Obama’s Cairo Speech: Telling All Sides What They Don’t Want To Hear
A couple of quick points on the big speech Obama just wrapped up in Cairo. You can read the full text as prepared for delivery right here.
Perhaps the most striking thing about Obama’s speech was his refusal to fudge his discussion politically difficult issues or conflicts. He told his Arab audience plenty of things that they didn’t want to hear. He reaffirmed the United States’ “unbreakable” bond with Israel, which he said was “based upon cultural and historical ties.” He strongly condemned anti-Semitism, Holocaust-denial, 9/11-denial, and anti-Israeli terrorism.
Obama insisted on an unflinching recognition of Jewish suffering alongside that of Palestinians — in a speech delivered in Cairo. As Ira Forman, the head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, put it: “The President made very clear to the Arab world that he was going to continue to prioritize Israel’s peace and security.”
At the same time, Obama forcefully reiterated points that some in the pro-Israel camp certainly didn’t want to hear — things that will make Netanyahu very queasy. He reiterated his demand that Israeli settlements stop, saying the United States “does not accept” their “legitimacy.” He cast the settlements as a barrier to Palestine’s right to exist, placing it on a moral par with Israel’s right to exist. He restated the position that the only route to peace is through two states.
Obama didn’t flinch from making these points, even though the growing sense that Obama is going to demand real concessions from Israel is becoming politically difficult at home
Nor did Obama take the easy way out while discussing other national security positions that are creating domestic political turbulence. He reminded the Arab world that he had closed Guantanamo Bay, which is polling badly for the White House right now, and restated his unequivocal prohibition of torture, using that word without apology.
Those are some first thoughts. Now you tell me what to think.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
It is so refreshing to hear simple honesty coming from the mouth of an American president. Every thing he said was true. Everyone listening, in the room/teevee/internet, knew it was true, but no world leader had ever said all of those things out loud in public before.
He provided the solid footing from which real progress can be made.
I know he’s taken political and popularity hits over Gitmo, but I love the man – he will not let that stop him from doing what he thinks is right.
I really love this president because despite all the **** the purists throw at him from the left, he is still committed to telling the truth no matter what it costs him. The only thing he won’t do, from what I can tell, is tell the truth recklessly and in a way that is potentially harmful rather than positive.
As with all things Obama, watch the double-speak. He says he would “prioritize Israel’s peace and security”
He just said the other day that Iran should be able to continue its nuclear program, so long as it’s for electrical power and what-not.
Iran is on the verge of becoming nuclear. Its government has stated emphatically, time and time again, that the best possible scenario for the region is to have Israel wiped from the face of the earth. Iran is an enemy of the free world.
Now I ask you, does anyone with a sense of realism seriously believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology solely for the purpose of generating electricity? Sounds like this is just a punt to the inevitable lame-duck UN resolution “condeming” the program—a slap on the wrist.
Meanwhile, I don’t believe Israelis are feeling peaceful and secure.
Here in sunny Saudi Arabia, we watched it live on AlJazeera. He was interrupted by several standing ovations. He reminded the Muslim world that fundamentalist terrorists killed far more muslims than christian. He called for women’s rights, religious dialogue and tolerance, and yes, freedom. He spent very little time on Iran, though Khamenei issued a pre-speech rebuttal. Overall, Al Jazeera gave very positive coverage. One amusing moment from my point of view was in a follow-up with a Hamas representative, who refused to repudiate violence against israel, AND AT THE SAME TIME compared the speech to “I have a Dream!”
He did well citing the Koran in a part of the world where many have memorized it. He also reminded the Arab world that not only are there 7 million muslims in America, they have a relatively high standard of living compared to the rest of the american population, and while he didn’t remind the audience that the american muslims have a whole boatload of freedoms that no muslim in this part of the world has, you can bet the listeners knew that. He also took little jabs at some of the European countries, reminding them that hejab is an option in the usa, which it is not in French or even Turkish public life.
