Obama Middle East on The Huffington Post

Tony Blair Defends Obama On Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

2009-11-29T10:03:55Z

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair came to President Barack Obama's defense on Sunday after a scathing New York Times editorial accused the White House of losing legitimacy and strategic standing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Blair urged, above all, patience in resolving a problem that has confounded so many previous administrations. noting, also, how long it took to resolve the discord in Northern Ireland. More subtly, he contrasted Obama's commitment to the issue to that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, arguing the importance of setting a "strategic objective" for the region at the onset of the administration.

Asked if he agreed with the NYT editorial, which claimed that "Obama's own credibility [on Israel-Palestine] is so diminished... that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever," Blair replied:

I don't, actually. I mean, it won't surprise you to know. I think that, first of all, let me tell you that I have worked with Senator George Mitchell on the Northern Ireland peace negotiations. We work together very closely. He is, in my view, one of the most skilled and strategic negotiators I've ever come across. Secondly, I think President Obama, Secretary Clinton are completely committed to doing this. But third and perhaps most important of all, I went through situations in times in the Northern Ireland process where people were convinced the thing was going to fail. Where even at times, I found it difficult to see a way through. But you know, the thing is, there is a way through here. Because in fact both parties want to achieve a two-state solution.

Actually, the Palestinians have made significant progress on security. in fact, the Israelis are prepared, in my view, to change significantly their posture on the West Bank. And if we can get [captured Israeli soldier] Corporal Shalit released, than a major change in the way that we view Gaza. It's not without hope. And here's the thing... There is no alternative but to keep trying. The alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution and that will, I assure you, be a hell of a fight. So I think when we look at the various strands of negativity there are around at the moment and there always are in these negotiations, there are, nonetheless, positives. We've got to seize on them, work on them, and make sure that we bring about a situation in which the central strategic objective of President Obama, which is right at the outset of his administration, to make this process count and work is achieved.

And I do emphasize that as well. The president set this at the beginning. This is, to my mind, the big difference from what has come before. At the very beginning of this administration, he set that as a core strategic objective. I have absolutely no doubt he holds to that and whatever the difficulties and the obstacles; we have to find a way through. And personally, although as I say I am optimist by nature, I believe we will.

HERE'S VIDEO OF BLAIR ON CNN:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

James Zogby: Obama's Next Middle East Challenge

2009-10-02T17:47:09Z

With the dust having settled following President Obama's New York meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a sober assessment of what actually happened, and what may happen next, is in order.

In the days following the bilateral meetings, the trilateral session and President Obama's speech to the General Assembly, reactions were predictable. The Israeli side, taking their cue from Netanyahu, crowed, while much of the Arab media both criticized Obama for "caving in" in the face of Israeli intransigence, and decried the humiliation of Abbas -- who was seen as having been abandoned by the U.S. on the critical issue of settlements.

In the U.S., reactions varied, ranging from supporters of the White House who keyed in on Obama's "impatience" and "sense of urgency", to critics who termed the president's performance weak and indecisive.

Several observations must be made:

- The notion that Netanyahu won and Abbas lost may be right, but only because this was a widely shared perception which will, no doubt, have political consequences, at least in the short term. The hard-line right in Israel feels emboldened, as is evidenced by some of Netanyahu's own comments and the provocative behavior of some of his supporters. Similarly, the Palestinian Authority's hard-line opponents have also felt emboldened, stepping up their criticism of Abbas' leadership.

- The claim that Obama "blinked" because Israel refused to accept a settlement freeze, thereby frustrating the president's efforts to elicit parallel confidence-building gestures from the Arab states, creating the positive environment that would have "kick started" negotiations, may also be true. But only to a degree. It can also be argued that the United States president was attempting to make the best of a bad situation by pressing forward with his three-way meeting in which he expressed his impatience and declared his determination to move forward to permanent status negotiations. How much worse would it have been, one might reasonably ask, had the president done nothing and appeared to be surrendering to a troubled impasse.

- In this context, it is important to recall that in his public and private remarks Obama made clear his intention not just to move to "negotiations without preconditions" (which is what Netanyahu may have wanted), but to move to negotiations that would address "all outstanding issues" and be based on "the historical record of past negotiations" dealing with "permanent status issues: security, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem" (which is what Netanyahu clearly did not want). And, Obama did not forsake his position that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements".

- This said, it appears that while Netanyahu can boast of emerging as "victor" from this round, it may be both short lived and "hollow". The negotiations he sought were to have been limited to security cooperation and economic peace. This is not what he will get. Instead, it was Obama who laid down firm markers for the content and direction of the next round.

- The president's "impatience" and "sense of urgency" should also be noted, for two reasons. Time is not on the side of peacemaking. As long as Israel drags its feet and continues to establish "facts on the ground", a peace agreement becomes more difficult to achieve. And, given the continuing dangers posed by other regional concerns, delay makes moving toward a resolution of the conflict more necessary, and at the same time, more complicated.

Because, as Obama continues to assert, a comprehensive regional peace is not just an Israeli and Arab concern, but a matter of U.S. national security interests, he insists that he is redoubling his efforts to push his team to get negotiations underway in the coming weeks.

For now, Mitchell will continue with U.S.-Israel and U.S.-Palestinian bilateral talks. As the president made clear, these intensive consultations will continue for but a short time. By mid-October, Mitchell is to report to Secretary of State Clinton, who, in turn will give a progress report to the president. Should the impasse remain, and that is the likely scenario, many believe that Obama will need to step forward making a long-awaited intervention -- laying out a plan of his own. It is at this point that the mettle of the Obama administration will truly be tested.

The bottom line to all of this is that, as unsettling and confusing as the New York events may have been, they are but a step in a longer process, setting the stage for a more substantial challenge and, possibly, another showdown in the weeks ahead, where another setback will not be an option.

Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater: Let's Get Peace Moving Again!

2009-09-24T12:55:15Z

There's growing buzz in Washington that President Obama will publicly offer a plan for resuming Middle East peace talks at the opening of the UN General Assembly. Coincidentally, the General Assembly falls right in the middle of the High Holy Days, a time when taking steps toward peace in the Middle East will have real resonance for the American Jewish community -- a majority of which believes a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be the best way to secure Israel's future.

Surely Obama and his administration understand, however, that there is a real political risk to any steps he might take, particularly any that include putting pressure on Israel and its neighbors to build the mutual trust that has so badly broken down in recent years.

But the president appears to understand something crucial to both the peace process and the upcoming Jewish holy days: it is not enough to want something, to think about it, to talk about it - action is required if we really want change.

Confidence-building measures are a prerequisite for successful negotiations between any two warring parties, but the very idea has raised hackles among some Jews here and in Israel. They're not accustomed to a U.S. president asking very much of Israel.

Obama's opponents try to fend off American pressure by asking: should the United States and its Jewish community get involved in resolving a conflict 10,000 miles away? Shouldn't we leave Israelis and their neighbors to work out their problems on their own? They fail to consider that when American administrations align themselves too closely with official Israeli positions, the peace process gets nowhere -- and that American Jews have a responsibility to their Israeli brethren.

When we gather during our holidays to reflect on the year past and resolve to live a better life in the year to come, our prayers don't speak of what "I" have done or will do. Our prayers speak of what "we," the whole Jewish community, have done and what we will do to make a better tomorrow. As our rabbis affirmed many centuries ago: "All Jews are interwoven, each with the other." American Jews have a responsibility to do as much as we can to bring peace and security to the Jewish State.

At the same time, we must not restrict our circle of concern to Jews alone. Our concern must also be for this country, for America. Promoting peace is not just a moral virtue -- it's also real politik, simple self-interest, because festering conflict anywhere can all too easily ripple out to affect people everywhere -- and in particular, a nation currently engaged in two wars in the neighborhood where Israel makes its home.

Surely that's why the Obama administration has been so intent from its first day in office on moving Israelis and Palestinians toward peace. It's the right thing to do for the only world power strong enough to make peace happen -- but it's also in America's self-interest. The consequences of continued strife in the Middle East make it harder in many lands for the U.S. to protect and promote our own needs.

So in the next few weeks, the president will be presenting a plan to revitalize the desperately-needed but perennially hamstrung peace process. Obama has said clearly and convincingly that he has a deep concern for the peace and safety of Israel, the Palestinians and of its neighbors, and that this country has no intention of abandoning its special relationship with the Jewish State.

But President Obama has also said that good friends should be honest with each other and that he intends to be honest with Israel -- and that looking out for Israel means calling on her to take difficult steps and make painful compromise.

It is important that a growing numbers of American Jews realize that the president's policies represent the best way to fulfill this country's responsibilities to their fellow Jews in Israel. Three-quarters of us want to see a two-state solution to the conflict, and two-thirds of us have said that we would be willing to see the president put pressure on the sides to achieve that solution.

But simply put, that is not enough. As we celebrate the sweetness of a new year, we must change our support into action and pray, as the great American rabbi and theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel once said, with our feet.

The voices of dissent are loud, organized and well-known. We have to meet this dissent with our own strength, our own numbers and see to it that the facts of the matter -- the simple truth that the vast majority of the American Jewish public supports the president's stated policy goals -- become just as well-known as the opposition.

Just as the president has adopted a sense of urgency, understanding that he may be the last American president with the political capacity to act on a two-state solution, we too must acknowledge that the opportunity for peace is not limitless. If we would see President Obama succeed, if we would see this new year represent a chance for a true new beginning in Israel, we must act now.

(This piece also appeared on the Los Angeles Jewish Journal website.)

Amjad Atallah: The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Lays Out Goals for Middle East Peace at the UN

2009-09-23T11:18:00Z

For the last 24 hours, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was basking in the glow of patriotic support by his most ardent right wing supporters for standing up to the United States at yesterday's trilateral meeting. Prior to his meeting with President Obama and President Abbas, Netanyahu's aides were bragging that he would tell both leaders to their face that he had no intention of implementing a settlement freeze.

Minutes ago, the glow ended.

President Obama just gave his speech before the world at the United Nations General Assembly and he made at least four things clear as far as Middle East peace is concerned.

The United States joins the rest of the world in rejecting Israeli settlement activity.

The United States will insist on the re-launching of permanent status negotiations, without preconditions, on security for both Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees, and Jerusalem in order to end the occupation that began in 1967 and create a Palestinian state.

The United States seeks peace on ALL fronts and will conduct bilateral negotiations side by side with multi-lateral negotiations.

The United States views Israeli and Palestinian state rights in the same light, and views Israeli and Palestinian lives on the same moral plane.

Second-guessing in Israel will begin now, but it is too late. The President has just articulated United States goals to the world -- goals consistent with almost every other nation's -- within the context of a speech reintroducing the United States as a global leader.

Time for the Israelis and Palestinians to begin dusting off all their permanent status plans that have been gathering dust for more than a decade.

Judge for yourself, I've pasted the excerpt here:

"I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts by both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

The time has come to re-launch negotiations - without preconditions - that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security - a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns - to break the cycle of insecurity and despair - all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God's children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why - even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days - I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace."

