Obama Does Cairo
- Thread starter padraig (u.s.)
- Start date
Impressive. He really changes the tone. The line I recall vividly was:
"Our bond with Israel is unbreakable. The situation in Palestine is intolerable."
Obama is right that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the principal contradiction (to borrow a term from Mao) in the middle east, and that America's problems with the Muslim world organize around that.
"Our bond with Israel is unbreakable. The situation in Palestine is intolerable."
Obama is right that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the principal contradiction (to borrow a term from Mao) in the middle east, and that America's problems with the Muslim world organize around that.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
yeah he gives a fine speech of course. tho that's nothing new. as ever he's a master of flipping the most sensitive issues into "our interests should unite us more than our divisions" type thing. nifty Koran quotes (& hey! didja know Jefferson kept a Koran in his library? the U.S & Islam, BFF!).
the bit on Israel/Palestine was indeed very fine, as good as you're going to get from a major U.S. politician (that goes for a lot of it, actually). I mean, we'll see. I think a massive problem, again, is that neither side has the capability to enforce promises made on their own people.
the line - "violent resistance is wrong & never succeeds" - the former is of course debatable & dependent on context, but the latter is flatly wrong. violent resistance succeeds all the time. tho I guess it depends on what you mean by "success".
& of course, as he himself acknowledged, it was just a speech. or the opening of a dialogue, as I think he'd prefer.
did he say that? I don't think so. I also don't know if it's true. or perhaps you could elaborate.
the bit on Israel/Palestine was indeed very fine, as good as you're going to get from a major U.S. politician (that goes for a lot of it, actually). I mean, we'll see. I think a massive problem, again, is that neither side has the capability to enforce promises made on their own people.
the line - "violent resistance is wrong & never succeeds" - the former is of course debatable & dependent on context, but the latter is flatly wrong. violent resistance succeeds all the time. tho I guess it depends on what you mean by "success".
& of course, as he himself acknowledged, it was just a speech. or the opening of a dialogue, as I think he'd prefer.
did he say that? I don't think so. I also don't know if it's true. or perhaps you could elaborate.
D
droid
Guest
Interesting words on I/P. Most liberal speech on the topic from a US president since Carter - especially coming out of Cairo... that said, his pre-election 'Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel' line was probably one of the most pro-zionist staements ever publicly expressed by a US president - so maybe he's just going for balance.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Didn't his campaign people climb down from that almost immediately? Certainly the AIPAC types who crowd around certain websites saw it as an example of his duplicity, rather than fidelity to Israel.
Unfortunately, Obama didn't quote Mao in his Cairo speech. What I think he understands, though, is that the I/P antagonism is the principle axis around which anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world organizes... one of the reasons (I would say) why the US is compelled to support people like Mubarak is because of its politically-draining strategic commitment to Israel... the I/P conflict is in fact destabilizing for the whole region, and the US will never have the leverage it wants in the middle east until it finds a way to get itself (and Israel) out of this strategic straitjacket...
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I reckon it's pragmatic. I mean he's got to give them something so they'll come to the table. even if he backed off of it.
also it's much easier to see the Israelis giving up the West Bank settlements than it is to see them giving up East Jerusalem. both ideologically & via feet on the ground - Jews are 1/10th of the West Bank but they're over 40% of East Jerusalem. I just can't envision it happening (which, note, is not the same as saying I'm in favor - morally or pragmatically - of them retaining it).
I wonder also if the political will exists in Israel for a major showdown w/the settlers & their supporters, who would definitely force the issue if push came to shove.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I think that is selling the American talent for making ourselves unpopular short. Certainly I/P is one of (& perhaps foremost among) the principal axes but certainly not the only one. pre-2003 I I feel your point would've been more cogent but even then there was the enormous legacy of Western colonialism/imperialism & US/USSR Cold War position jockeying.
I'm also dubious that I/P is a central issue for most Muslims (other than radical Islamists) in Pakistan, Indonesia, Bosnia etc. an issue, surely, but not the principal one. they also their own reasons to dislike the U.S. - meddling in their own countries, mainly. it seems Islamists also spend the most time fighting their own regimes, whether or not those regimes take a hard line on Israel.
also remember - for a considerable number of Muslims (if not a majority), especially among those who are most strongly anti-American - the only solution to I/P is no Israel. no compromise will ever be good enough.
True, there are a great many reasons why people in the middle east might dislike the US, but I believe the I/P antagonism is the main axis around which it organizes... and polarizes: this image of injustice, oppression. I think if you remove that, the rhetorical sting is at least somewhat defanged.
Attitudes can change surprisingly quickly...
Attitudes can change surprisingly quickly...
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I just have to disagree w/you, I guess. it is a serious issue, no doubt, but somehow Egyptians managed to deal with it when Sadat made a separate piece & left the Palestinians twisting in the wind. ditto the Bedouin segment of the Jordanian population (who of course have all kinds of tensions w/the Palestinian Jordanians).
