Obama Mideast Trip on The Huffington Post

Obama's Foreign Trips (PHOTOS, POLL)

2009-11-02T13:42:58Z

Since President Obama's inauguration in January, he has traveled to more countries then any other U.S. president. On the one-year anniversary of Obama's election, the HuffPost looks at Obama's international travels, which took him to 16 different countries since taking office -- with 29 days spent abroad so far.

Former presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford both traveled to 15 countries in their first year in office. Richard Nixon traveled to 14. Franklin Roosevelt only made it to one in his first year, and Harry Truman only made it to four countries in his entire time in office.

Is Obama's travel abroad worthwhile? Does it dramatically improve U.S. relations with the international community, or should Obama focus more on America's domestic problems?

What do you think of President Obama's foreign policy efforts since the election? Has the president been a success or a failure? Tell HuffPost here.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Diane Tucker: Freed Academic Haleh Esfandiari: 'Iranians Want Evolution, Not Revolution'

2009-08-26T13:48:07Z

Renowned journalist and academic Haleh Esfandiari used to fly from Washington, D.C., to Tehran every Christmas to visit her elderly mother. This pleasant routine changed dramatically in 2007 when Esfandiari was arrested and charged with plotting to overthrow the Iranian government, with a little help from the United States. The soft-spoken intellectual (and grandmother of two) spent months in Evin Prison, sleeping on the floor and enduring harrowing interrogations, until an international outcry hastened her release.

Yesterday I spoke with Esfandiari at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where she is the director of the Middle East Program.

At 67 years of age, you were put in solitary confinement in a Tehran prison. The physical stress was horrendous. I'm curious about the mental stress -- was your age a plus or a minus?

Haleh Esfandiari: It was a plus, because whenever I thought about my wonderful life and family and friends, I knew I had already experienced everything a person could wish for. I had a wonderful childhood in Iran. I enjoyed going to college in Austria. I was successful, I think, in my career. So I thought, "If worse comes to worse, and I am sentenced to life in prison...so what? I have had a beautiful life."

Even so, sometimes you daydreamed about being rescued by your husband, Shaul. When he accompanied the rest of your family on a vacation to Kennebunkport without you, did you feel abandoned?

I begged my family to go to Maine. We had planned this vacation together. I told them that if they really loved me, they would honor my wish. My husband, who is Jewish, couldn't come to Iran anyway. The authorities would have arrested him at the airport, and made a showcase out of both of us.

Tell me about the day you received a single white rose in prison.

One morning, one of the female guards walked into my cell, still wearing her veil. From underneath the veil, she pulled out a white rose and silently handed it to me. I was fighting back tears.

You're fighting back tears now.

Yes, just remembering her moving gesture....it really was amazing. I love flowers. I put the rose in a paper cup along with a leaf I had found on the prison grounds. When the rose faded, I placed it between the pages of the one book I had in my cell.

Iranian women once enjoyed so much more freedom than they do today, it's no wonder they poured into the streets to protest the election results. But weren't these women taking a huge risk?

When the Islamic Revolution took place 30 years ago, the new government suspended the Family Protection Law -- the pillar of women's rights. This law covered the age of marriage, the right to seek a divorce, the right to work, and so on. When it was suspended, men once again could take as many wives as they wanted, could take away the children in case of divorce, could stop women from leaving the house. At that moment -- the moment their rights were taken away -- Iranian women started protesting, and they have been a major force ever since. The movement culminated three years ago with the launch of the One Million Signatures Campaign. Some of the campaigners had been jailed, but not deterred.

More than 100 post-election protesters have been arrested for plotting to overthrow the regime -- the same bogus charge you faced. In your case, a tsunami of high-level international support hastened your release. Without global intervention, what will happen to these jailed demonstrators?

I'm very worried about them. I'm especially concerned about Kian Tajbakhsh, the Iranian-American who was in jail with me two years ago. Kian was freed a month after I was, but he opted to stay in Iran. For some reason the authorities have decided to go after him again. As far as I know, Kian has kept a low profile. They must be rehashing old charges, which is a worrisome development.

A number of the more than 100 people who are being put on trial are elite members of the Islamic Republic. They don't want to overthrow the regime, only to open up the system. I hope there will be serious international condemnation of this show trial. I hope the European Union will protest as a bloc.

Many Iranian expatriates would love to speak out against the mass trial, but they're afraid of endangering family and friends back home.

They can convey their fears, unhappiness, and concerns to their congressmen. Luckily, Iranians have representatives in Congress so our voices can be heard. At least, we hope our voices are heard.

In your beautifully written memoir, you said that two decades of authoritarian rule have turned a generation of students into outright revolutionaries. How convinced are you that the Green Wave is home grown, and not the work of foreign agents?

I'm 100 percent convinced the Green movement is home grown. First of all, it was an accidental movement. Mousavi was campaigning in the provinces when a young man came and put a green shawl around his neck. Mousavi thought the effect was beautiful, so he started wearing green, then his wife started wearing green, pretty soon everyone was wearing green. I truly don't believe this was a color revolution like the rose revolution of Georgia, or the orange revolution of Ukraine. This was a grassroots movement for one purpose only when it started -- to support Mousavi and get him elected the next president of Iran.

Yes, the Bush Administration allocated millions of dollars to promote democracy in Iran, but that effort failed. The people of Iran were upset about the money because they wanted change from within.

Students in Iran are surprisingly quiet right now.

They're scared. A mass trial will do that.

Every two or three years, there has been a wave of protests like this in Iran. But this time I think there has been a fundamental change. I don't know how the government is going to gain back its credibility. I'm stunned by the mass trial, which will hurt the regime more than they think it will.

In prison you wrote a children's book to keep from losing your mind. Tell me about the plot.

I wrote the book in my head, because I had no paper in my cell. It's the story of a fairy princess who was born in a castle, where she lives a beautiful life. Then one day she becomes lost in the woods, and stumbles upon many different animals. In the story, I describe her encounter with each animal. Her mother is a fairy, too, and a wonderful woman who watches over the princess throughout her journey. The story ends when the princess arrives back at the castle, bringing all of the animals with her. She puts them in a boat that looks a little like Noah's Ark, which she floats on a lake near the castle.

