High Expectations for Obama's Speech in Egypt
Following on the heels of his meetings with a number of Middle East leaders, President Barack Obama travels next week to Egypt where, on June 4th, he will deliver a much anticipated speech to the Muslim world.
Already the topic of great speculation, there are several elements that should be considered by both the president and his audience in anticipation of his remarks.
First, expectations for the speech are high, and not without justification.
Throughout his short, but extraordinary, career, Obama has displayed a penchant for taking on big issues with big speeches. He rebounded from a defeat during the presidential primaries with a remarkable speech in New Hampshire that helped to define and infuse new hope into his campaign. When confronted with a media assault over his pastor's intemperate words, that threatened to derail his campaign, Obama responded with an inspiring speech on race, so insightful and eloquent that it will be quoted for generations.
As president, he has also taken on serious challenges with major speeches. His remarks before a joint session of Congress provided the new president the opportunity to lay out his plans to respond to the growing economic crisis. More recently, Obama travelled to Notre Dame University, the nation's premiere Catholic university, to appeal for greater civility and understanding in addressing the controversial issues of abortion and stem cell research. And when opponents persisted in deriding his decisions to ban the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, he confronted his critics directly in a speech delivered from the National Archives. With the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights as a backdrop, Obama made clear that his decisions to stop torture and indefinite imprisonment without judicial recourse were grounded in core American values derived from our Constitution.
With this background, it is reasonable for many across the Arab world to assume that Obama is coming to Cairo to deliver a "big speech." He has, after all, been planning and talking about this for over a year, since he first announced during the campaign his intention to travel abroad to speak directly to the Muslim world.
And since he is going to Cairo, at the heart of the Arab world, it is also reasonable that there are high expectations that the president will speak about the core Arab concern -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not in passing. The regional context demands much more.
This introduces a second set of factors that need be considered.
President Obama's election created hope among many Arabs and Muslims, but not all. A recent poll we, at Zogby International, conducted in six Arab countries shows that in Morocco, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Obama is viewed quite favorably, and there is appreciation for early steps he has taken to restore America's image and rebuild US-Arab relations. But in Egypt and Jordan, deep skepticism remains.
Therefore, when the president travels to Egypt, it is important to recognize that he will face a nation hardened in its negative view of the US and its role in the region, and unconvinced that this or any American president can or will change policy.
Most Egyptians still view the US unfavorably. Three-quarters give President Obama a negative job rating for his first three months in office, and the same percentage say that they do not believe that he will be "evenhanded in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict" -- the issue which almost 6 in 10 Egyptians say is the most critical challenge facing their region.
All this points to the steep hill which President Obama must climb as he struggles to convince a weary Egyptian and Arab public that he is committed to changing direction in the wake of failed US leadership that preceded his ascent to the Oval Office. While he might have faced a more supportive audience in the United Arab Emirates or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is Egypt where attitudes toward America are harshest that Obama faces his greatest challenge, and it is here that the US President has chosen to deliver his speech. It is Egypt that is allied with the US, shares borders with Israel and has signed peace agreements with that state. It is in Egypt that public opinion has been the most soured by Israeli behavior (especially in the wake of the Gaza wars of 2006 and 2009), is least convinced of the prospects that a just peace can be established and of the ability of the US to be evenhanded.
All this being said, it is precisely because of the persistence of these strong negative attitudes that Obama's decision to go to Egypt was the right choice. It is there that the US President must convince skeptical Arabs that the change he promised is real. Given Egypt's sheer size and the importance of its role in the region, if President Obama can't sell his message there it may not have its desired impact anywhere.
What emerges from these considerations is the fact that despite the many domestic challenges facing this new president, he is determined to confront, head-on, a major foreign policy issue and to do so, as he did at Notre Dame, directly and dramatically. And he has chosen to do this where the audience may be the hardest to convince and where the change he has promised is most urgently sought.