He also refused to repudiate his preference for, if not democracy, at least political representation, in a country where there is neither, so good for him. Of coures, the egyptians receive quite a bit of american aid, so in that sense they really aren’t entitled to say too much! Also, it was a shot at the Saudis, who are even more repressive than the Egyptians, and are far less diverse.
I think we’ll have to see what the long term brings. The usa now has to follow up.
Actually, Samuel, Iran has every reason (and every right) to want nuclear energy and control the fuel cycle. A brief history lesson is in order:
1) Iran’s revolution had populist beginnings. Electrification is one of the few real successes the regime can point to, and the demographic bulge is threatening to undo it. They need lots more electric generation if they are to maintain the clerical regime another 30 years.
2) Meanwhile, with oil at $60 a barrel and over, the mullahs have every incentive to sell the oil from their western region instead of burning it for electricity. They use their natural gas reserves to pressurize oil extraction and import Caspian oil for domestic consumption.
3) Iran has native supplies of uranium and centuries of dependence on Russia, their biggest and nearest geopolitical rival, for technology. Buying the fuel from Russia is not an option; this is a proud, independent culture we’re dealing with.
4) Ahmadinejad has little real power in the Iranian system. He’s actually LESS powerful than most American state governors. The commander-in-chief of Iran’s military is Ayatollah Khamenei, who issued a fatwa years ago prohibiting the state from developing nuclear weapons, calling them “un-Islamic.”
So yeah, I’m not convinced that Iran even wants the bomb. Moreover, I’m very certain the regime has a legitimate interest in nuclear power.
Nothing unexpected here. The pro-Israel lobby (better understood as the pro-Likud or pro-hardline lobby) has been gearing up for a while to counter any significant alteration in the status quo developed particularly over the last eight years. And the fundamental “argument” advanced – “the Palestinians and Iranians are the bad guys so why are you talking about Israel, who might get attacked any second, at all?” – is equally predictable given that it has been effective as the main propaganda line for some decades now.
We can recall, as the war in Iraq was being geared up and allies courted, that Tony Blair tried to insist that the basic problem in the region was the Palestinian issue and that it should be seriously and profitably addressed before any military action in Iraq was considered. He was right, but he got nowhere on this other than a bit of window dressing in a few speeches (which, as is verified above, were designed to mislead rather than state the truth of US policy). At that time, as Woodward noted, Colin Powell returned to his office one day and remarked that Bush had fallen under the sway “of the JINSA crowd”.
Obama will have a lot of organized, vocal and effective opposition here and it is not simply brave of his administration to take it on, it’s also absolutely necessary.
Nice to see a firsthand account from bint. I’m still not certain where Obama is getting his 7 million muslims number, however. Census.gov puts the number at a little over 2 million.
.
I agree we’ll have to see what the long term will bring but I think the muslim world will need to follow up more than America does. Even by bint’s account, muslim talking heads are still refusing to repudiate attacks on Israel. It’s a two way street my friend.
It is going to be difficult for Obama to make any headway in the Middle East when he is battling ideologues not only in the Middle East, but also here at home.
Check this clip out of Fox News, kind of missing the point on dealing with radical Muslims.
http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=1562
“I’m still not certain where Obama is getting his 7 million muslims number, however. Census.gov puts the number at a little over 2 million.”
CAIR and other American Islamic organizations put the number at 6-7M. My guess is that the number is probably somewhere in the middle of both of those figures…probably closer to 3M. But since there is no definitive number and because Obama was speaking in the Middle East with a message directed to a Muslim audience, he went with the higher estimate. I don’t see much wrong with that. The larger point is still valid – we have plenty of Muslims in our country and we’ve accepted them just fine. (at least in most places we have – and radicalization among US Muslims is pretty low, likely because we accept them as neighbors and fellow citizens)
This man has given us a lesson in History. He covered all the important points and has demonstrated to the world that he is a man of principles. He did not evade sensitive issues and has illustrated the ability and desire to work with all parties. The American people should be proud to have someone like him representing us.