It was very soothing for me to write this story, because I could imagine telling it to my two granddaughters one day. This mental image kept me going.

After everything you've been through, do you still love Iran?

Yes, I love the mountains...the sea...the blue sky. I love my Iranian family. I love the Iranian people. Every country has good and evil people -- it's impossible to get through life without stumbling over evil people.

I wrote a book about my experience because I believe I would not have been arrested -- and the demonstrators would not be facing trial -- if the United States and Iran had diplomatic relations. It will be difficult to start this process now, because of recent developments. The Ahmadinejad regime does not have legitimacy inside Iran and as a result, they may feel too weak and vulnerable to sit at the negotiating table at this time.

Haleh at age six, wearing her first piece of "real" jewelry -- a brooch from her mother.

* * *

Haleh Esfandiari's memoir of her months spent in solitary confinement in Tehran's Evin Prison is called My Prison, My Home. It will be published on September 1st.

Diane Tucker's other posts on the situation in Iran can be read here, here, here, here, and here.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Do Arabs See Israel as a Permanent Fact?

2009-08-19T16:40:06Z

A recent article in the New York Times sums up all that is wrong with the Obama administration's posture toward Israel. The article concerns President Hosni Mubarak's meeting with President Obama. What we first discover is that Mubarak has not visited the United States in five years because of "President Bush's Middle East policy... and criticism of Egypt's political and human rights record."

So what we first discover is that the Obama administration is prepared to overlook the lack of any kind of Democratic progress in Egypt and treat Mubarak as an important visiting Head of State even though he's been a dictator, for nearly 40 years.

The next thing the article shares with us is that Mubarak's message to Obama is that, from the Arab perspective, progress can only be made if Israel agrees to "freeze settlements...and agree to negotiate with all issues on the table including the status of Jerusalem and the refugees." So, in other words, if Israel is prepared to give up its capitol and to allow massive numbers of Palestinian refugees that would basically offset the Jewish character of the State of Israel, are the Arabs prepared to negotiate. In other words if you open the door to ceasing to exist we are prepared to begin speaking.

Over the weekend I was reading Benny Morris' brilliant new book 1948 The First Arab Israeli War and the chapter concerning the UN's resolution 181 which voted for the partition of Palestine in 1947. I came across a quote that sums up the Arab position towards Israel better than anything that I've read. Morris quotes 'Abd al-Rahman 'Azzam, who was the Arab League secretary-general in 1947 who said the following:

"[To the Arab peoples] you are not an [existing] fact. You [the Jews] are a temporary phenomenon. Centuries ago, the crusaders established themselves in our midst against our will, and in 200 years we ejected them....Up to the very last moment, and beyond, they [the Arabs] will fight to prevent you from establishing your State. In no circumstances will they agree to it." But Morris says that "Azzam added that, in the past, the Arabs had "once had Spain, and then we lost Spain, and we have become accustomed to not having Spain....Whether at any point we shall become accustomed to not having a part of Palestine, I can not say."

This sums up the Arab posture better than anything else. It is only when the Arabs accept Israel as a permanent and unassailable fact that they will come to terms with Israel and make peace, just as they were forced to do with their loss of Spain which the Muslims had held on to for hundreds of years prior to the Catholic reconquest. That will not happen if Israel does not establish facts on the ground that demonstrate once and for all that it is here to stay. This is the reason why Arab governments press so hard against settlements. The less there is of Israel the easier it is for them to accept that Israel will be like a crusader state in their midst, established for a period of time but ultimately destined, G-d forbid, to disappear.

I just came back from a Mayonot trip to Israel where I met AIPAC representatives who were my friends at AIPAC who were guiding both the republican and democratic delegation of Freshman congressman and they were showing them that by the Obama administration's definition of settlement this would include even apartments in the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem who would not be allowed to add rooms for natural growth as babies were born. Clearly a policy like this is not just wrong headed but discriminatory. It would put limits to where Jews can live. No wonder then that polls are showing that 90% of Israelis are opposed to President Obama's policies, which is interesting given that Israel is so evenly divided between right and left and they all seem to agree that Obama has just lost the plot on his efforts for peace in the Middle East.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow Shmuley on Twitter
Shmuley's on Facebook
Buy Rabbi Shmuley's newest book The Kosher Sutra
Join the national "Turn Friday Night Into Family Night" initiative.
See Shmuley on the web

Ahmed Shihab-Eldin: Does "Urging Israel" Amount to "Change We Can Believe In"?

2009-08-05T18:48:51Z

Israel forcibly removed Palestinian families from homes that its government declared to be under Jewish ownership last weekend.

Never mind that the Palestinians had been living on the land in Sheikh Jarrah for decades. But within hours, Jewish families settled into the evacuated homes.

In a statement on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded by calling the expulsion "deeply regrettable" and said that "the eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations." She then urged the government of Israel to refrain from such provocative actions.

But Clinton's condemnations are as fruitless as they are correct, as unnecessary as they are obvious.

U.S. Policy Change

Expressing disappointment and calling on Israel not to repeat its "deeply regrettable" actions is ineffective, so when will America's policy change from a slap on the wrist to a handcuff to international law?

So long as Israel refuses to stop the construction of Jewish settlements and building the separation wall in the occupied Palestinian territories, the so called peace initiative will remain a political liability, rather than opportunity for progress for a just peace.

But perhaps the most promising development to emerge within Israel of late is the Israeli police's recommendation that Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's right-wing foreign minister -- whose racist sentiments and policies towards his country's own Arab minority have invited international condemnation -- be indicted on a series of corruption charges including bribery, money-laundering and embezzlement.

The decision, whether to press charges, ultimately lay in the hands of Menahem Mazuz, Israel's attorney general.

Lieberman's Corruption

If the criminal investigation, underway for over a decade now, materializes into formal charges, he will be forced to step down from his role as foreign minister.

Israeli television has already reported that a money trail has been found that tracks illegal donations through bank accounts opened in Cyprus. The reports are said to reveal enough evidence to formally charge Lieberman.

Whether Lieberman is forced to resign or not, it is clear that his political survival has depended on his ability to play to the fears of Israeli citizens and racist sentiments of much of Israel's ultra-nationalist minorities.