This is why expectations are high and dare not be let down. This speech must be more than banal clichés ("we are not at war with Muslims") or a repetition of hollow visions. It must be bigger, more consequential and more substantial. It is a tall order, but given Obama's modus operandi, I'm counting on him to prove me right.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Pray for O -
Americans for Israel are assembling their weapons of mass destruction to take down any and all who challenge the status quo.
Kinsley takes on Oprah. Woodward has a new insider expose on Obama.-- expect lots of mud unless this president comes around on Israeli expansionism.
Words are nice, actions are of course more important.
I see from today's NY Times that the Administration is exploring what symbolic actions it might take regarding its concern about settlements.
Problem I think is that the settlements aren't symbolic.
Barack has a pretty tough job ahead of him in the middle East, especially since he'll be dealing with non - democracies;- i.e. a bunch of medieval princes, pretenders to thrones (blame the British), life presidents (Mubarak) and the like ... all looking for validation, and without the slightest intent of yielding an inch to the democratic way.
Every dictator, prince ... will roll out his heir - apparent to get Baracks blessing, seal the dungeons and divert much needed funds better spent feeding the poor ... and as soon as POTUS leaves, they'll return to their ways.
That, I guess, is the way of the world - expect much, offer little.
WHAT CAN THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD DO? TALK TRUTH TO POWER.
TELL THE WORLD THAT WARS HAVE TO STOP. CANNOT BE AFFORDED. ISRAEL NEEDS TO KNOW IT CAN'T ATTACK IRAN. US CANNOT AFFORD TO GIVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY TO EGYPT, JORDAN, AND ISRAEL INDEFINITELY.
The thing with pragmatists is that they don't know how to lose. That is the United States of America. America does not know how to lose and it is not going to start over what are minor problems with Israel and Iran. After enduring a Cold War for over fifty years, battles were won and lost, but the overall struggle succeeded. Now it is time to wrap up a lot of loose strings because bigger problems are ahead. The whole world is overall united. The way that pragmatists work is to make sure that information is out and that negotiations are open and complete.
Obama should say:
1. Millions of Muslims have moved to the U.S. because they are free and have unlimited opportunity
2. The U.S. is an ally of the Muslim world, we stopped the genocide in Yugoslavia, saved Kuwait from Saddam Hussain, and chaired the Oslo peace accords until the Palestinians broke all the treaties
3. We believe women are equal to men, and deserve the same protection and opportunities
4. Muslims should condemn terror and speak out against it wherever it occurrs
5. Suicide Terrorism is genocide, stop calling these killers "martyrs" and fight the clerics, media, and governments that support it
6. We liberated millions of Muslims from Saddam Hussain and are sacrificing big to set up a democracy there
7. Israel has the right to be a Jewish democracy, you must stop the hate and vitriol
8. We believe Muslims have the right to live freely in democracies, and M.E. governments should represent the people, not vice versa
9. Question your media, so much of what you get is false.
Add to your lists:
1. Is.raeli govt. should all settlement growth...O
2. Is.raeli govt. should stop making Palestinians living in ghettos and stop the civilian killings
3. Is.raeli govt. should stop photoshoping woman from the photos to give 'equal rights' to all women
4. Is.raeli govt. should prevent incidences like woman beaten in bus because she refused to sit in back to give 'equal rights' to all women
5. Is.raeli govt. should consor rabbis who call 'woman are like donkeys' to give 'equal rights' to all women
See the list is quiet comparable when someone lays out the facts...
In Israel, women enjoy full and equal rights. In most Arab countries, including those living under the PA/Hamas dictatorship, women face honor killings, no rights of divorce, and discrimination in education and jobs. In Israel, you will find women in senior positions in government, education, and in business. So your post is not only very poorly written, but it is completely without any factual basis or context.
Palestinian Arab resentment is at teh heart opf teh Middle East dilemma.
Arabs are resentful because property was taken from them for no compensation. If someone took your property and didn't pay you for it wouldn't you be ticked off?