Steve Clemons: Putting Lipstick on a Middle East Pig

2009-09-22T14:14:43Z

Word has leaked out that going into his "trilateral" with Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama was flustered and upset with their lack of progress with each other.

Obama is angry -- in a somewhat cool-headed Obamaesque way.

He just chastised both in his statement -- saying that neither side had done enough to move final status negotiations forward.

What is clear is that Barack Obama did not get the settlement freeze he called for from Netanyahu.

Via excellent reporting from Laura Rozen, here is a clip of President Obama's statement:

I have just concluded frank and productive bilateral meetings with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And I want to thank them both for appearing here today. I am now looking forward to this opportunity to hold the first meeting among the three of us since we took office.

As I said throughout my campaign and at the beginning of my administration, the United States is committed to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That includes a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states, Israel and Palestine, in which both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people can live in peace and security and realize their aspirations for a better life for their children.

That is why my Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and my Special Envoy George Mitchell have worked tirelessly to create the context for permanent status negotiations. And we have made progress since I took office in January and since Israelis -- Israel's government took office in April. But we still have much further to go.

Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security, but they need to do more to stop incitement and to move forward with negotiations. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians and have discussed important steps to restrain settlement activity. But they need to translate these discussions into real action on this and other issues. And it remains important for the Arab states to take concrete steps to promote peace.

Simply put it is past time to talk about starting negotiations -- it is time to move forward. It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that's necessary to achieve our goals. Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed.

And so my message to these two leaders is clear. Despite all the obstacles, despite all the history, despite all the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. We have to summon the will to break the deadlock that has trapped generations of Israelis and Palestinians in an endless cycle of conflict and suffering. We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back. Success depends on all sides acting with a sense of urgency. And that is why I have asked Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell to carry forward the work that we do here today.

Senator Mitchell will meet with the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week. I've asked the Prime Minister and the President to continue these intensive discussions by sending their teams back to Washington next week. And I've asked the Secretary of State to report to me on the status of these negotiations in mid-October.

All of us know this will not be easy. But we are here today because it is the right thing to do. I look forward to speaking with my colleagues. I'm committed to pressing ahead in the weeks and months and years to come, because it is absolutely critical that we get this issue resolved. It's not just critical for the Israelis and the Palestinians, it's critical for the world, it is in the interests of the United State. And we are going to work as hard as necessary to accomplish our goals. Thanks.

Barack Obama must have hated making this statement.

It shows that despite all their efforts, his team has not moved the game forward, and he really doesn't like putting lipstick on a pig.

Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Alon Ben-Meir: Supporting Fayyad's Vision

2009-09-01T14:34:12Z

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's unveiling of his government program to build the apparatus of a Palestinian state within two years is an admirable, bold and welcome imitative. For sixty years the Palestinians have been accused by Israel and the international community of being weak, fragmented, and harboring extremist ideologies. The plan of the thirteenth Palestinian National Authority government not only represents a blueprint for the government to address these inherent problems, but it is the first outline for a viable Palestinian state based on freedom, democracy, non-violence and international law. It should be supported by all those who seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as this commitment suggests that the culture of blame and violence must come to an end. The program further affirms that the Palestinians' nation-building must be founded by the Palestinian people, for the Palestinian people, and according to all international standards of human rights and law. Israel in particular should embrace this initiative as it would strengthen the efforts of Palestinian moderates, and set in motion a peaceful process leading to final negotiations and the two-state solution to which Netanyahu has agreed.

Israeli detractors of this plan have condemned the PA for acting unilaterally and imposing a time-line, while Palestinian extremist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have claimed the plan is far too accommodating to Israel. The irony here is that a feeble and dependent Palestinian government has gotten the Palestinian people nowhere in the past, just as ideologies of violent resistance have only resulted in more deaths, as the war in Gaza demonstrated. How can the Israelis justly accuse the Palestinians of being incapable and then rebuke the PA's plan to build a strong government? And how can Hamas reject a plan for a non-violent de-facto Palestinian state when violence has only exacerbated the Palestinians' plight? For Israelis to align themselves with Hamas in opposition to a moderate Palestinian plan for good governance is absurd.

The PA's outline for statehood offers hope to the third generation of despondent Palestinians that there is a better and brighter future where they can develop vested interest in the creation of a state of their own. A commitment to build a future based on equality and restoration of self-dignity in a non-violent atmosphere changes in a fundamental way the mindset of nearly every individual in this conflict. The forward of the plan by Salam Fayyad states specifically that:

Palestine will be a peace-loving state that rejects violence, commits to co-existence with its neighbors, and builds bridges of cooperation with the international community. It will be a symbol of peace, tolerance and prosperity in this troubled area of the world. By embodying all of these values, Palestine will be a source of pride to all of its citizens, and an anchor of stability in this region.

The majority of Palestinians who will benefit from the Fayyad plan will oppose the resumption of any violence against Israelis. An overwhelming majority of the Palestinian public already approves of a two-state solution and peace with Israel. The mere fact that the Palestinians can now take matters into their hands to build their nation will place the burden of proof on their heads. Indeed, the development of democratic political, economic and social programs that the Fayyad plan calls for will empower the people and offer a stark choice between the prospect of better life or more bloodshed. Israel will commit a serious strategic error if it chooses to stifle this effort, as it will give munitions to Palestinian extremists that Israel has no intention of allowing the peaceful rise of a Palestinian state, giving credence to continued violent resistance.

The PA's program is a fulfillment not only of the Palestinians' national aspirations, but Israel's as well. A commitment to building the infrastructure of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza will foster acceptance of Israel as a recognized independent state. The plan emphasizes peaceful co-existence with all neighboring states and a policy against any form of religious or cultural discrimination. Is this not what Israelis have been wanting since the inception of their state? Those Israelis skeptical about the Palestinians' ultimate intentions should find some consol in a written government document confirming the Palestinian government's vision of peace and democracy. The Palestinians know only too well from past experiences that any challenge to Israel's national security will render their nation-building efforts obsolete. The consequences of the second Intifadah remain etched in the memory of the Palestinian people, and may well have contributed to the emergence of the current program of moderation.

The concept of a democratic Arab state with an open market economy governed by the rule of law is no small feat. The United States has every reason to promote this goal in any way possible, and Israel should welcome the plan's premise of expanding and promoting regional trade. In addition, the Fayyad plan will also have serious implications for the Palestinian internal political struggle. Hamas operatives will have a hard time finding support for their opposition, as it will be interpreted as rejecting the principle of realizing the long-held goal-a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority is planning general elections in January of 2010, and Hamas will be hard pressed to resist joining a political process with agenda to provide goods and services to the Palestinian people.

Finally, it is important to note that the Fayyad initiative does not call for the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian state, but focuses on building the foundation for such a state, leaving all conflicting issues with Israel-including final borders, East Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees-to a negotiated agreement. What this plan states is that the Palestinian people do not need permission from anyone to prepare for such an eventuality, the principle parameters of which are recognized by the international community-including Israel. The plan's Foundation of Principles states that

We are building a democratic system of government founded on political pluralism, guarantee of equality, and protection of all its citizens' rights and freedoms as safeguarded by the law and within its limits.

This should be encouraged by Israel if it wants to have a strong partner with whom to negotiate. But if a state is declared before reaching a final agreement, it will have only provisional borders that will still have to be negotiated with Israel. What is important here is that the path chosen for Palestinian statehood is the path that of necessity precludes violence. Had the Palestinians started this process after Israel's evacuation of Gaza, there is no question that the last four years would have been dramatically different, preventing the rise of Hamas and the Israeli incursion into Gaza.

As the American sponsored Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will likely resume soon, there is no better atmosphere under which to conduct these negotiations than the non-violent climate that the Fayyad plan will hopefully foster. It is this commitment to true nation-building that will at last put an end to the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict and discredit those who still advocate violent resistance.

Obama On Brink Of Deal For Middle East Peace Talks

2009-08-25T21:31:42Z

Barack Obama is close to brokering an Israeli-Palestinian deal that will allow him to announce a resumption of the long-stalled Middle East peace talks before the end of next month, according to US, Israeli, Palestinian and European officials.

Alon Ben-Meir: A Strategic Necessity

2009-07-31T13:32:14Z

The Obama administration's push for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace may have a much stronger likelihood of succeeding this time around because of the prevailing political and security dynamics. For an agreement to occur however, Israel must concede the inevitable by relinquishing territories captured in the 1967 war, and the United States must provide a new security umbrella to its regional allies. This would lead not only to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, but it could seriously impede Iran's ambitions for regional hegemony with nuclear weapon capabilities.

The administration's ambitious agenda came to a focus this past week as Special Envoy George Mitchell, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, National Security advisor Jim Jones, and Obama's Iran strategist Dennis Ross all converged in the region for a series of high level security meetings with Israeli officials. Subsequent visits by Mitchell to Ramallah, Cairo and Damascus are clear evidence of this administration's emphasis on a regional diplomatic push that goes well beyond the Israeli-Palestinian track.

With the international spotlight on Israel, it now must find a way to work harmoniously with the Obama administration if it wants to be viewed as a genuine partner in the peace process. The United States remains indispensable to Israel's national security and is ultimately the last line of defense against any threat-including Iran's, so for Israel to appear flippant to US pressure at this juncture is a dangerous gamble. The territorial concessions necessary to forge a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace could further cement Israel's relations with the United States by upgrading Israel's US strategic cooperation into a new security arrangement akin to a defense treaty. If Israel has full American backing in security and defense, it will have more flexibility to concede the occupied territories because ultimately ensuring Israel's security takes away its main rational for keeping Palestinian and Syrian territories.

Such a security agreement with Israel does not mean that the Obama administration has resigned itself to the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Israeli Minster of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor recently alluded to this in an interview with Army Radio, noting that, "Now, we don't need to deal with the assumption that Iran will attain nuclear weapons but to prevent this." A US-Israel security agreement, and possibly a larger security umbrella that covers Arab allies as well would likely make Iran's nuclear ambitions less compelling. This agreement, combined with potentially crippling sanctions might provide enough deterrence for Iran to consider cooperating with the international community on its nuclear program. Moreover, since Iran never admitted to pursuing nuclear weapons, the US strategy might offer Iran a face saving way out. But if diplomacy nevertheless fails and Tehran continues with its refusal to settle the nuclear conflict through negotiations, then Israel will still have gained from the United States' full cooperation and security partnership, as long as the negotiations with Iran are not open-ended.

Israel's other significant advantage would be an opening to the rest of the Arab world. The Arab states led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco deeply dread the Iranian nuclear threat and many would be willing to work with Israel to mitigate their deep concerns. But they are loath to cooperate with Israel, and rightfully so, as long as Israel continues to occupy Arab land and expand the settlements which, symbolize to them an indefinite occupation. The Iranian nuclear menace has created a new power equation in the Middle East, where Israel and the Arab states share a common threat. Israel, which for decades has been seen as the enemy of the Arab world, could now become a potential ally through various cooperative defense deterrents against Iran. For Israel this represents not only an historic opportunity to forge a comprehensive peace, but to form a de-facto united Arab-Israeli front while working closely with the United States for a sustained regional security.