When mock elections were held in Israeli schools, reports flooded the media of high school students that had voted for Lieberman chanting "Death to the Arabs" (a toxic phrase that did not even distinguish between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians).

If the United States is serious about changing the deadlock surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they would benefit from treating extremism and intolerance within Israel with the same approach they use in Palestine, Lebanon and across the region -- isolation, condemnation and most importantly, consequences.

In the lead up to Lebanon's most recent parliamentary elections, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced in Beirut that aid to Lebanon would be reviewed according to which party won the elections -- the Western-backed March 14 coalition or the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance.

Parity in Punishment

Without this parity in "isolation and punishment", the U.S. will struggle to be taken seriously -- if not among Arab leaders, then on the Arab street -- in spite of Obama's uplifting address to the Muslim world in Egypt on June 4.

Earlier this year Obama went so far as to demand that Israel stop settlement activity on the West Bank as part of a peace deal leading to the creation of a new Palestinian state, but stopped short of an ultimatum.

But in the same speech and consistently over the past several months, Obama (who has delivered key speeches on the issue of race and racism inside America) has said that in order to advance the peace process Palestinians must reduce "anti-Israel sentiments" expressed in schools and mosques but made no mention of the controversy brewing in many of Israel's schools.

For Palestinians, the U.S. policy is that of condemnation and consequence. But for Israel it has consistently been one of subtle criticism and unwavering support.

Again, a parity in the political approach is lacking.

If nothing else, the shift in the tone of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should be taken as a telling sign of the paramount importance for Israel to finally be coerced into a more pragmatic and principled approach to peace.

Fatah's Right to Resist

Abbas, the leader of Fatah, the more moderate of Palestine's two major political parties, has reformed his rhetoric and potentially his party's policies in recent weeks.

Abbas told a packed room of thousands of delegates at a conference on Tuesday -- the first in over two decades -- in Bethlehem, "Although peace is our choice, we reserve the right to resistance, legitimate under international law."

"We will not stand helpless in the face of Israeli incursions."

Abbas' mention of "the right to resistance" and "international law" echoes the talking points of Hamas and, more importantly, solidified Fatah as a resistance movement first, albeit one that is willing to move towards peace.

Al Jazeera English's Web site reported this week that a draft of Fatah's new program calls for new forms of resistance such as civil disobedience against Jewish settlement expansion and the separation wall.

The US government has supported Fatah over Hamas due to its willingness to negotiate with Israel and make necessary concessions, but Abbas' speech on Tuesday suggests that time for either of those possibilities may no longer be running out, but instead may have reached its expiry date.

In Arabic, the juxtaposition commonly used to ask whether someone is a Fatah or Hamas supporter is whether one is with the "Muqawamah" or "resistance" - referring to Hamas.

Fatah has repositioned its own approach to peace with Israel, it is time that the US does the same.

Eric Margolis: Obama and the Muslim World

2009-06-16T15:40:23Z

After what most of the Muslim world considered eight years of relentless hostility by the Bush/Cheney administration, the advent of President Barack Obama was anticipated with enormous hope and enthusiasm.

President Obama's masterfully written, artfully delivered recent speech in Cairo was filled with precisely what the Muslim world had been waiting to hear: an intelligent, respectful American leader calling for normalized relations with the Muslim world, including former 'betes noires' Iran and Syria, cooperation, and genuine US support for democracy and human rights.

But the Muslim world was not as enthused by Obama's silver-tongued oratory as many Americans. The general response among Muslims was, 'actions speak louder than words. Where are the actions.'

Unfortunately, rather than a newly friendly, helpful United States promoting democracy and human rights, many Muslims saw the Obama administration expanding the war in Afghanistan that he could easily have ended, or at least put on hold upon taking office.

They saw the US-rented Pakistani Army create 3 million refugees in its Swat offensive against rebellious Pashtun tribesmen; the continuing US occupation of Iraq that many believe will never end; CIA's covert campaign to destabilize Iran and Syria, and Washington's continuing machinations in Somalia.

They listened to the US Congress applaud Israel's refusal to cease building illegal settlements or to respect the basic human rights of Palestinians. They heard US neoconservatives baying for war against Iran.

The Muslim world listened to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu demand Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, thus delegitimizing that nation's 20% Christian and Muslim minority, and negating any right to return by millions of Palestinian refugees. Netanyahu insisted Palestine would remain sealed from the outside by Israeli security forces.

These facts unfortunately speak a lot louder than the president's mellifluous oratory.

We would like to give the new president the benefit of the doubt. He has been in office only five months and will need a lot more time to begin repairing the catastrophic damage inflicted by the Bush administration on US interests and standing in the Muslim world and Europe. He must confront powerful Washington lobbies that have been entrenched for decades.

However, the White House's recent actions even contradict many of the new president's promises.

Exhibit A: Obama unfortunately chose Egypt, of all places, from which to deliver his message to the Muslim world of amity, democracy and human rights.

Egypt's US-backed military dictator, President Husni Mubarak, has held power for 27 years and is grooming his son, North Korean-style, to replace him. A third of the Arab world's people live in Egypt. Rather than setting a progressive, democratic example for the Mideast, Egypt has is deeply repressive and out of step with the times.

Egypt's human rights record is lamentable, as even senior US officials have complained. Its prisons are notorious for abuse and torture. The Bush administration routinely sent captives to Egypt for outsourced torture.

A far-too large army, corrupt oligarchy and ferocious secret police provide the foundation of the Mubarak regime's power. However, capable and clever he may be, Mubarak remains an autocrat who crushes all opposition and only tolerates yes-men.

Yet Egypt is America's most important Muslim ally, along with Saudi Arabia. Is this what Obama means when he calls for democracy and human rights? He should have given his speech from democratic Indonesia, or the progressive United Arab Emirates and Qatar rather than Egypt, a pillar of America's Mideast Raj.

Who, one wonders, is advising the president on the Mideast and Afghanistan?

Exhibit B: Lebanon's 7 June parliamentary elections. A US/French/Saudi-backed coalition of Sunni, Christians, and Druze was pitted against a Syrian-Iranian backed Hezbullah-led coalition that included Armenians and a Christian splinter faction.

