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.
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.
did he say that? I don't think so. I also don't know if it's true. or perhaps you could elaborate.
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.
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...
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...
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...
well you guys are the dons of this messing up huge chunks of the world business, no doubt.
if you spent time talking to my (orthodox, settler) dad you'd probably feel pessimistic too.
We know different Israeli's...
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...
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.
yeah. things could get worse. much worse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...