I also think it's much more complicated than you make it out. the Arabs - & obviously they aren't the only people for whom this is true - have a long history of hating each other as much if not moreso than anyone else. that "organization" is always tenuous, unstable. further, the U.S. is merely the latest in a long line of outsiders meddling in Arab affairs - British, Turks, etc
yeah. things could get worse. much worse.
If you look around the world at the major trouble spots, one common theme emerges: the British were there!
You seem determinedly pessimistic...
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
well you guys are the dons of this messing up huge chunks of the world business, no doubt.
there's a reason not to be? I might say you're naively optimistic. I guess it doesn't matter either way. I certainly don't relish being pessimistic. I might ask what you base your outlook on...?
spend 5 minutes talking to my (orthodox, settler) dad & I feel like you'd be pessimistic too...
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
you're kidding man cos I know plenty of liberal Jews & Israelis too & not a single one I talk to is enthusiastic about the future.
if anything they're even more pessimistic than I am.
D
droid
Guest
hmmm... Id suggest that support for Israel has been so historically important for the US's strategic dominance of the region that the political considerations are secondary. Destabalisation (within limits) is the desired result. Israel largely took over over Iran's role as 'local policemen on the beat', whose (highly subsidised) strategic function is essentially to wield the biggest stick and to keep the natives in line whilst the US supports a web of dictators who keep populations in check whilst allowing the oil to flow.
So Israel is an instrument of US control in the region and also a rallying point for resistance to that control. A resolution to the conflict followed by (presumably) some kind of demilitarisation in the region as part of a peace deal would be highly damaging to US strategic concerns IMO.
On the assertion of 'most Muslims want to destroy Israel', I think that the diplomatic record, including repeated acceptance of peace proposals by Arab governments and surveys of populations (inc. the Palestinians) shows a willingness to tolerate (if not accept) the presence of a non-belligerent Israel in the mid east.
Uh-huh.
Perhaps if we're talking about India, Pakistan, etc. the I/P issue might not have as much weight, but certainly (and the current polls are reflecting this), in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. this is the number one issue America must deal with to improve relations in the Middle East. For instance, Lebanon is about to go to elections so are probably concerned that if they vote for a Hezbollah coalition government if the U.S. are going to be cool with that.
This seems too simplistic... America's present-day relationship with Israel is a lot to do with domestic politics and the power of AIPAC; it isn't a pure geostrategic calculation. I agree with Mearsheimer and Walt on this: there is a way in which the present situation is damaging to US interests. The dictators keep the natives in line, not Israel, while Israel serves as a rallying-point for pan-Arabism (cf. Nasser).
Egypt remains the only country in the middle east to maintain anything like normal diplomatic relations with Israel... in the teeth of Egyptian public opinion (cf Sadat). The basic situation is a cycle of violence which is fueled by Israeli paranoia and aggression, but which is not wholly one-sided; there are psycho-cultural factors in play here which have deepened and ramified over time. But this a matter of record and contention. The key point is that the situation needs to change... and Obama seems resolved to change it. Perhaps I am naive, but I feel optimistic - at least, things look brighter than they did.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
certainly true, if a bit oversimplified.
I would never say most - & again I think it makes more sense to talk about Arabs rather than Muslims - just a significant minority. setting aside whether being "tolerated" is acceptable.
re: the diplomatic record - it is mixed, on both sides (& of course varies also by country). which is unsurprising, as that is diplomacy. "repeated acceptance of peace proposals" - to what are you referring, specifically? the treaties? Oslo? all something else? all of the above?
if you have handy links I'd like to see some of those surveys.
"non-belligerent" can be difficult to define.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
this is really where you're losing me. Pan-Arabism? are you serious man? that was a mess even when Nasser was alive. what do you back that up with, if anything? even leaving out that Iran isn't an Arab country.
Jesus, do you know what holds up those relations? billions & billions of $ in yearly U.S. aid to Egypt, mate (Israeli military deterrence - paranoia, as you might put it - has something to do w/it too). I would also suggest that Egyptians have more problems with their own regime than they do with Israel. & that the U.S. is not supporting that regime, in the main, b/c it's kept the peace w/Israel.
to the rest - yeah, it's all the Israelis' fault. right. them & their unwarranted paranoia. I'm glad you managed to admit it's not "wholly one-sided". that was generous of you. *EDIT* before Droid goes apeshit I'm not suggesting they haven't done a lot of egregious stuff & that aren't in much stronger militarily. just that their paranoia is, yunno, kinda justified.
Last edited:
D
droid
Guest
Sure, its more complex now, that's why I said 'historically' - but the bare facts remain. The US does not support Israel out of principle or internal pressure, though the second is a factor. It supports Israel primarily because such support offers them strategic advantages in accessing the 'glittering prize' of mid east energy resources.
By diplomatic record I am specifically referring to various peace proposals down through the years.
Sorry for not elaborating more here or providing the usual links. Deadlines...
Certainly the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 springs to mind, Egypt and Jordan accepting 242 in the wake of the 6 day war, ... there's some very intriguing stuff in the record of UN general assembly resolutions as well.