Late last month, US Vice President Joseph Biden went to Lebanon and openly threatened to cut off all US aid to that nation of 3.9 million if the democratically-elected Hezbullah coalition won. Hillary Clinton made similar crude threats. Is this the kinder, gentler, more thoughtful Obama way? Even Dick Cheney kept this threats private.

Imagine the uproar if the Saudi crown prince came to the US just before elections and threatened to raise oil prices if Democrats won.

The United States, Saudi Arabia and France spent hundreds of millions of dollars bribing Lebanon's venal politicians and buying votes. The US has been mucking around like this in Lebanon since 1957, often with disastrous results.

Iran spread some money around as well. Nothing new about that: Lebanon's elections often are determined by who bought the most voters and politicians.

All the western 'baksheesh' and some fancy vote rigging helped the US-backed March 14 coalition, headed by Saad Hariri, win 71 seats. The Hezbullah-led coalition won only a surprisingly small 57 seats. This left fragmented Lebanon just where it was before this sleazy election. The vote results reeked of fraud. But Washington hailed Lebanon's vote.

Is this what Obama means by promoting good government and democracy in the Muslim world?

Exhibit C: Iran's hotly contested democratic election for president. The incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was blasted on TV by his opponents and subject to barrages of public criticism. There is not a single other Arab ally of the US, Lebanon excepted, where such feisty democratic behavior would be tolerated, and even less than would an honest vote.

Opponents in Iran are calling foul, claiming Ahmadinejad's victory was rigged, but, so far, offering little hard proof. However imperfect, Iran's elections tend to be much fairer than those of their Arab neighbors or Pakistan. At least President Obama has so far wisely reserved comment on Iran's fraught election.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims alike see Obama as an honest, decent, well-intentioned leader. But they are wondering if he has so far failed to impose his will on the entrenched interests in Washington that appear to be carrying on many of George Bush's policies.

Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi: It's About Time For the Gulf to Have its Own Special Envoy

2009-06-15T12:24:35Z

Around the Arab world, it is just known as the Obama speech. You don't need to mention in which venue or country it took place. People just know. Arabs and Muslims who have generally been ruled by autocrats have heard the US president Barack Obama speak directly to them twice in a period of six months. Mr. Obama first addressed us in the Turkish Parliament this spring and then at Cairo University this summer. Twice is two times more than Arab leaders have addressed their own people in many instances.

But what must our reactions be? The core of the speech centered on the Palestinian issue. Remember the Palestinians? Yes, they are still suffering from occupation, an evil blockade and manipulation by some regimes and television stations in the region. In order for the Gulf states to move forward from paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, the first step is to meet Mr. Obama half way. The Gulf Arabs can start by appointing a special envoy for the Palestinian cause who can travel to Egypt and the Levant to meet the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Hamas, Hizbollah and yes, even Israel.

Why? Because it is primarily in the interests of the Palestinians in the refugee camps and in the interest of the people of the region that six decades of injustice be corrected. Most of the Palestinians and Arabs who reject peace live comfortable lives in the region or in the West where they can easily pass judgement on how much longer the refugee camp Palestinians can continue to live in misery.

The Gulf states can also establish a fund of significant size -- possibly in the billions of dollars -- that can be part of the mandate of this special envoy. The envoy can release the funds depending on the advances made on the ground and provide them to the Palestinians. The envoy must personally oversee the disbursement of the funds so that they are not lost in Fatah's web of corruption or Hamas's propaganda war.

So far the US has appointed a Special Envoy to the Middle East Peace Process, George Mitchell. The ineffective Quartet (the US, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations) appointed Tony Blair, and even the Chinese appointed their own envoy, Sun Bigan. The Russian president went so far as appointing Alexander Saltanov, a deputy foreign minister as his special envoy for the Middle East and the Indian government appointed CR Gharekhan as Special Envoy for West Asia and the Middle East Peace Process. It seems that more than half of the world's population has taken the matter more seriously than the Arabs.

The closest the Arabs have to their own special envoy is Egypt's own intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, who has been actively brokering deals between rival Palestinian groups, now a full-time job, in addition to visiting the Israelis and Jordanians.

It is time for the Arabs, and especially those in the oil-rich Gulf, to appoint a consensus candidate who is a career diplomat and can represent us in the peace negotiations that Mr. Obama is pushing for. The Gulf states cannot afford to waste more time by having others do their "dirty work". After all, the Middle East crisis will not solve itself, not peacefully at least. We must take a cue from the rest of the world by using our economic clout (we do control up to half the world's oil after all) and appoint an emissary whose full time job is to travel within the region and try to bring the position of the Arabs closer together.

The envoy can also visit China, Russia, India, Europe, the US and the UN to speak on our behalf. This envoy must have a great command of the English language, and perhaps others, and must be trained in the art of negotiation and diplomacy. Such an appointment would be a significant demonstration to the Obama administration and the rest of the world that we are serious about peace.

Lifting the embargo on Gaza should be the envoy's first mandate. This will prove to the world that peace is good for business and business is good for peace. Since the GCC can't seem to agree on much lately, it may also be easier to pick a consensus candidate from among the list of former GCC Secretary Generals who already have an established rapport with Gulf leaders.

There are many Arabs who will doubt Mr. Obama's intention and capability in bringing peace to the region. Mr. Obama isn't perfect; his naïveté was exposed when he called for Jerusalem to forever be the undivided capital of Israel at the last American Israel Public Affairs Committee congress to win support of the powerful Israeli lobby. No, Mr. Obama isn't perfect, but he's the best shot we've got in the Middle East. The least we can do is meet him half way.

Sure, he isn't perfect, but who of us is?

Originally published in The National on June 14th, 2009.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: The iPod and the Queen, the Kindle and the King

2009-06-10T18:15:00Z

It was not an April Fools' joke. When President Barack Obama met with the Queen of the Commonwealth at Buckingham Palace, he gave her an iPod. Last week, I was half expecting the president to show up in the Middle East laden with Kindles.

He could have started with a special reading selection when he met Saudi King Abdullah. The day after, when the president spoke to the Muslim world at Al-Azhar University, I pictured him handing out another Kindle to Muhammed Sayyid Tantawy, the university's grand sheikh. Obama might have had a third Kindle for the ambassador of Iran to Egypt (for this man represents the ayatollah, who is the highest authority for Shia Muslims), who attended the presidential address.