Finally, there is the international public opinion which is unified on the issue of occupation and sees Israel's intransigence as cause not only for regional instability, but as a threat to global energy resources. In case of a major conflagration between Israel and Iran, the effects of oil and gas volatility could be potentially devastating. As for the Israeli-Palestinian issue, much of the international community with the EU at the forefront has become far more forthcoming in its opposition to Israeli policies. Recently twenty-seven EU foreign ministers decided to put off the planned upgrading of EU-Israel relations to an "association agreement" which would have large trade benefits, until they can see a stronger commitment from Israel to a Palestinian state. No one should expect Israel to compromise its national security only to please the international community. That being said, Israel has made tremendous strides in becoming a respected member of the international community in terms of diplomatic and trade cooperation. But the scores of countries affected by the continuing turmoil in the Middle East are fed up with a conflict they believe can be resolved by ending the occupation. From their perspective, linking territory to national security no longer holds the weight it used to, not only because of Israel's technological superiority but because the Arab world has come full circle to accept Israel's reality. If Israel were to forfeit this opportunity, it will be blamed for many of the regional ills as well as the growing rift with the United States-which most Israelis will not tolerate.

The Obama administration is investing tremendous political capital in its effort to forge a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Moreover, for the Obama administration to restore its moral leadership, neutralize Iran's nuclear ambitions, and reach a major breakthrough in US-Middle East relations-following eight years of President Bush's disastrous policies-it has no alternative but to tackle the Arab-Israeli peace process head on. If these efforts require a regional security umbrella by the United States, as was suggested by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Israel can come out of this not only with a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace deal but with stronger security ties with the United States.

This prospect offers what most Israelis yearn for-peace with security. Any Israeli government that refuses to see that will have forfeited its mandate to govern and should give way to a new Israeli government capable of delivering peace.

Alon Ben-Meir: Obama's Peace Offensive (Part 1)

2009-07-28T10:54:11Z

This is Part 1 of a two-part series on what the Obama administration must do to achieve a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace deal

On a recent trip to the Middle East I had the opportunity to meet with many Israelis and Palestinians from all walks of life, including high government officials, settlers and members of the Peace Now movement. I also met with academics, poll takers, journalists, former military and intelligence personnel, and scores of other ordinary people. Paradoxically, while repeated polls confirm that a majority (between 68 and 72 percent) of Israelis and Palestinians seek peace based on a two-state solution, no such unity exists between the various groups and factions who continue to promote their own agenda regardless of the consensus of the majority. What I heard and saw simply reconfirmed the profound lack of political cohesiveness within both Israeli and Palestinian communities.

Political factionalism coupled with intense personal rivalry too often prevents majority support of one leader or party. This is the case for Netanyahu's coalition with Shas, Yisrael Betanu and other right wing elements, just as it is for Mahmoud Abbas' support within Fatah and with Hamas. More alarming is that while disconnect within each community persists, there is still a misperception between Israelis and Palestinians about each others' national aspirations, requirements and ultimate intentions. Too many Arabs and Israelis remain highly suspicious and oblivious to each others' psychological dispositions. Yet with a significant majority of Israelis and Palestinians in favor of a two-state solution with peace and normal relations, why then there is no national drive in either camp to push for a solution? The answer may be attributed to the following:

First, both sides generally have little faith in their own leadership's ability to deliver peace with security and dignity anytime soon. Israelis and Palestinians lack determined, visionary and courageous leaders. In Israel, the nature of a coalition government often prevents the Prime Minister to rise above the fray and take decisive measures toward peace without risking the collapse of the government. While Netanyahu's coalition represents a majority within the Knesset, it by no means represents the overwhelming number of Israelis who are ready for a leader who can maintain a united government and deliver peace.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, suffer from a chronic factionalism, making it impossible for a leader to make the necessary concessions without risking his position of power. Mahmoud Abbas is meant to represent the moderates, although most moderates have a hard time fully backing him because he has been unable to achieve any significant gains for them. Hamas' charter -- which calls for Israel's destruction -- is both offensive and intolerable to Israel and much of the international community, yet they are far more organized and enjoy popular grassroots support in Gaza. Without reconciling the political agenda of these two groups, Israel and the U.S. will not have a strong partner with which to negotiate. Moreover, both sides often use this internal division and lack of consensus as an excuse for inflexibility.

Second, many Israeli and Palestinian leaders still feel that more time may further improve their position and lead to more concessions, hence they argue against 'rushing' into any agreement. This is coupled with strong rejectionist elements in both camps. In Israel there are those who still seek "Greater Israel," especially among the settlers. On the Palestinians side there are several groups, such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas, who want all of mandated Palestine, including Israel. They believe if they cannot take it by force then they can wait and use demographics to overwhelm the Jewish majority, therefore, the idea of a one state solution has began to gain some currency among Palestinian radicals.

Third, neither the Israeli nor Palestinian government has been preparing the public over the years for the inevitability of peaceful coexistence based on a two-state solution. Whereas Israeli officials talk about the lack of a worthy Palestinian interlocutor and complain about continued violence perpetrated against Israel, the Palestinian media and public condemnations of Israel continue to incite the public against Israel, often using venomous language that makes the possibility of coexistence seem beyond repair.

Fourth, both sides are wrapped up in a tit-for-tat process where neither party wants to show its cards first. Both remain internally conflicted as to how far they can go to accommodate each other while maintaining the upper hand in negotiations. For example, on the surface it appears that the Israeli government would not compromise on the future unity of Jerusalem as "Israel's eternal capital" while the Palestinians would presumably not compromise on the issue of the right of return of the refugees. In reality however, both sides have substantially modified their positions and reached agreements in principle on both of these critical issues in previous negotiations.

Lastly, there has not been consistent pressure exerted from the outside to prompt both Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences. Although the United States has exerted some effort over many years, it was neither consistent nor did it display the leadership needed to bring parties together to forge peace. The Clinton and the Bush administrations focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict largely at the eleventh hour of their presidencies. The U.S. has failed to assert itself as the most influential power, and has too often allowed excessive violence to severely undermine the peace process as happened during the second Intifada under the Bush administration's watch between years 2000 and 2006. The Arab states too have often used the Palestinian plight to cover for their domestic failures. It is only in the past few years that some Arab states have put forth a concerted effort to advance the Arab Peace Initiative that calls for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Although historical in its dimensions and implications, the Initiative remains static because neither side is ready or willing to translate it into a real peace process.

Considering this paradoxical reality, both Israelis and Palestinians have shown that they are simply incapable of resolving this conflict on their own. This is why the Obama administration must pursue an aggressive political agenda with unwavering commitment to produce concessions from all sides to provide the basis for an agreement. The United States cannot equivocate with the Israelis, the Palestinians or the Arab states as to what is required to forge a lasting peace. But for peace to occur, the Obama administration must secure a number of prerequisites to avoid the pitfalls of previous administrations and capitalize on the changing political environment in the Middle East especially among the Arab states that favor peace with Israel.

Read part two here

Amjad Atallah: Taking Yes for an Answer

2009-07-27T17:04:31Z

Sometimes, it's hard to take "yes" for an answer.

Israel has had a host of American visitors in the last several days. Fred Hof from the Mitchell Team showed up last week before going on to Syria in attempts to conclude a peace agreement that would permanently quiet down Israel's northern border. Special Envoy George Mitchell then arrived to share with Israel how much normalization the Arab world is prepared to offer before peace in exchange for a settlement freeze, but with no breakthroughs on the Israeli side. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates then arrived to tell Israel that the US sees "eye to eye" on the threat of a nuclear armed Iran and to emphasize the US commitment to assuring Israel's security through engagement with Iran. He assured Israel that the US overture to Iran was not "open-ended." (It would be important for Israel to note that every overture in politics falls into that category, including the Arab Peace Initiative and US blank-check support.) National Security Adviser James Jones is arriving next to discuss overall strategic issues and we can expect a lot of hand-holding there too.

And yet, the Likud/Lieberman/Labor coalition seems to be perpetually unhappy with US efforts to assure a future of peace for Israel and her neighbors. Hof's visit was met by an attempt by an Israeli MK to propose a law that would require 80 MKs to approve any Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Although the bill was delayed, expect it to be resurrected if peace looks more likely. Labor Party Leader Ehud Barak and Minister of Defense noted ruefully in a press conference with Gates that Israel "cannot dictate to anyone" concerning Israel's desire to keep the military option on Iran front and center, but continued to sound as if the failure of US efforts was a foregone conclusion. The Israeli press is still reporting leaks that the US is going to give in on allowing settlement activity to continue in specific circumstances. Israel's insistence on building in the Arab neighborhoods of Occupied East Jerusalem (which Israel considers annexed territory) may have been an attempt to raise the ante so that Israel could have something to give while demanding US acquiescence to building elsewhere.

On Iran and on ending the occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, the Israeli government is still behaving as if perpetual conflict is preferable to peace. For some Israeli politicians, it is better to stay on the offensive (and on your neighbor's lawn) than to ever rely on peace agreements. But this is based on the mistaken assumption that peace is synonymous with weakness. It is based on the mistaken notion that Israel has benefited more from conquest, occupation, and war than it has from peace. Measured in dunums (or acres) of land, that may be true for the time being -- but measured in human lives and their potential, it is decidedly a fallacy.

MJ Rosenberg has an excellent piece describing the domestic fallout of Israel's policies. He quotes Noah Efron of Bar Ilan University in Israel: "To be a secular Israeli in 2009 is a demoralizing and demoralized affair. We are tired: tired of the Palestinians, tired of the bombs, tired of UN and EU condemnations, tired of having so much of our daily wages taxed to buy guns and missiles, tired of the army reserves, tired of being hated, tired of waking up to reports of kids-- Jewish kids, Palestinian kids -- watching their parents die or dying in their parents' arms. We are tired of our lives and tired of ourselves."

My colleague at the New America Foundation, Steven Clemons, recently provided an apt analogy of what is at stake here. He writes that Netanyahu has become Obama's Khrushchev. I agree that Obama must be the one to define the terms of regional peace rather than allow Netanyahu, or for that matter, any other regional player, define it for the United States. Moreover, I believe that Netanyahu's policies, if he were allowed to succeed, would cement (literally and metaphorically) Israeli policy for another generation in the same dead-end street that ultimately has caused so many of the best of Israeli society to immigrate to multi-ethnic polities in the west.

This is a battle for US national interests in a part of the world of critical importance to the US, particularly in this new multi-partner world, as described by Secretary of State Clinton. She had it right when she said, "We will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world." Israel now needs its biggest friend in the world to "induce" it to take "yes" for an answer.

James Zogby: The Evolution of the Acceptance of a Palestinian State

2009-07-17T19:10:45Z

With Benyamin Netanyahu agreeing to a Palestinian State (albeit one that meets his specifications), and the European Union's Javier Solana calling for a Security Council resolution to recognize a Palestinian state by a date certain, the idea has now become commonplace. Even here in the US, it is a near "article of faith" to project a two-state solution as the only acceptable outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Because this has not always been the case, it is useful to trace the evolution of this acceptance in our political discourse -- recalling, as we do, how difficult it was just a few decades ago to support Palestinian rights.