The United Nations created the middle east problem in 1948. The UN should solve it. The UN took land from Palestinians and gave it to Jews, many of whom had been displaced as a result of nazi atrocities, to establish a country in a place that had been their ancestral homeland.
Israelis are victims too. They haven't had a day of peace since the UN established their state. If this was house and nothing worked right you'd insist that the builder fix it.
The United Nations needs to set up a "Middle East Compensation Commission" where people who have viable claims can come forward, present adequate proof and get fully and justly compensated in exchange for a "Full Release of Claims". Of course there would be some adjustment of borders and two states but NO MORE BLOODSHED. This concept for the resolution of the conflict is based upon the Legal Doctrine of Eminent Domain which is embodied in the 5th Amendment to our Constitution. Jews who lost property due to expulsions would also be eligible for compensation.
The funds would come from UN sources, such as member states and benefactors.
Since as many Jews were expelled without property from the surrounding Arab countries as there were Palestinians who were expelled, simply left, or lost their property due to their taking up arms and fighting the Israelis, compensation should be about the same. I especially want to see compensation to the Jews who were forced out of E. Jerusalem by Jordan. They had lived there for centuries and had committed no crimes and had no intention of fighting the government. They were expelled on 24 hours notice without property.
As I suggested, ALL people who lost property should receive just compensation.
As far as settlements go, if borders are adjusted and so-called settlers find themselves in Palestine they can opt to stay, and they'd be Palestinian Jews, or they can opt to relocate to Israel. I don't see why Palestine needs to be "Juden rein".
Interestingly enough, I was in Damascus a couple of years ago in the "quarter".
Most of the houses there are unoccupied. They are a few hardy folk still there who didn't move.
I asked a local how come no one was living in them.
He said they belonged to folks who moved to Palestine.
I said but after all these years wouldn't the government expropiate them for use by someone else? He gave me a puzzled look and said but these people own them.
"...as many Jews were expelled without property..
"...as there were Palestinians who were expelled, simply left, or lost their property due to their taking up arms and fighting the Israelis..
Hypocrisy and racism:
Noted.
He stood behind the U.S. Constitutuion and proposed a detention system outside of the law of the constitution. Read his speech.
How many square feet of construction have been completed in the "settlements" since the administration asked them to stop?
That's what they will ask him and that's all they will hear.
Concern about the official Egyptian attitude toward the United States. Hmmm. Egypt is the second-largest recipient of US foreign aid dollars, yet frequently votes in opposition to the US in the United Nations; has a sorry human rights record as regards treatment of Coptic Christians and gays; and state-controlled Egyptian media publishes anti-Semitic cartoons and articles that would do Goebbels and Streicher proud. Egypt will not let the "Palestinians" out of the Gaza hellhole (that Egypt controlled between 1949 and 1967, incidentally) into Egypt proper for jobs, homes and opportunity. We're worried about THAT Egypt's opinion of us. Interesting. While I found the Bush years to be tedious and atrocious, I do not find much to commend in Egypt's policies either. Parts of the Islamic world have a LOT of work to do in terms of human rights, dignity, and individual liberty. Israel is a bright beacon of democracy in a VERY dark neighbourh
I see it as a little drama by Obama. I do not see or expect much change in policy from Bush.
Will he blame everything on the US?
he can hanle it.
he can handle it..
If Egypt is so concerned about the situation in Gaza, land which they ceded to Israel, why don't they just agree to reclaim it? The same goes for Jordan with regard to the West Bank.
This is the most sensible middle east strategy for Obama to pursue. Egypt and Jordan should be cajoled into reannexing the lands they surrendered in 1967 (less East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlements).
A Palestinian state is just not going to happen.
A Palestinian state would be accepted and supported by more states than Israel does now.
The international community is invested in a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.
Its already happening.
He will deliver his speech. Some will like it and others wil criticize. He has made his rounds. I agree that the words need to show action.
For the first time in 45 years, the world will listen to the speech by an American president.
Proud of it.
Ohhh Please Dp just a little research before you say these things
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