Unlike the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth, the umma, or Muslim community, has no symbolic leader, let alone a formal one. The king of Saudi Arabia; the grand sheikh of Al-Azhar University (the largest, and in the eyes of many Muslim scholars, most prestigious Islamic center of learning); and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran all make equal claims to represent the heart and soul of the umma.

They have their differences. The king is the protector of the holy shrine of Islam and a political leader. The grand sheikh has no formal political power, but it is not an exaggeration to say his institution is one of the most influential in the Muslim world. And Iran not only claims spiritual power but pursues political and military dominance. The issue of who speaks for Islam is perhaps the worst nightmare for the U.S.; this is not fully appreciated by the crafters of American foreign policy. This makes a discussion of the relationship between Islam and the West much more problematic than the president's speechwriters realize.

Like former U.S. presidents, Obama denounced Islamic extremism without once associating Islam with extremism. He firmly stated that America is not at war with Islam and will never be; and he invited the Muslim world to join hands with the U.S. to fight extremism tooth and nail.

However, Islamic extremism can be read in two ways. The first is in its foreign policy implications for the United States -- that is, in its expansionist or jihadi meaning. Al-Qaida-like attacks on American soil against Americans or American interests will be met with force, the president promised. That's an easy position to take because for the United States; it's a position of self-defense. It is not America that is at war with Islam. It is Islam that is at war with America.

The second sense of the word "extremism," used many times by the president, is as a euphemism for the application of Islamic law, or sharia, in Muslim countries. This, the president evidently hopes to counter by wooing the Muslim street.

The courtship articulated in his speech was peppered with false praise (". . . it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed . . . our mastery of pens and printing"), feigned common principles and made ridiculous promises to fight negative stereotyping of Islam wherever he encounters it.

This is all part of political rhetoric, but it really doesn't lead to concrete change. This, in my view, is the wrong strategy. Instead of pretending that Muslims invented printing, the president should be confronting them with the key products of the Western printing press. And it's here that Kindles really could be of use.

I imagined him offering the king, the sheikh and the ayatollah each a Kindle with Abraham Lincoln's passionate case that he made against slavery and for equality. Obama reminded the Muslim world that "black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding."

Nowhere in the world is bigotry so rampant as in Muslim countries. No difference is greater between American and Islamic principles than the founding ideals of both. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of Islam that al-Qaida and other Muslim puritans insist on the implementation of sharia law, jihad and the eternal subjection of women. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of America that blacks and women fought for -- and gained -- equal rights and gays and new immigrants continue to do so. I wish the president were so candid as to say that. But, perhaps, that is something for a later stage in the courtship.

I would also include Thomas Jefferson's improvements on the New Testament. The king, the sheikh and the ayatollah might not cut and paste the Quran, but together they have the authority to rule that parts of the Holy Book no longer apply in the modern world. For instance, the edicts of sharia law that reject innovation and scientific inquiry and order all Muslims to spread Islam.

Of course, no reading selection would be complete without a copy of the United States Constitution, highlighting (because you can do that in a Kindle) the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment.

And for good measure, I would also add JFK's inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. . . . To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required. . . . To those nations who would make themselves our adversary ... (w)e dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. . . . Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Not to mention woman.

Obama promised to launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority countries to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. Does he realize that the transfer of ideas also creates opportunities for the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia to punish the practice of un-Islamic ideas?

That poor girl in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, who, after seven men raped her, was sentenced to flogging, had succumbed to the novel idea of flirting by cell phone. In the Kingdom, every Friday, cruel and unusual punishment is perpetrated, far worse than anything John Adams saw in his time. The hands of those suspected of stealing -- mostly poor, immigrant workers -- are amputated.

The more one is dark-skinned in Saudi Arabia, the bleaker his circumstances, not to mention hers. For in the Kingdom, black is still considered to be inferior. Men and women convicted of adultery, apostasy, treason and other "offenses" are beheaded. Thousands of women are rotting in Saudi jails, waiting to be flogged, or are flogged daily for acts such as mingling with men, improper attire, fornication and virtual relationships on the Internet and cell phones.

Promotion of literacy for girls, which the president wants to help pursue, is a noble cause. But, unless sharia laws are repealed, more girls will find themselves in flogging pens rather than rising up the career ladder.

Barack Obama, a historic president in a historic moment, promised to host a summit of entrepreneurship in Muslim-majority countries "to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the U.S. and Muslim countries around the world."

I wish he would host a reading summit where we truly "say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts that too often are said only behind closed doors." For too many of us born into Islam, saying those things openly can land us in jail or in the graveyard.

Aram Khayatpour: Taking Our Seat at the Table

2009-06-10T10:57:17Z

We have spent recent years fighting an unconventional war in a conventional way. We have sent in ground troops and bombed villages to rubble. We tried to scare our enemies into surrender with sadistic strategies such as "shock and awe." Our former president spoke violent words, full of bravado and hatred aimed at intimidating our enemies, but also resulting in animosity towards innocent people. The Iraq War was started with the old-fashioned belief that superior arms would easily crush an enemy and lead to a quick victory, but the wars of today no longer follow these rules. Luckily, after having to deal with the idiotic thugs of the last 8 years who wielded military might as if they were overcompensating for their own insecurities, we now have a president who seems to get it.

If there was any doubt that President Obama would bring change to foreign policy his speech in Cairo, Egypt wiped it away. His speech set a new tone for the way America operates in the world, a tone that actually has a chance at some beneficial results. The problem is that for the whole of human history, superpowers (previously called empires) have acted in a certain way, taking over all land within their power, and using superior armies to crush their enemies and plunder their resources. It made for a ruthless, murderous, and destructive environment marked with constant warfare. There are some who still wish the world worked like that, our last president for example, but it doesn't. America's enemies no longer have standing armies, they don't meet on a battlefield or serve a government; instead they are religious extremists, ordinary people who live amongst the general populace.