In the late 1970's I founded the Palestine Human Rights Campaign. We were a coalition that included Arab Americans, African American civil rights leaders, representatives of major US churches and prominent peace activists. We defended Palestinian human rights victims (of torture, imprisonment without charge, and land confiscation), opposed all violence and supported two states. Despite winning broad public support, we were shunned by Washington's political establishment. Even a coalition of progressive groups (the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy) rejected our application for affiliation because some members said our pro-Palestinian agenda would be divisive and detrimental to their work. We also incurred threats and harassment, and, in 1980, my office was fire-bombed.

Ten years later in the lead up to the 1988 presidential contest, my Institute led a national campaign ("Statehood Now") calling for recognition of Palestinian self-determination. Working with a diverse coalition, we ran and won delegate slots to ten state Democratic Party conventions seeking to pass resolutions in support of Palestinian rights and a two-state solution. With the help of allies in the Jesse Jackson for President Campaign, our resolutions passed in all 10 states. In Maine, for example, our resolution called for "...the right of Israel to exist within secure and internationally recognized borders, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and an independent state," while in Texas it read "...Any settlement must respect and insure the safety, self-determination and right to exist within secure and internationally recognized borders of both the Israelis and Palestinians." (Other states included: California, Illinois, Iowa, and Washington.)

Armed with these victories, we went to the Democratic National Convention seeking to amend the Party's platform to include recognition of Palestinian rights. The language we sought to insert called for "mutual recognition, territorial compromise and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians." The Dukakis Campaign vigorously opposed our efforts, but with Jackson's support, we persisted in having our language debated -- the first time (and, I might add, the last time) the issue of Palestinian rights was debated from the podium at a political party's convention.

The 1990's witnessed the Madrid Peace Conference and the Oslo Accords, but still no formal recognition of a Palestinian State. The best George H.W. Bush could do was to slightly upgrade the language of Camp David calling for "legitimate Palestinian political rights." Clinton moved the language further, supporting the Palestinians' "right to live as a free people, determining their fate on their own land." It was left to then First Lady Hillary Clinton to be the first to actually speak of a Palestinian State -- as she did in 1998. Her husband's Administration quickly made it clear that her remarks were not policy. When, toward the end of the Clinton Administration, Yasser Arafat, becoming frustrated with Peace Process' lack of progress, threatened to unilaterally declare a state, the reaction from Washington was firm and threatening.

It was not until January, 7th 2001, in the closing days of his term, that Bill Clinton spoke of a Palestinian State, making him the first US president to do so.

In 2002, following Israel's reoccupation of the West Bank and its near total destruction of the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority, President Bush committed his Administration to a two-state solution. But he did so in, what I called at the time, "a perfectly bizarre speech," calling on the Palestinians to first establish a working democracy before they could have their state! During the next six years, US policy discussion changed with official acceptance of a two-state solution becoming widespread. Sadly, however, all this time that the concept was gaining acceptance, the reality in the West Bank and Gaza was deteriorating making the realization of that now accepted goal more difficult to achieve.

We are now in the 43rd year of the occupation. The landscape of the occupied lands has been dramatically transformed: a half million settlers reside there; a network of settler only roads, coupled with an intrusive barrier wall, has cut the territory into cantons; Jerusalem is burgeoning with settler colonies and is cut off from the West Bank; and the long physical and now political separation of Gaza from the West Bank has made unity of Palestine's parts more difficult.

We are now in the Obama era. The president has committed his Administration to an outcome of two states which he says is in the national interests of the United States. Even in the early months of his term, he has demonstrated a commitment to balanced pressure and active engagement toward achieving the goal of two states.

The political battle for acceptance of a Palestinian State has been won. Supporters of two states must now assess the circumstances which define the current reality on the ground. The old battles are just that -- old battles. There are now new challenges to face. What confronts us now is how, given where we are, we can realistically achieve the goal for which many have struggled for decades, and that is a secure, independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian State.

Peter A. Joseph: Obama's Impact on the Middle East Peace Process

2009-07-10T16:17:00Z

During an intense three-day trip to Israel and the West Bank last week, our group of Israel Policy Forum leaders met with high-level Israeli, Palestinian and American officials, as well as journalists and regional experts. These sessions led us to one unmistakable conclusion: The determination, focus, patience, and perseverance demonstrated by the Obama Administration are already having a significant impact on the long-standing efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the United States has the pivotal role to play.

As always, our conversations brought home the complexity of resolving the host of territorial, security, economic, political, religious and cultural differences. One must maintain realistic expectations.

President Obama's speech in Cairo was widely lauded as a water-shed event in Arab-US relations for the tone he adopted in reaching out to the Arab world. In addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he tackled the two issues which are absolutes for each of the parties: the Palestinians' renunciation of violence and the Israelis' halting settlement expansion. The president's statements were noteworthy because he founded his position on this Administration's firm belief that the resolution of this conflict is in America's national interest. For the Israelis, the message on settlements is clear: the U.S. will no longer ignore attempts to impede the pursuit of this interest. This is not a new policy; it is an important adherence to previously announced U.S. policy.

Moderate Arabs have long spoken of the settlement issue as a fundamental obstacle to progress. The continued changing of the "facts on the ground" in the West Bank undermines the credibility of the Palestinian Authority leadership while decreasing the possibility of a territorial accord. Hence, the moderate Palestinians, confronted by the wink-and-nod approach of prior American Administrations toward Israeli settlement activity, have been unwilling to take significant political risks. Obama seems to understand this dynamic and is changing this unstated American policy to enable him to bring key Arab leaders into a wider and more engaged regional process. His goal is to gain the confidence of all parties so that the US can play a robust facilitative role with real goals and real progress within the next two years.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech at Bar Ilan University is one of several pieces of evidence that the president's new direction is having an impact. Despite the great majority of the speech being devoted to anticipated rhetoric, for the first time Netanyahu referred to the possibility of a "Palestinian state." Even though the statement is a belated recognition of what is widely viewed as the only solution which provides peace and security to both peoples, we should, nonetheless, appreciate its significance within the context of the current Israeli government coalition that includes several parties with far right positions. Furthermore, Netanyahu's own Likud party contains leading figures whose political philosophy is grounded on the concept of a Greater Israel encompassing the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The Prime Minister's political legitimacy hinges on his ability to maintain his leadership despite the strong countervailing forces within his coalition and his party. The major constraint to these political forces is the over-riding necessity, indeed a fundamental Israeli national interest, to maintain its "unbreakable bond" with the United States.

The meetings between Senator Mitchell and Israeli Defense Minister Barak are focusing on concepts such as "natural growth," and suggest an effort to find a workable arrangement. The issue of actually expanding settlements, as urged by the politically important adherents of the settler movement, seems to have been conceded. When viewed together with the pivotal shift of Netanyahu in adopting the two-state language, it becomes clear that only a firm hand from Washington could only have moved Israel this far.

Several other developments are no less important. Security in the West Bank continues to improve through the American-led efforts of General Keith Dayton, as evidenced by the recent willingness of the Israelis to remove some of the checkpoints which diminished the quality of life and the self-esteem of the Palestinians. Israel also recently turned over internal security in four West Bank cities to Palestinian forces.

As President Obama attempts to put all the pieces in place for a regional plan, the roles of Egypt -- mediator on Hamas issues, negotiator on Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted and imprisoned by Hamas, enhanced policer of the Egypt-Gaza border -- is appreciated by the US Administration. The administration is seeking that same level of engagement by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other moderate regimes to take actions that underscore their commitment to seeking a peaceful resolution to this conflict.

President Obama is facing a complex challenge as he continues to uphold the long-held American position that Israel's security is a central tenet of US foreign policy while he presses Israel and others in the region to take bold steps. His unswerving commitment to infusing the peace process with new terms and renewed energy is already making a unique difference -- allowing some in the region to consider how they might be part of a solution.

Mark Levine: Prague, Beirut, or Tiananmen? Iran Teeters on the Edge

2009-06-16T11:41:49Z

It was just one of thousands of photos circulating across the internet and adorning the home pages of major newspapers as they struggled to keep up with events in Iran, and it's already disappeared off the Huffington Post home page where I briefly glimpsed it. But for me the picture truly spoke 1000 words. A young man, like so many Iranian friends of mine, with shoulder-length, shaggy hair and casual clothes, a mid-20s college student or IT worker, or perhaps a musician, was surrounded by several middle-aged women in chadors, all them being beaten by riot police on the streets near Tehran University.

It's almost impossible to determine whether this election was free and fair. But it's clear that the regime is nervous enough about threats to its power and stability that it is willing to unleash a high level of violence to maintain complete control over the Iranian street. And that says something about how bifurcated Iranian society is today, along class and cultural lines together.

The majority of commentators seem to agree that had the votes been fully and fairly counted, Mousavi would have won. Roger Cohen, of the NY Times, who spent a lot of time in Iran in the last few months, captured the feeling of near devastation so many Iranians and their foreign friends are feeling at the moment. But of course, Cohen (like me, and so many other Westerners who visit Iran), has spent the lion's share of his time with precisely the kind of educated, relatively liberal, or at least culturally open and curious, Iranians who are the base of Mousavi's support. It is true that the Iran of southern Tehran is very different than that north of Taleghani Avenue and up the mountain, where the air is cleaner and the voices far more liberal and likely to speak fairly fluent English.

Yet at least one pre-election poll by respected non-Iranian organizations allowed for the possibility of an Ahmadinejad win by a substantial margin, while a study on inequality on Iran during the Ahmadinejad years reveals that it has gone down significantly across the board, which would offer a good reason why broad swaths of the public would support his reelection despite continued economic problems.

For every Ali Answari or Juan Cole offering a convincing list of arguments supporting the claims of electoral fraud, and countering claims that pre-election polling predicted an Ahmadinejad victory, there is a Robert Fisk reporting from Tehran about having lunch with trustworthy contacts inside the government telling him that the election results were accurate and clearly reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of Iranians, precisely because Ahmadinejad has focused government programs and funds on improving the lives, and life chances, of large swaths of the population.

At the same time, however, it's hard not to wonder why a government that is confident it won fair and square would authorize police to beat citizens with abandon, shut down opposition headquarters and various news and social networking outlets, and arrest over 100 reformist politicians.

Or perhaps the focus on the two candidates is misplaced. Maybe Ahmadinejad and the current political and religious leadership on the one side, and Mousavi and the reformers on the other, are merely rallying poles around which two bitterly opposed histories of and visions for post-Revolutionary Iran have rallied and are now doing battle. Maybe, as one protester exclaimed, "There's no one in charge right now" either among the still nascent protest movement or the state that's trying to figure out how to suppress it without losing a large chunk of its legitimacy among the millions of Iranians who are likely still on the fence over who's election narrative to believe.

Indeed, this election might well have released a host of pent up forces -- desperate hope for change, smoldering resentment at the vast inequalities plaguing Iran, utter disdain for the other side's core cultural identity -- that will necessitate what could well end up being a bloody (if cathartic) settling of scores between two irreconcilable sides over grievances that date back to the dawn of the Revolution, and its innumerable betrayals, failures and still unrealized goals.

