the English invasion moved further west.
But just suppose that some of those old North Welsh folk had spread out over Europe, but had always kept their religion, culture, sense of identity and a longing for their homeland; and, fifteen hundred years later, by a series of political chances, and supported by strong nations overseas, they'd managed to re-establish themselves back in England in a little new country of their own, that they called Yr Hen Ogledd - "Old North Wales"- that stretched from Kendal to Stoke. There'd been some violence during their occupation of the land, and the local councils at the time had advised English people to move out temporarily to other parts of England for their own safety. Do you think the Mancs and Scousers would be happy, sixty years later, to see their homes and land occupied by immigrant Welsh folk without any apparent possibility of return? And how would they react to foreigners telling them that they had nothing to complain about because there was plenty of England left for them to make their homes in - they could still live in Norfolk, Hampshire or Yorkshire?"
In the belief that he won't be able to resist reading this, as he seems preoccupied with this issue to the exclusion of all else, I'll stick a P.S. on this post just for him:
What I'm hoping for, exec_ceo, is really just a bit of empathy; something a little less black and white, in terms of your analysis. I don't think anyone now can, nor therefore should anyone try to, make Israel "un-happen". But there needs to be understanding as to why Palestinians feel as they do, and some accommodation towards them, if this thing isn't going fester on into future generations. Because there's no natural solution. Israel is far stronger than her Arab neighbours; but the Arabs are more numerous, and, even in Israel, their numbers are growing. Hence the reaction from people like Avigdor Liebermann and Yisrael Beteinu.
John
I enjoyed reading your analogy- it was interesting and insightful.
There are, however, a few things I disagree with, me being one of those with that "agenda", that is the agenda that Israel deserves to protect itself and live in security. (Notice I don't use the word 'Peace' because I have despaired of imagining it long ago.)
Suppose a constant population of those old North Welsh folk remained in North West England. Now suppose they were the FIRST to live there, then at some point, around the time of the Muslim conquests, came the English. Now suppose the old North Welsh didn't just mix and kinda dispersed, but were exiled in scored, documented by ancient historians.
Now- pay attention- this is the most important part- their entire culture and belief is BASED on the land of England. They pray every evening for the return to Stoneybridge or wherever that is you reside. They are persecuted, exiled, tortured and murdered for 2000 years for being old North Welsh. And yet a smaller, tangible population of them resided still in Stoneybridge.
Now, after a terrible event that wiped most of them out, they were given by the U.N, i.e the WORLD, the right for freedom and independence in North Wales. They were given a small chunk of the land, where they were a majority before any conflict erupted, and the English were given the rest. (And another fifty states.)
But the English would have none of it. Someone who we shall call the ?Mufti of London? signed a pact with Hitler to kill all Welshmen everywhere. And all the English tried to kill the Welshmen, and failed. Consequently, the Welshmen enlarged their area of control to span more that a tiny slither of land.
Some decades later, after several other attempts by the Englishmen to kill them all (NOT just in occupied Wales) the Welsh realized their mistake and injustice- yes, injustice- and tried to make some kind of deal with the English, and give them the part of the land given to them by the world (U.N)
But the English just kept killing them wherever they were- and refused to accept them having even an INCH of land, sacrificing their very own dream of a free state in the process.
At this point, after 22,000 dead and rockets and bombings from every direction for 60 years, the Welsh kinda stopped believing there could be peace, but settled for short term solutions for security
Meanwhile, France started developing nuclear weapons, all the while calling to their crowds "Death to Wales". While the entire world sat idly by, and the U.N invited France to give fancy speeches and clapped their hands in enthusiasm, enforcing in the average Welshman the feeling that he is hated and persecuted by the entire world, that he has no one to count on but himself, and his strength.
Now you see what?s it like to be a Welshman.