To win a war against this enemy it takes much more than military might. Using pure military power to bomb and kill will result in the deaths of countless more civilians than actual targets, and this indiscriminate killing will not only make us the bigger enemy of humanity, but also birth more religious extremism. Growing extremism will lead to more and more enemies, eventually leading to more governments led by extremist and supported by extremists. This cycle, one that we were engaging in during the Bush years, will only lead to inevitable defeat. Our actions would breed so much hatred amongst the people of the world that we would eventually be overwhelmed by enemies. But there is something we can exploit in this type of war; extremists need public support to survive. They do not run governments (for the most part) and they cannot draft people into armies; they are merely members of the civilian population. In order to thrive and grow they need the population they exist in to remain poor and uneducated. They need people to feel that they have no other option, because when people feel that they are not hopeless, they are much less likely to join up or even tolerate neighborhood extremist cells.

This is what the speech in Cairo was all about. President Obama abandoned the strategy of the previous administration and administrations before them, and spoke frankly and directly with the world. He didn't come trying to intimidate the world, but rather to engage it in conversation. The goal is to win over the hearts and minds of the people in the Muslim world, not to alienate them and make them feel that they are our enemy, and therefore we are theirs. The President's speech was exactly what was needed to start a new relationship between the US and many of the countries that previous presidents have called enemies. He came with the power of the US behind him, but he demonstrated that he would be willing to sit down at the table as an equal, showing great respect to the Muslim world for all it has done for civilization as a whole. He was honest with the world, explaining that he understands where America has made mistakes, where it has failed, but also where it will not waver. President Obama went to the world not as a conqueror, not as a superior, but as a partner seeking to work towards a shared goal of peace, exactly the kind of attitude we need to turn over a new leaf in our foreign policy.

That is how we can win this war. It won't be done by killing civilians or pushing around smaller nations, it will be done by being a strong nation, not just militarily, but diplomatically and, most important, morally. It becomes tremendously difficult for extremists to recruit people if they can't convince them that they have some moral high ground, and by going directly to the Muslim people and being honest with them, President Obama has a chance of regaining the moral high ground in the eyes of the Muslim world. Without their ability to recruit new people, these terrorist cells will eventually die out. But this is just the start; the war is far from over, and the struggle to reconcile has just begun, but we are finally on the right

Linda Milazzo: Newt Gingrich Declares: "I Am Not A Citizen Of The World!"

2009-06-09T16:12:35Z

This evening at a Washington DC fundraiser, in a statement that can best be described as regressive American exceptionalism, former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich said of himself:

"I am not a citizen of the world. I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous!"

Witness the video below of Mr. Gingrich's pronouncement that defines in two simple sentences the elitism, racism and egotism that have destroyed his Republican Party:

The question is, how can this protectionist, elitist, and even racist declaration be in the best interests of America, which despite Mr. Gingrich's supremacist notion, is part of the global community?

What's most frightening is the air of superiority with which Gingrich made his statement. Staring straight into the camera before a room of Republicans, this leader of his party defamed any benefit he might derive as a citizen of the world. With George W's arrogance, Dick Cheney's sociopathy, and Donald Rumsfeld's bravado all rolled into one, Gingrich equates a citizen of the world to "intellectual nonsense." He typifies the very characteristics of the Bush years that thrust this nation into its abyss.

Clearly Gingrich's "I'm not a citizen of the world" is a slam on Obama after the President's recent Mid-East & Europe tour. But undermining Obama's global popularity won't alter the fact that Gingrich could never achieve such acceptance. In the ever blending global arena, Gingrich is consistently bland.

Mr. Gingrich, if you are not a citizen of this world, then stay the eff out of it. Go back to where you went ten years ago when you were forced from the House in disgrace.

John Wellington Ennis: Obama's Coup in Cairo

2009-06-09T16:06:03Z

For all of the analysis, parsing, and knee-jerking from Obama's address to the Muslim world, there was one detail that seemed to bypass the pundits.

Obama acknowledged the U.S. role in the 1953 coup of Iran, when the CIA worked to overthrow a democratically-elected secular leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. This isn't fringe conspiracy theory, this is a widely known history (not so much stateside). And it is an all-time chart-topper on "Why They Hate Us."

In 1951, after British oil interests refused to pay Iran an equal share of their revenues, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry and took back the reins to his country. After embargoes and blockades against Iran failed to return oil control to the British, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt and employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, devised a new approach: Operation Ajax. Through bribes and bargains, locals staged scenes posing as dissidents and malcontents, while the media would be used to stir Mossadegh's ousting. While Mossadegh would die in confinement, the autocratic and oil-friendly Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was restored to power.

Until the 1979 Revolution. Iran's leader being installed by foreign interests never sat well with the Iranians. As such, the theocratic radicals held a nationalist high ground when Ayatollah Kohmeni took over the government. And as long as I was old enough to remember after that, Iran seemed scary.

This is an example of how short-sighted greedy goals end up causing long-term world problems. If Iran was not alienated from Western nations, how different would our geo-political world look today?

Obama's acknowledgment was not an apology: "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government." This suggests that not only is Obama aware of what the CIA has done in Iran, but other countries since.

In the best-selling memoir, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins details his career of predatory lending to Third World governments on behalf of American-backed businesses. The example of Mossadegh proved particularly persuasive to leaders unsure about opening up their country to U.S. industries. Perkins and others have more to say on skullduggery in the name of empire than myself -- even Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., wrote a book in 1979 about how he did it, Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran. But there is presently a powerful parallel at play in Peru:

Villagers in the Amazon have long been exploited by oil companies that pollute their land, violate agreements, and harm the locals. The new president of Peru, popular with the petrol peeps, wants to open up to 60% of his country for oil drilling and logging. As the local issues throughout the jungles have been ignored, villagers have organized, demonstrated and stopped work at the oil refineries. Their strike is being fought by the police, who have been having deadly clashes with thousands of protesters and villagers over the last week. These people were suffering in a different jungle than the one where some jerk on a reality show was complaining about his fame being devalued.

Obama is the first president to acknowledge the U.S. subversion of a democratically-elected Iranian government, but he can still do better. Hegemony has left many scars around the world, and Peru is just one of them. Obama may not be able to foil a game as old as empire, but as President he can -- and should -- do something to help stop the bloodshed and refinery strikes in Peru.