One would hope that the problems with this election would lead to reforms in the voting process and even international monitoring of the next elections. But if the difficulty of addressing the irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 US elections is any guide, those in power in Iran will have little incentive to change a system that, whatever its flaws, has allowed them to hold onto power.

These elections are of course part of a larger story, which many commentators have argued is about the growing divide between a Western-leaning economic elite and the mass of poor and working class Iranians. On the other hand, Juan Cole argues -- rightly in my mind -- that what we have witnessed is much more a culture war than a class war. Yet if true, the war has been over a small piece of terrain. It's true that Mousavi was appealing to the clear desire of millions of Iranians for greater cultural openness to the world and internally as well. But it's not as if his victory would have brought an end to mandatory headscarves for women and patriarchal power more broadly, saw rock concerts in Iran's parks or coed skiing at Dizin or Shemshak, the country's main resorts. Nor would it have led to a Sadat in Jerusalem type moment with the United States. Mousavi might have once been a well-known artist, but Khomeini "fundamental values" that Mousavi pledged to return to were the very opposite of moderate or tolerant of other points of view.

What's more, extremely powerful forces inside the Iranian political-military-security-religious establishments have a vested interest in continued, if manageable, conflict with the United States, as well as with keeping a tight lid on cultural expression, at least publicly. Whether their views are in fact in line with 63 percent of the Iranian electorate -- the number who supposedly voted to reelect Ahmadinejad will not matter unless the large number of disaffected Iranians upset by the election "results" are willing to continue struggling against increasing government violence to pry open their society. What is certain, however, is that no amount of twittering or facebooking is going to reverse the current situation, no matter how much American news outlets like CNN want to spin the story towards the role of social media as a potential aid for social and political change. As in Egypt, as long as the government can control the streets, it still matters relatively little who controls the ether, especially when ultimately the government controls that too. And right now, the main question is clearly who in fact controls the streets.

It's not for nothing that the Ahmadinejad government has for several years been warning of the threat posed by so-called "Velvet Revolutionaries," which can seemingly include everyone from politicians to metalheads. It would seem that Iran today is closer to Czechoslovakia in 1968, when the first attempt at peaceful revolution was violently crushed, than it is to the situation twenty years later, when the young students beaten and arrested a generation before had become the culturally hegemonic force in the country. As Robert Fisk so appropriately noted, in Tehran today, "the policemen went on breaking up stones, a crazy reverse version of France in May 1968. Then it was the young men who wanted revolution who threw stones. In Tehran -- fearful of a green Mousavi revolution -- it was the police who threw stones."

It appears that as in 1968 in Prague, the police and security services are solidly behind Ahmadinejad, who after all is a child of the Revolutionary Guard and knows how to combine the economic populism of Hugo Chavez with a level of ostensible religious fervor and piety worthy of Khomeini. At the same time, at this as yet very early moment in the unfolding of the latest drama, it doesn't seem that a conglomeration of forces exists today comparable to the bazaari-student-socialist-religious nexus out of which tens of thousands of marchers rushed to the streets, day after day, ready to die, until the mass of soldiers and police tasked with stopping them could no longer stomach the job and stepped aside to let history take its course. Moreover, such is the continuing power of Islamic Republican ideology that it seems very unlikely that the security services -- whether uniformed police or plain clothed thugs -- will grow weary of beating their compatriots, young and old, men and women, with various levels of savagery any time soon if that's what it takes to quash the post-election protests. Indeed, already they have moved to shooting, and at the time of writing at least twelve students are reported to have been killed.

But this dynamic could change very quickly. The latest email from an Iranian friend informed me that:

as I am writing this we can hear the whole city howling allah-o akbar from rooftop. millions poured onto streets this afternoon in a show of power that matched the 1979 revolution in every way. it is still not easy to predict what'll happen tomorrow. every hour is full of surprises. there is a long way to go. but people have gained confidence. and that's good news.

If this is true, it might convince Ahmadinejad that he must use the current chaos to push the reformers back in the closet for the foreseeable future, and push the cosmopolitan liberal-cultural elite who have the ability to leave, to do so. This would make it easier for him to continue devoting a relatively large share of government funds to his poor and working class base, while ensuring that the millions of Iranians hoping for a cultural perastroyka accept that it won't happen any time soon.

On the other hand, if the hundreds of thousands of people who poured into the streets on Monday in defiance of a government ban on protesting can maintain this momentum and a critical mass of first person accounts of voter fraud or intimidation comes to light, the government might be forced to hold a run-off election between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi to settle the matter once and for all, only this time with much more robust and transparent monitoring. Will the "street politics" unfolding before us produce a Tehran Summer that mirrors the Beirut Spring of 2006, or will they end with one side either deploying or absorbing enough violence to win the day, at least for the time being?

Iran could quickly be approaching a Tiananmen moment -- when the Iranian government calculates that by crushing the pro-reform opposition it can gain time and space to continue remaking society along its preferred lines. The problem is that Iran can't follow China's path. It is true that if oil prices continue rising they will produce enough revenue for the government to keep the poor and working classes happy. But what allowed the Communist Party in China to maintain its hegemony rather than merely dominance over Chinese society was its willingness to liberalize culturally at the same time it closed down politically.

Cultural liberalization became the safety valve that allowed the emerging generation of Chinese citizens to accept the continued power of the Communist Party. Needless to say, no such safety valve can exist in the Islamic Republic, and with one of the world's youngest populations, and an increasingly urban, educated and sophisticated citizenry, it's hard to know how long the Iranian government can continue to enforce the conservative moral values upon a bourgeois-aspiring, cultural open technocratic class whose expertise and loyalty will be crucial for Iran's long term social, economic and political development, even if the oil and gas revenues continue unabated for decades (Saudi Arabia is a good example of what happens when you force a culture shut for too long).

What does seem certain, however, is that the many Iranians who are hoping the US will stand by them are going to be sorely disappointed. Like Bush before him, Obama has already sacrificed Egyptian democracy and human rights activists to the alter of realpolitik and the perceived need to keep Hosni Mubarak in power in order to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. There seems little chance he would take a principled position in support of Iranian democracy at the expense of calming nuclear tensions with the Ahmadinejad government/regime.

At the same time, Ahmadinejad's "victory" -- precisely because it is arguably so fraudulently obtained -- has brought a smile to the faces not just of neocons in the US who want to continue an aggressive anti-Iran policy, but also to Israel's government, who can rest assured that with an even more emboldened Ahmadinejad to contend with, the Obama Administration will not have the political leeway to take on "America's most important ally in the Middle East" over the best way to create the Palestinian state Benjamin Netanyahu has just signed off on (albeit with enough conditions to make its successful establishment an impossibility). With North Korea becoming more belligerent by the day and even threatening nuclear war, it seems that at least two thirds of the original "Axis of Evil" line-up will be singing in tune for quite some time, with a potentially profound impact on US foreign policy in the next year or two.

In the heady days of October 1978, when the Iranian Revolution was still young and uncoopted, the French philosopher Michel Foucault commented of its unfolding that it should remind the West of something it had forgotten since the Renaissance and the Reformation -- the possibility of a political spirituality that in Iran had created a "unified collective with perhaps the greatest ever insurrection against global systems, the most insane and the most modern form of revolt the force that can make a whole people rise up [importantly, even 'with no vanguard, no party'], not only against a sovereign and his police, but against a whole regime, a whole way of life, a whole world."

Whatever is unfolding in Iran now, it has clearly not achieved the level of "political spirituality" that elicited such hopeful comments from Foucault a generation ago-even as many of the protests are chanting "Allahu Akbar" against the current government with the same fervor that the previous generation of would-be revolutionaries chanted against the Shah. Rather, it seems even as I have written this piece the situation has grown more grave. When I began on Sunday afternoon, I received an almost giddy email from a close Iranian friend who is in one of the country's best heavy metal bands:

I enjoyed fighting on the street with different people from different cultures! ... these 2 Nights ... Poor amateur police is so loose and frightened.

This seems to be the hugest culture jam one can see ...

Some of Hezbollahiz and religous fellas and women also are fighting with guards with us and once i was carrying a Woman in her Chadorr full hijaab!!!

The Spectrum of people types seems to be rich (wide) ... Variety of people ... all the streets ... different cities.

P.S. It seems this fuckin' gas that police uses has no effects on me other than losing sleep!

Perhaps the gas was affecting him more than he realized. I hope not, but exactly 12 hours and 2 minutes later I received a message with a very different tone:

Ahmadinejad now wants to put people against each other!

There is no organized movement ... all self-motivated or Lost Vote-motivated ...
But basiji's and police and special police are doing it so organized ...

Now we are going with some intellectual people to Azadi squre ...

None of them can fight ...

It's too early to tell whether it's a fight they can win -- precisely by refusing to fight on the Basiji's terrain of violence, dehumanization and revenge. But we can at least hope that their bravery will inspire those of us lucky to be on the sidelines to ensure that our own government does a better job of standing up for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, not just in Iran, but across the Middle East and North Africa.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: The Coming Storm: Obama and American Jewry

2009-06-15T16:28:53Z

There's a storm coming. It will pit a well-organized community of substantial resources but also substantial insecurity (particularly when it comes to charges of dual loyalty) against a popular president of considerable eloquence but misguided policies that identifies Israeli settlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace. The inevitable clash will separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenient against those who stand with Israel even when it means losing their invitation to the White House Chanuka party.

The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by many well-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for Peace Now wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but to pressure Israel because "it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying power to negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenseless occupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides." In reading Fleshler, one wonders whether he has been himself occupied with building a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of event's on earth. Is he seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and non-stop suicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (the population equivalent of thirty thousand dead Americans) have come from a 'defenseless' foe? Would Fleshler likewise argue that the United States ought to have pressure from, say, Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeing that America now represents a 'well-armed, occupying power' against the comparatively defenseless Taliban? Or is it only Israel that is forbidden from defending itself. Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jew is a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a sixty-year terror onslaught.

Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama's attack on the settlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel. The borders are utterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it. Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not have become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills even more Palestinians than it does Israelis.

But misguided Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speak up against the policies of the administration? By this I do not mean the drunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attention disgracing themselves on YouTube last week, their bigoted drivel against our democratically elected President representing an abomination to Judaism. I have already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of the large and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from the United States after High School ostensibly to study in Yeshivas end up instead hanging out on Ben Yehudah Street making asses of themselves. That they have no proper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in a drunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by the institutions who host them.

Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts the President's praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his soft posture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women and warmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela.

Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and the University's first orthodox Jewish Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbi of one of Chicago's most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel's Rabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House Chief of Staff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Rabbi Lopatin could easily have basked in the aura of being Rabbi to one of the most influential men in the world. Instead, he spoke truth to power.

In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with the Prime Minister of England. That's nice. But a few years ago Rabbi Sacks spoke out publicly against Israel, telling London's Guardian newspaper, "There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew." Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whatever audience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember the admonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close to political power: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place."

But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will be here in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. From schools to Universities to Shules and JCC's we must make it clear that when seventy-six percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers with cash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We're upset, disappointed, and we won't take it. We'll march in the streets, write op-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should be standing with the Middle East's only democracy and America's most reliable ally. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our President undermines his moral authority when he pledges that henceforth America will "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," but then only applies that pledge to Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela, but not to Israel.

Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I received a phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of the national chairs of 'Rabbis for Obama.' It was a tempting offer. I was moved by the candidate's remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, his soaring oratory, and most of all, the fact that his victory would be the culmination of my hero Martin Luther King's dream of a man being judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end I declined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter. But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and so lopsidedly.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His upcoming book is The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger.

Obama's Trip, Behind The Scenes (SLIDESHOW)

2009-06-09T20:37:15Z

If, like most people, you've ever wondered what Reggie Love would look like on a camel, here's your chance to find out!

The White House released behind-the-scenes photos of President Barack Obama's recent trip to the Middle East in Europe, including camel rides, German snacks, and what appear to be very bored White House staffers on a plane.

Watch the slideshow:

"Obama Effect" On Lebanese Election Touted By Some, Doubted By Others

2009-06-08T12:21:22Z

The results in Lebanon's parliamentary elections Sunday come as somewhat of a surprise to observers and participants alike who expected Hezbollah's March 8th movement to increase its clout and shift the political balance away from the pro-Western March 14th movement. That did not happen, and now many commentators, such as Paul Raushenbush at Beliefnet, are touting the "Obama effect" as a possible driving force, following President Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo last week.

It seeems as though an American President may be affecting the Iranian elections again, this time positively. From the recent polls it looks like Ahmadinejad is in trouble.

...
Likewise in Lebanon.
...
We don't know the exact effect that Obama is having on these elections. But it appears from the 2004 results that the Cheney/Bush presidency bolstered the enemies of America. Four years later it looks like the Obama's presidency may do the opposite.

Likewise, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder entertains the "Obama effect" possibility, but suspends an absolute judgment on what is no doubt an unquantifiable phenomenon.

Today, the results of Lebanon's election may or may not be a referendum on relations with the West, with Israel, and the foreign policy ideals held by Obama. But they're definitely good news for the White House, and if there's anything to be gleaned about momentum in Shiite politics, it's moving in a direction that Obama probably likes far better than the alternative.

However, others are more skeptical of the implications of the March 14th movement's success, as well as what bearing Obama may have had on it. Dr. Omri Nir, a Lebanese political expert and non-faculty professor at Hebrew University and Ben-Gurion University, tells the Jerusalem Post that it's far too early to make any conclusions. Nir also goes on to dismiss the notion that Obama had any real effect on the election:

US President Barack Obama shouldn't take credit for the result of the Lebanese elections, said Nir. "I didn't see an impact of the speech [from Cairo] on the elections campaign," he added.

Nir attributed the unexpected outcome to internal politics among Lebanon's Maronite Christians. Lebanese citizens usually cast their vote based on the people running and not according to party lines, he explained.

As for Iranians, who go to the ballot box Friday to decide the fate of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a new poll reveals that very few in Iran view the United States favorably, despite Obama, according to the AP. However, it may not even matter. Reformist challenger Mir-Hussein Mousavi has all but closed Ahmadinejad's lead in the past month, according to the Telegraph, and, as The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss reports from Tehran, the country is awash in a "Green Wave" (the color associated with Mousavi's campaign).

Interestingly, an American Security Project report released in late April concluded that the "Obama effect" on the Muslim world was falling while global terrorism was on the rise. From the Huffington Post's earlier report:

As for the sanguinely viewed "Obama Effect" on the Muslim World, the report laments that US approval dropped following the Israeli-Gaza incursion earlier this year. And, notably, the report states that, "Unfortunately, only 21% of Afghans believe that an Obama presidency will make a positive difference in their country, compared to 16%, who think it will make things worse." However, more hopeful data is also cited that indicates America's tarnished record from the past eight years is not beyond repair. Thus, the "Obama Effect" is not an outrightly delusional mis-perception, but there is a dearth of evidence to suggest it has yet to have any meaningful impact in the Muslim world.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Robert Wright: The Bible's Vindication of Obama's Middle East Strategy

2009-06-08T12:17:27Z

Some West Bank settlers think Barack Obama is defying God's will. Obama wants to stop the growth of the settlements, whereas (according to these settlers) God wants the people of Israel to populate all of the promised land; it says so in the Bible.

I have a different take on what the Bible says. If you read the Bible carefully, and are mindful of its historical context, it offers a kind of support for Obama's position on the settlements and for his approach to the "Muslim world" broadly.

At least, that's one implication of my new book The Evolution of God. In it I follow the changing moods of God, as reflected in ancient scripture, to see what circumstances brought out the best in religion in the past. The hope is that this knowledge can help us bring out the best in religion today.

One thing I found is that some of the most belligerent, vindictive scriptures in the Hebrew Bible were written when Israelites were in roughly the mindset that Palestinians are in today. And some of the most tolerant, benevolent scriptures emerged after a change in Israel's political psychology much like the change Obama is trying to engineer in Palestinian psychology.

For much of its early existence, Israel was a small nation in a tough neighborhood. It got pushed around by such superpowers as Assyria and, most famously, the neo-Babylonian empire, which in 586 BCE destroyed the Jerusalem temple and exiled Israel's elites. Like Palestinians today, Israelites felt humiliated and dispossessed; they weren't in control of their destiny.

The result was a thirst for revenge. Parts of the book of Isaiah thought to have been written during the exile dwell on the payback that Israel's God will someday give to nations that have tormented the Israelites. God says, "I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine." As for the rulers of these nations, "With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet."

But Israel's God didn't stay in that mood forever. Circumstances changed. The Babylonians were conquered by the Persians. The leader of Persia, Cyrus the Great, returned the exiles to Israel, where they were allowed to govern their own affairs and worship their God.

Now Israel's past tormentors were no longer in a position to dominate. Indeed, many of them, such as the Assyrians, were now fellow members of the Persian empire. Bad neighbors had become good neighbors.

And this made a big difference. Parts of the Bible thought to have been written after the exile strike a warm tone toward past enemies. (In the book of Jonah God shows compassion for residents of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, explaining to Jonah why they should be forgiven for past misdeeds.) These post-exilic passages also feature more internationally communal language than pre-exilic scripture, and mention not just God's covenant with Israel but "an everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."

The moral of the story is simple: When people see their interests threatened by another group, this perception brings out the most belligerent parts of their religion. Such circumstances are good news for violent extremists and bad news for moderates. What Obama is trying to do--make Palestinians feel less threatened, and make Muslims generally feel more respected--is what may now, as it did in ancient times, bring out the tolerant side of a religion.

This pattern in the Hebrew Bible--the pattern that explains the shifting moods of God--is mirrored in the Koran (as I argued in an essay recently published in Time magazine). Indeed, all three Abrahamic faiths proved in ancient times that the tenor of their religion can adapt to changing facts on the ground. The Abrahamic God has shown the capacity for great moral growth, if also for backsliding, and President Obama is increasing the chances that God will see a burst of growth in the future. It says so--if you read between the lines--in the Bible.

Robert Wright is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of Nonzero, The Moral Animal, and, most recently, The Evolution of God.

Christian Avard: Jack Shaheen: Obama Delivers a Message of Peace to the Muslim World

2009-06-05T17:29:42Z

As I surf the Internet and visit my favorite blogs, I read that many people are saying "why didn't Barack Obama say this" or "why didn't Obama say that?" Many prominent Mideast experts and bloggers are expressing disappointment in Obama. They say his address to the Arab-Muslim world was "status quo patronizing," "nothing but empty words," "lip service," and much more. Jack Shaheen, one of the world's foremost authority on media images of Arabs and Muslims, said he was duly impressed with Obama's address to the Muslim world.

Shaheen is the author of the groundbreaking work "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People." His second book "Guilty: Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11," was recently named the 2008 "Forward Magazine" social sciences book of the year. Shaheen says Obama's message set a positive tone for a sincere dialog about Muslims and Arabs myths and realities. He believes Obama "brought these issues in a very candid and articulate manner to the forefront and he is committed from the get-go."

I interviewed Shaheen shortly before the 2008 general election for Off the Bus and I checked back in to find out what he thought of Obama's address to the Arab-Muslim world.

Huffington Post: So what are your initial impressions of Obama's address to the Arab-Muslim world?

Jack Shaheen: The fact that an American president went to an Arab country and spoke not only young people throughout the Arab-Muslim world and Arab and Israeli leaders, but to world leaders and young people worldwide. I say this primarily because it was a message of peace. His words were designed to make people realize and understand that violence, the occupation of another people, and using religion as a weapon continue to go on. But it needs to stop and we as human beings have a responsibility to shatter the myth and cease the hate rhetoric that we have.

We need to begin a dialog to go forward. We know that will not be an easy task, but [Obama] has set a tone. I think it always begins at the top and hopefully other world leaders and young people will take to heart his message.

We also need to understand that individuals must act on it. We have to follow through as a country [to achieve peace]. We have to make certain that settlements no longer exist and that Israel brings down the wall. Obama did not say that, but should have. He could have compared that to the Berlin Wall. But I think given the hate and the mistrust that exists in Israel - which is not being reported [in the U.S.], - I think he soft-pedaled that. Which I can understand.

I also believe that for more than a century, we have in one way or the other demonized Islam and Muslims. This has had a telling effect. Many Arabs and Muslims are afraid to come to the U.S. because of harassment at airports, taken off a plane, or deported because you were Muslim or Arab. Obama didn't mention that. But we knew instinctively that was what he was talking about. Without saying it, Obama was telling the world 'it's OK to be a Muslim. The Muslims are like Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.'

Now we know a lot of people are not going to shed their prejudices over time about Islam and Muslims. But again, it's coming from the top and that will filter down. I think Obama is not going to let this go. He's not going to stop with this kind of rhetoric. He will continue to quote and cite the similarities between the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah. Of course if I were writing the speech, I would've advised him that the Virgin Mary is mentioned more often in the Koran than she is in the Bible!

Obama was trying to do several things [in his address]. He was trying to shatter crude stereotypes Americans have about Arabs and Muslims, help young Arabs and Muslims and Arab leaders shatter their misperceptions of Americans and Israelis, and help Israelis shatter the crude stereotypes they may have of Arabs and Muslims. I think [Obama's address] brought these issues to the forefront. He's not waiting until the last few months of his presidency to try and bring about peace. Obama's committed from the get-go. This is the first.

It reminded me - in some ways - when former president Richard Nixon speech when he went to China. Americans had all these images of China as "dirty commies." Nixon goes to China and almost over night, our perceptions and policies began to change. They're not going to change that fast, but we've been here before. We were able to turn this around with China. I see no reason why we can't do this.

My problem was that Obama spoke out against Palestinian violence, but not against Israeli violence. He said nothing about the Israeli aggression in Gaza from late December and early January.

I think he did all the things he could have done. But look how many times Obama mentioned Palestine? He also mentioned the occupation. All of us have our particular biases. We can always find things and say 'why didn't he say this or why didn't he say that?' But by and large, it was a speech to bring people together. I think Obama treaded very carefully so much as to not to offend countries who will may step forward and negotiate with the U.S.