John Feffer: America's Sorry Policy

2009-06-09T14:25:29Z

In 1697, five years after the judges of Salem, Massachusetts sent 20 suspected witches to the gallows, one man stood up in front of his congregation and apologized. Samuel Sewall was one of the nine judges that gave official sanction to the hysteria of the witch trials. In a remarkable act of contrition, Sewall took upon his head the "blame and shame" of the tragedy and wore a hair shirt until the day of his death to remind him of his sin. More intriguingly, he went on to become a champion of civil rights and an early abolitionist.

It would be truly breathtaking if George W. Bush -- or any of the architects of the U.S. foreign policy fiascos of the 21st century -- donned a hair shirt, repented of his actions, and performed an ideological about-face. The parallels with Salem are not trivial: the hysteria, the torture, the legal travesties. But don't hold your breath waiting for a mea culpa from the 43rd president. Instead, it's left to Barack Obama to come to terms with the Bush legacy.

Last week in Cairo, President Obama gave a much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world. In many ways the speech was extraordinary. The president reaffirmed his own personal ties to the Islamic world, quoted from the Koran, lauded religious tolerance, upheld the rule of law, recognized that "the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable," called on Israel to stop settlements, reaffirmed his commitment to nuclear abolition, and tactically refocused U.S. military campaigns against "violent extremism in all forms."

The speech "reflected a significant shift away from the ideological framework of militarism and unilateralism that shaped the Bush administration's war-based policy toward the Arab and Muslim worlds," observes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Phyllis Bennis in Changing the Discourse. It will be remembered, as Akiva Eldar writes in Haaretz, "as the last day of the 9/11 era." And the speech could also help shift the U.S. public's attitudes about Islam, which have been largely negative. "If it reduces American prejudice against Arabs and Muslims, then his address would truly mark a new beginning for U.S.-Muslim relations," writes FPIF contributor R.S. Zaharna in Improving U.S.-Muslim Relations.

For all its strong points, however, the speech didn't contain any apologies. The president might have taken the opportunity to apologize for the way the Bush administration demonized Islam, killed countless Muslim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, supported repressive states in the region, and abrogated the civil liberties of Muslim and Arab-Americans in the United States. But the United States rarely does apologies. And Obama prefers to focus on the future rather than the past.

The closest the president came to an apology was when he mentioned U.S. complicity in the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government in 1953. He didn't apologize for the act (nor did Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000 when she too acknowledged U.S. involvement in the coup). "Rather than remain trapped in the past," Obama said in Cairo, "I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward."

The president no doubt fears a slippery slope -- apologize for one U.S. policy and the demands will escalate to apologize for them all. For the conservative attack dogs, meanwhile, the word "sorry" is like the scent of fear and weakness. At the merest mention of an apology, they will leap at Obama's throat.

And then there's the problem of current U.S. actions. We continue to support autocratic leaders in the Arab world. "Many Arabs and Muslims have expressed frustration that Obama failed to use this opportunity to call on the autocratic Saudi and Egyptian leaders with whom he had visited on his Middle Eastern trip to end their repression and open up their corrupt and tightly controlled political systems," writes FPIF senior analyst Stephen Zunes in How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East. The Egyptian government's crackdown on dissent prior to Obama's visit was a painful reminder of U.S. double standards on democracy in the region.

Obama pledged to adhere to the timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, noted that the United States desires no military bases in Afghanistan, and referred to the $1.5 billion in infrastructure assistance for Pakistan. But we're still at war in these countries, and apologies, if they come at all, are issued long after the last shot is fired.

For all of the president's attempts to focus the debate on "violent extremists," U.S. aerial assaults and counterinsurgency operations are still claiming civilian lives in the Muslim world. This is particularly problematic in Afghanistan, as FPIF contributor Farrah Hassen points out. In his Cairo speech, the president "failed to acknowledge the growing civilian casualties due to increased U.S. drone attacks ostensibly aimed at dismantling the Taliban -- a reality that only increases the risk of blowback against the United States, as opposed to winning the hearts and minds of Afghans, and of Muslims, alike," she writes in Lifting the Veil. "Indeed, a military investigation concluded the United States made mistakes after the May 4 airstrikes in the western province of Farah that killed dozens of civilians."

On the ground in Afghanistan, where support for NATO military operations has declined precipitously over the years, U.S. forces are experimenting with a new policy of prompt apologies for civilian casualties. The apologies are welcome in the region, but words can only go so far. "Apologies are good things," Maolawi Hezatullah, provincial council head in Kunar where U.S. troops killed six civilians in April, told Reuters. "But the foreign troops should convince the people that there will be no more such incidents."

Samuel Sewall didn't simply apologize for his role in the Salem witch trials. He tried to remedy his errors by working to ensure that such atrocities would never reoccur. We may not see apologies for U.S. conduct in the Muslim world coming from top U.S. officials. But if Obama manages to end the "collateral damage" to civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, then U.S. policy will change indeed.

Ray Hanania: Lebanon's Election is Obama's First Post-Muslim/Arab World Speech Victory

2009-06-09T11:24:47Z

As the smoke clears in Lebanon's sectarian elections, and the two major factions appear to be where they began, the real winner may in fact be President Barack Obama. Did his speech last week to the Arab World impact Lebanon's election results?

In fact, only one seat changed hands between the Hezbollah-Aoun coalition and the Western-back coalition of Saad Hariri, the son of the assassinated former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Hariri's coalition called March 14 won 71 seats, one more than it had, and Hezbollah's coalition called March 8 won 57 in the 128-seat Lebanese legislature, one less.

That's not much of a substantive victory, but it is a major symbolic victory. Observers from throughout the Arab World and Israel had expected and predicted Hezbollah and its coalition partners including popular Christian leader Michel Aoun to increase their seats in the Lebanese parliament to give them control.

Hezbollah's defeat reflects the loss in expectations and a rebuff of its armed power bid, but not really in size. Lebanon is technically in the same position that it has been since Hariri's assassination in February 2005. The spin, however, comes from Obama's speech which may have undermined the edge that Aoun had hoped to bring to the partnership with Hezbollah.

Obama's speech to the Arab and Muslim World the week before at Cairo University may have impacted the results, muting the anticipated advances Hazbollah and its Christian allies had hoped to achieve. Obama's speech touched many in the Middle East, including Christian Arabs longing for a resolution of the Ara-Israeli conflict, but also signaling a future where arm militants might play a less influential role.