First of all, we have to take into consideration that this is the key first step. Obama set the correct tone for the beginning of the peace process. No president before has ever done this. Secondly, he did not speak to the Muslim world, he spoke to Muslims throughout the world. This speech did not only take into consideration Arab Muslims - the ones who are most demonized - but other Muslims from all over the world. No matter where they are, Muslims are persecuted and looked down upon because of their faith. I think this president deserves a tremendous amount of credit for reaching out.

It's human nature to look at a speech like this and say 'well, had I been delivering this speech, this is what I would've said.' I'm sure Robert Fisk would've come down much harder on the Israelis and Tom Friedman would have come down much harder on the Arabs, etc., etc., etc. From that particular point of view, I think there's enough in it to say it was fair and balanced.

I was particularly impressed by the reception [Obama received] at Cairo University. I don't think Obama would've gotten that kind of reception in Israel. There weren't cue cards saying "applaud here" or "cheer there." Those who attended were sincerely moved by Obama's speech and his commitment. I think that's a very strong indication of the seeds Obama has planted. Those seeds will develop and grow as long as he does not waver from his commitment.

In terms of your area of expertise (media criticism), what issues are not being covered about Obama's address?

I think the mainstream media have basically said that the Israelis didn't mind it that much. I don't think that's true. There's been a lot of blogging on how Arabs have reacted, but not enough about how Israelis are reacting. I think we need to know that.

I also think what we haven't followed up on crude stereotypes, how we perceive them, and how Arabs and Muslims perceive us.

I also think commonalities have to be addressed. If I were Larry King, I would have a rabbi, priest and an imam. I don't think we can move forward on this until you shed these misconceptions that we've held for so many years.

I think we need to define what they are and how does Obama plan on changing the way Israelis look at Arabs, or the way we look at Arabs and Muslims and vice-versa. I think that's the key and the major element. We should start with that.

How does Obama's address reflect Americans' perceptions and misperceptions of Arab politics and Arab-Muslim culture?

I think with Arab politics, Obama is talking about being more open and more responsive to citizens of different Arab countries. He does that by saying that political leaders have to be accountable for your people. He's not calling for democracy. But he is calling for accountability. That's extremely important.

In terms of Arab-Muslim culture, we need to have a summit. We need to have a dialog to shatter these myths and I think the dialog comes with media leaders and all the countries involved. It's Hollywood, it's the press, and it's about what can be done so these crude stereotypes are not taken to an extreme. If we continue vilifying one another, peace will never happen.

So where do we go from here after Obama's address?

I think we've learned that we have a leader who cares passionately about the human race, curtailing terrorism worldwide, and putting an end to an illegal occupation. He is a leader who has respect for all faiths; he has the vision to see the commonalities among the faiths; and he is a leader that respects their differences.

I see him as a fearless man and a champion of human rights. I see in Obama a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., only in many ways, he's more universal. There are elements of King and Mahatma Ghandi in Obama. It's all right there. You can see and feel his passion and his commitment to each and every person.

Ari Fleischer: Obama's Cairo Speech "Too Balanced"

2009-06-04T17:27:45Z

Today, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer told CBS that he disapproved of President Obama's speech in Cairo about the U.S. relationship with Muslim communities around the world. His problem with the speech? It was too "balanced."

Greg Barrett: Obama's speech bridges the Abrahamic faiths

2009-06-04T15:47:00Z

Can you imagine President Bush delivering a speech to Muslims and quoting seamlessly from the Bible, the Quran and the Talmud? Any reconciliatory words from a born-again Christian who declared after 9/11, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," would carry no echo from Cairo.

"As-Salamu Alaykum," President Obama said Thursday, delivering the Arab greeting (peace be upon you) exactly one minute into a 55-minute speech in the Arab world's largest city.

Bush would've tumbled headfirst over those six syllables. But all stuttering and bumbling aside, he could not have pulled off what President Obama did in Cairo. Anything that Obama's speech may have lacked in substance (did critics expect a Middle East peace solution?) was outweighed by the religious openness he eloquently expressed.

"I come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect," he said to a rapt audience at Cairo University. "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Quran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.'"

No Texan Methodist who swears by the literal interpretation of John 14:6 ("... The only way to the Father is through the Son.") could offer those words without sounding fake.

So I say today, Thank God (He of Judaism, Islam and Christianity; of Abraham) for Obama's mama. From her grave in Honolulu, Stanley Ann Dunham lives on in the enlightenment of the 44th President of the United States.

"... [F]or all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known," Obama wrote of his mother in The Audacity of Hope. "She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct. ... Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice, and scorned those who were indifferent to both."

As a schoolboy in Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic nation, Dunham sent Obama to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school. Her firstborn son would study the catechism at one and learn about the muezzin's call at the other. In The Audacity Of Hope, Obama recalls that his mother might drag him to church on Easter or Christmas, but she also took him to Buddhist temples, Chinese New Year celebrations, Shinto shrines, and to ancient Hawaiian burial sites. She believed that a good education required a working knowledge of all the world's great teachings and religions. Christianity didn't occupy its own mantle.

"Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones," Obama writes. "Occasionally, for my benefit, she would recall sanctimonious preachers who would dismiss three quarters of the world's people as ignorant heathens doomed to spend the afterlife in eternal damnation ¾ and who in the next breath would insist that the earth and the heavens had been created in seven days, all geologic and astrophysical evidence to the contrary."

Stanley Ann Dunham is why Obama's presidency offers the world an opportunity that goes beyond failed Middle East accords and partisan bantering. She shaped for us a chief executive who shuns moral absolutism for a more inclusive perspective of God, goodness and the axis of evil.

It's why an Obama Administration presents Washington with an opportunity to replace the contradiction of compassionate conservatism with the genuine wisdom of ecumenical humility. Obama is a Christian, as he stated early in Thursday speech, but he shares a faith in all humankind.

"It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward. It is easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share," he said, finishing his speech. "There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew."

Then he bridged the world's three most warring faiths with their own words.

"The Holy Quran tells us, 'O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.' The Talmud tells us: 'The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.' The Holy Bible tells us, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.'"

He exited the Cairo stage to a standing ovation.

M. Zuhdi Jasser: Obama's Speech in Egypt Must Highlight the Plight of Reformers and the Threat of Islamism

2009-06-04T12:08:33Z

On the eve of President Obama's long awaited "Muslim Speech", it is imperative that all freedom-loving Muslims join us in our call upon the Obama administration to take advantage of the unique opportunity it has today to stand up for the universal ideals of human rights in a land where such ideals are oppressed. Speaking from Egypt which remains a backdrop of authoritarian rule that has suffocated dissent and reform, President Obama must address the two-fold cancer which plagues reform and modernization in the so-called "Muslim world." That cancer is Arab secular fascism (i.e. the Mubarak regime) and radical Islamism (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Azhar University). For President Obama to avoid these two major cancers which ultimately fuel terrorism is to avoid one of his responsibilities as leader of the free world.

Terrorism is just a tactic. We are continually threatened by an enemy which cannot be defeated on the battlefield alone, but must be combated in a contest of ideas. We must marginalize and defeat the ideas of political Islam which ultimately drive the dreams of militant Islamists. Egypt is the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood and thus modern day political Islam which gave rise to hundreds of splinter groups of radical Islam throughout the world. Egypt is one of the primary frontlines in this global contest of ideas. To speak in Egypt and avoid the topics of political Islam, radical Islamism, and the Muslim Brotherhood, will be like visiting Moscow in the height of the Cold War and avoiding any mention of the inhumanities of communism and its incompatibility with liberty.

I am looking to the long awaited speech by President Obama to hear the President remind Egyptians and all of the world's Muslims in the 'so-called' Muslim world of the following:

•America calls upon Egypt and all "Muslim" nations to free all dissidents who are imprisoned or oppressed for their ideas, including -- but not limited to -- bloggers, journalists and all liberal thinkers.

•Muslim reforms must recognize the rights and freedoms of all minorities equally and must begin the move toward the separation of mosque and state. Many non-Muslims live in the so-called "Muslim world" and deserve equal treatment under the law and deserve complete religious freedom. Thus, the Muslim world is in reality not the "Muslim" world. It is for all faiths.

•Al-Azhar University in Cairo is a primary example of an Islamist institution which is one of the world's primary sources of supremacist Islamist and salafist ideology. It is imperative that the United States openly expose the perils of political Islam taught and metastasized around the world from that institution and others like it. We hope and pray that the President is similarly addressing the pathologies and medieval nature of Wahhabist ideologies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during his visit there today.

•The states of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) must abandon the Cairo Declaration of Human rights and sign the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

•The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists have a goal of establishing Islamic states and imposing shar'ia law. This is not compatible with universal human rights and individual freedoms and must be addressed openly and critically.

•President Obama should announce a counter-project against the Muslim Brotherhood Project of Islamizing the west which would bring the long awaited anti-theocratic ideals of western freedom to the Middle East.

•Our enemy's enemies will no longer simply be our friends with no questions asked. Our real friends must first share our humanitarian ideals of universal liberty and demonstrate a genuine and rapid course toward liberalizing their society for all citizens. The days of hypocrisy are gone where America turns a blind eye to the injustices done by governments in the name of Islam because of a fear of retaliation, political correctness, or oil prices.

•We will begin to lift up equal rights for women and minorities in every nation and help all courageous leaders of next generations.

•The security of all free-minded nations and their citizens demands that our greatest minds, strongest personalities, and world leaders come together and counter the daily dose of despotism, tribalism, corruption, conspiracy theories, anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism and political Islam which has become a staple for so much of the "Muslim" media. Let there be a contest of ideas -- not one dominated by state run or Islamist-run media.

In January I wrote a hypothetical speech for President Obama to give to the Muslim World. The full text of it is available online at this link. I will listen anxiously awaiting the President's recognition of these core values.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, based in Phoenix, Arizona. He can be reached at zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org

Russell Simmons: Winning The War On Terror

2009-06-04T11:46:43Z

I was brought to tears by the president's simple, but truthful approach to building a bridge with the Muslim world. This is the real way to fight terrorism, through open and honest dialogue, where we promote love and destroy hate. We are now witnessing the front line of the battle. The battle for the hearts and minds of the young men who have believed in the hatred spewed by their terrorist leaders is beginning to be won when our president makes speeches like this.

But I couldn't believe that even on CNN the President's trip was met with skepticism. For America to heal the wounds, we must actively work to heal our own hearts. Thank God the president was deliberate, forthright and leading his people in his actions and speech this morning. Now it's time to have our hearts and actions catch up, as this is the way to healing. Let's eradicate Islamophobia. Start now in your own heart and let's really make this a new beginning!!!

Obama Tours Pyramids: "Five Guys Was Good, This Was Better" (VIDEO)

2009-06-04T11:36:04Z

During his stay in Cairo, Egypt, where he gave his longest and arguably most anticipated speech yet, President Obama indulged in some tourism, visiting the Great Pyramids of Giza, which he labeled "awe-inspiring". Obama described the tour as the best off the record (OTR) experience of his presidency so far -- even trumping the burger run to Five Guys with NBC's Brian Williams last week. "Five Guys was good, this was better," Obama said, according to MSNBC News. AP has more:

The president's brief stay in Cairo included a visit to the Sultan Hassan mosque, a 600-year-old center of Islamic worship and study. He also toured the Great Pyramids of Giza, and joked with reporters that if they were not present, "I'd get on a camel." Some of his aides did just that.

Here's video of some raw footage of President Obama touring the pyramids.

At one point during the tour, Obama is reported to have spotted a hieroglyphic of a large-eared man, spurring the remark, ""That looks like me!" Look at those ears!" ABC News reports.

According to MSNBC, the character in the hieroglyphic represents esteemed qualities:

Dr. Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of the supreme council of antiquities -- who played tour guide to Obama and his entourage -- went on to explain to the president, his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and others the history of the tomb of Kar, who was a priest, a scholar and a judge.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Carlos Watson: The Jerry Maguire Approach to Foreign Policy

2009-06-04T10:18:26Z

Today's speech in Cairo, the most historic of his presidency thus far, is just the latest in a string of smart foreign policy moves that President Obama has made since taking office. He added troops in Afghanistan, brought Russia into the Iran conversation, and has spoken humbly with the Muslim world--something his predecessor was incapable of doing. It's been a good first few months.

But it won't be enough.

At some point down the line--maybe in 6 months, maybe 12--Obama is going to need more than his formidable charm and savvy to realize his foreign policy goals. To curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, to stimulate a viable Israel-Palestine solution, he's going to have to pay. I'm talking cold hard cash. Think of a guy having relationship issues; he might think it's about a lack of communication or a lack of romance, but sometimes all he needs to do to break the stalemate is step up and buy the ring the girl is waiting for. To truly turn around these unstable relationships, Obama is going to have to show them the money.

I know that won't be palatable to many--it's certainly risky to "set" a precedent where we pay our way out of uncomfortable situations. But there's also historical precedent for success. And I know it may seem crazy to spend even more money right now--I'm essentially describing to a foreign policy bailout, one that could top $100 billion. But it might just be most fiscally prudent move he can make.

From North Korea and Iran to Pakistan and Gaza, here are three reasons we'll see foreign policy experts start talking about large cash infusions as a viable option soon.

North Korea Isn't Backing Down Kim Jong-il has spent his entire political life tweaking the U.S. Now that he's in his twilight, you think he's going to back down? Sure, he just named his son his successor. But don't let that fool you. It's going to take serious investment in the North Korean economy--the kind of investment that can turn it into the next South Korea, maybe $10 billion per year for several years--for Kim to give up now.

It's Worked Before America started giving economic aid to Egypt in 1975, a few years before the historic peace talks between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin at Camp David. Once Jimmy Carter was able to get the two to strike a deal, aid to Egypt increased dramatically; the U.S. has handed over more than $50 billion since. Do you think Sadat--who almost left the talks without signing and was seen as a traitor in much of the Muslim world--would have agreed without the cash on the table? Me neither.

The Alternative? Pay More Later--Much More The reality is that the current nuclear showdowns won't be resolved by Bush-like military adventures or Obama's hard power combined with dogged diplomacy. Indeed, if Obama lets the situations in North Korea or Iran linger much longer, he is likely to eventually be drawn into military action--as North Korea goes after South Korea, Israel goes after Iran, or any of a number of other bad scenarios play out. It may seem counterintuitive to suggest that he spend more cash, especially after what I wrote this week about G.M. But with wars costing $1 trillion and annual U.S. defense spending inching towards another trillion, $100 billion in "preemptive foreign aid" will be money well spent.

Cross-posted at The Stimulist

p.s. If you liked this, read up on what the G.M. money says about our values, why Hillary was Obama's best move in the first 100 days, and from the White House over next few months, and why the Dems could be in trouble.

Obama Speech Draws Strong Reactions From Egyptians, Arabs And Israelis

2009-06-04T09:23:04Z

UPDATE: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office has now issued a statement following Obama's Thursday speech. From Jerusalem Post:

"The government of Israel expresses hope that President Obama's important speech will lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world, and Israel. We share Obama's hope that the American effort will bring about an end to the conflict and to pan-Arab recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

"Israel is obligated to peace and will do as much as possible to help expand the circle of peace, while taking into consideration our national interests, the foremost of which is security," the statement concluded.

---
Reactions to Obama's speech addressing the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt, Thursday were prompt and disparate, covering the gamut between laudatory and derogatory. A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, with whom Obama met last week, described the speech as "a good start and an important step towards a new American policy," according to Reuters, however Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far been notably silent. And according to UPI, the reaction within Israel to Obama's speech was 'divided':

Analysts on Israeli television stations criticized the American president for failing to mention the word terror in his speech even once, opting instead to use violence. While the professionalism and conviction Obama delivered his speech was praised by some Israeli officials, others felt the president's reference to the Holocaust followed by a direct passage where he spoke of the suffering and humiliation of the Palestinian people was hurtful and unnecessary.

The speech is reported to have been well received within Cairo itself, according to the Washington Post:

The fact that Barack Obama chose Egypt as the location for Thursday's address to the Muslim world endeared him to the locals, who are always proud to host a foreigner and even prouder when it shows off their history.

Representing a more cynical, but predictable viewpoint is Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who issued a statement Thursday to say that it will take much more than "words, speech and slogan" to repair America's "ugly, detested and rough" image, according to the AP.

Likewise, a spokesman for Hamas' leader in Gaza, Ayman Taha, relayed similarly unimpressed sentiments, describing the approach laid out in the speech as "no different from the policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush," the BBC reports.

Also from the BBC, Hassan Fadlallah, speaking for Hezbollah in Lebanon, expresses basically the same viewpoint:

The Islamic world does not need moral or political sermons. It needs a fundamental change in American policy beginning from a halt to complete support for Israeli aggression on the region, especially on Lebanese and Palestinians, to an American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and a stop to its interference in the affairs of Islamic countries. We have not seen any change in US policy towards the Palestinian cause.

Eric Goldstein, speaking for Human Rights Watch, via Reuters, commended certain parts of the speech, such as the call for Israel to halt settlement activities, but he lamented what he saw as a lack of specificity regarding barriers for democracy in the Muslim world, saying:

"I don't expect that he would single out Egypt as the host country, but he might have mentioned for example a state of emergency that has been in effect for 30 years. And not just in Egypt but in other countries. He could have mentioned the imprisonment of dissidents."

According to the AP, Muslims regard the approach laid out in the speech as a 'shift', but not a 'breakthrough':

From shopkeepers and students to radical groups such as Hamas, many Muslims praised President Barack Obama's address Thursday as a positive shift in U.S. attitude and tone. But hard-liners criticized it as style over substance and said it lacked concrete proposals to turn the words into action.

Obama touched on many themes Muslims wanted to hear in the highly anticipated speech broadcast live across much of the Middle East and elsewhere across the Muslim world. He insisted Palestinians must have a state and said continued Israeli settlement in the West Bank is not legitimate. He assured them the U.S. would pull all it troops out of Iraq by 2012 and promised no permanent U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

But at the top of his priorities, he put the battle against violent extremism. And he was faulted for not apologizing for U.S. wars in Muslim countries.

The AP has more from a variety of respondents in a number of Muslim countries, many of whom provide their own dose of skepticism and criticism for issues they believe the speech was remiss to address:

"President Obama is a brave president. ... We hope he will open a new chapter with the Islamic world and Arab nations in particular." _ Mithwan Hussein, a Baghdad resident.

"Bush and Clinton said the same about a Palestinian state, but they've done nothing, so why should we believe this guy?" _ Ali Tottah, 82, a Palestinian refugee at the Baqaa refugee camp in Jordan.

"There is a change between the speech of President Obama and previous speeches made by George Bush. But today's remarks at Cairo University were based on soft diplomacy to brighten the image of the United States." _ Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza.

"Obama's speech is an attempt to mislead people and create more illusions to improve America's aggressive image in the Arab and Islamic world." _ A joint statement by eight Damascus, Syria-based radical Palestinian factions, including Hamas.

"We share President Obama's hope that the American effort will herald the beginning of the end of the conflict and a general Arab recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people living in security and peace in the Middle East." _ an Israeli government statement.

"Why did he not come here to Gaza, instead of going to Egypt? He is welcome to come and see, to inspect with his own eyes, to see the war crimes and the new Holocaust." _ Mohammed Khader, 47, whose house in Gaza was leveled by Israeli troops during the offensive against Hamas.

"It was actually better than we expected, but not as good as we hoped. ... His stance on democracy was very general, a bit weak, we hoped for more detail." _ Ayman Nour, an Egyptian dissident recently released from prison.

"I grew up as a Muslim, and some religious leaders told us to hate other people. So he was speaking directly at me, telling us to stop hating Israelis and Jews. He is the most powerful man in the world and millions of people around the Middle East will see hope in what he said." _ Hani Ameer, an Iraqi immigrant in London.

"It still was a speech about what America wants. Maybe that's only natural, because he wants to protect American interests in the region. ... But I really do believe he envisions a world that is pluralistic, where different religions can live peacefully together, with respect, as he himself experienced in Indonesia." _ Edi Kusyanto, a teacher at the school in Indonesia where Obama went as a child.

"Obama's attempt was positive but not effective. As long as the U.S is supporting Israel there will be no hope for better U.S.-Islamic relations." _ Niloofar Mirmohebi, an Iranian student in Tehran.

"The part of Obama's speech regarding the Palestinian issue is an important step under new beginnings. ... This is the beginning of a new American policy and this policy is creating a new atmosphere to build the Palestinian state." _ Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"There also hasn't really been any other Western leader who has expressed such commitment to fighting negative stereotypes regarding Muslims." _ Chandra Muzaffar, president of the International Movement for a Just World think-tank in Malaysia.

"This vision is so out of touch with reality. ... You can have your speechwriters find every good thing a Muslim has ever done. But more modern history is that the Muslim world is at war with the Western world." _ Aliza Herbst, 56, a spokeswoman for Yesha, the West Bank settlers' council.

"It was very positive. A president with the middle name of Hussein being in Cairo talking about collaboration means a lot for Muslims." _ Malek Sitez, an international law expert in Kabul, Afghanistan.

"It's one of the most important speeches ever delivered, a key speech for changing the climate in the Middle East. Israel will make a big mistake if it ignores it." _ Yuli Tamir, a dovish Israeli lawmaker.

"I think there should have been apologies from him for the deaths and misery caused by wrong American policies against Muslims, whether it be in our region or in other places." _ Muhsin Karim, 45, an engineer in Baghdad.

"I challenge any Arab leader to go to the U.S. or the West and quote the Bible like Obama quoted the Quran." _ Rabah al-Mutawa, a Saudi woman in Riyadh.

"Whatever wounds America has inflicted on the world, they are very deep and they cannot be erased away by only one speech." _ Pakistani political analyst Siraj Wahab, speaking on Aaj TV.

"This is the first president we see in the United States that is talking about the Palestinian issue, resolving the Palestinian issue in the first six months of his presidency. Usually, it's in the last two months of the presidency." _ Saad Hariri, leader of Lebanon's parliamentary majority.

br>

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!