Obama reiterated the cornerstones of America's longstanding and often one-sided relationship with Israel, but added a new perspective of "balance" that recognized in broader terms the rights of Palestinians and their suffering.

At issue in Lebanon were key issues addressed in Obama's speech including Syria, Iran and turning away from armed violence as a solution to unresolved conflicts. Syria backed the Hezbollah coalition while Saudi Arabia, a key American ally, backed the Hariri coalition.

In the minds of the Arab World, balanced foreign policy is the counterweight to violence, armed resistance and conflict, all that Hezbollah has come to represent since it was first founded with the backing of Iran during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon a quarter century ago.

Although insiders report that Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement political party remained the single largest Christian group in the religiously and politically diced up country with 24 seats, those seats were won with significantly far less Christian voter support than in 2005. Aoun support weakened in key Christian enclaves including in Ashrafiya. Hezbollah only has 11 seats in the coalition, what it started with.

Lebanon is a "confessional" religious parliamentary system. It has a parliament of 128 members with 64 seats set aside for Christians and 64 seats set aside for Muslims. Muslims are divided into two groups, Shi'ite led by Hezbollah and Sunni led by Hariri. The Christians are mainly Maronite but divided politically, too.

Hezbollah's failure to gain more support may be reflected in the high price the Lebanese people paid in the summer of 2006 when a Hezbollah military action along the border with Israel provoked Israel into a massive air strike. Hezbollah responded with a powerful missile campaign and Israel retaliated with widespread destruction that not only targeted Hezbollah strongholds but devastated Lebanon's civilian and business areas around Beirut.

A win by Hezbollah was much feared in Israel and by the United States, which has declared the group a "terrorist" organization, a designation with little real meaning except that it becomes a mandate to justify any Israeli military actions in Lebanon. Hezbollah was founded in 1982 with the backing of Iran in response to Israel's military invasion of Lebanon which most Lebanese viewed as a terrorist act, too.

How will Lebanon's tenuous politics shift is to be debated. But clearly, in the first major event since Obama's Cairo speech, the balance tipped slightly away from conflict in one country where conflict has been an everyday aspect of life.

Directly or indirectly, Obama's speech to the Arab and Muslim World is creating a new context in which the people of the Middle East can more clearly see justice without the need for more violence.

(Ray Hanania is an award winning columnist, American Palestinian comedian and morning Chicago radio talk show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

John L. Esposito: Barack Obama and Islam

2009-06-09T11:05:51Z

Much has been written about Muslim responses to Obama's Cairo speech and how it has resonated across the Muslim world. Many have commented on the new President's skillful handling of the political issues that have so deeply affected US-Muslim relations. However, an underappreciated but equally important dimension of his speech involves its widespread religious appeal. As the Gallup world poll of some 35 Muslim countries has documented, vast majorities of Muslims see religion as an important component in their lives and a critical element in the future progress of their societies. Muslims who are not particularly religiously observant nevertheless identify with their Islamic heritage. Therefore, although the majority of those polled said they admired many things about the West, and in particular about America (its technology, work ethic, freedoms, democracy), Muslims' major grievance against the West is what they identify as the denigration of Islam and Muslims, as well as the extent to which Arabs and Muslims are seen by the West as inferior and not of equal value.

Obama offset the suspicion and belief that American foreign policy was influenced by the beliefs and designs of the Christian Right, intent upon spreading its version of God's message and rule. Bush used the phrase "Crusades" (for which he later apologized) and in later years commonly spoke of Islamofascism; the Pentagon employed the term "Infinite Justice" as its code name for the war against terror, Franklin Graham, who had delivered the invocation prayer at George Bush's inauguration and insistently labeled Islam as an evil religion, had also been invited to deliver a Good Friday sermon at the Pentagon. Many in the Muslim world and in Europe and elsewhere had wondered about the extent to which born again Christians in the Bush administration (Bush, Ashcroft, members of the senior military) and Congress were influenced by their Christian fundamentalist and Hardline Zionist Christian Right beliefs and supporters.

Many in the Muslim world and in Europe understandably wondered about the extent to which the Bush administration (Bush, Ashcroft, members of the senior military and Congress) was influenced by their Hardline Zionist Christian Right roots and supporters. The tendency of some Christian fundamentalist missionaries to celebrate the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as an act of God, and rush to convert Muslims exacerbated the belief that American foreign policy was fulfilling a Christian fundamentalist agenda.

In stark contrast, Barack Obama was now dramatically reflecting a different kind of Christianity, an empathetic understanding that paves the way for accepting Muslims in America as valued citizens who have fought in our wars, excelled in businesses, universities, and sports, who won Nobel prizes and lit the Olymbic torch. He creatively noted that the first Muslim American recently elected to Congress took his oath to defend our constitution using the Koran that Thomss Jefferson kept in his personal library.

In Cairo, Obama demonstrated his personal knowledge and experience of Islam, as well as his appreciation of Islamic religion and culture. He addressed his audience with the traditional Muslim greeting, asalaam wa alaykum (Peace be upon you). He spoke glowingly of Islamic civilization, identifying Cairo's Al-Azhar University as the oldest and most authoritative seat of Islamic learning that he said "carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment." He praised the innovation of Muslim communities concretely citing numerous achievements, including development of "the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed." He noted the" majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation" that Islamic culture has contributed to the world. Finally he held up the "symbol of Andalusia, a period when Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together under Muslim rule and culture flourished", concluding that "throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."

Nothing could have been more welcome for many Muslims frustrated with the equation of the their faith with the rants and acts of terrorism of Osama and other terrorists and the growth of Islamophobia in America and Europe, than to hear Obama call for a partnership between America and Islam "based on what Islam is, not what it isn't" and to assert his responsibility as President of the States "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Obama spoke both as American president and a Christian believer. But he also described his personal connections to Islam, his Muslim father and members of his family, his schooling, memories of hearing the call to prayer and experiencing Muslim culture in Indonesia. Obama deftly cited the Koran, spoke of Islam as one of the three Abrahamic religions and respectfully referred to the linkage between Muhammad, Moses and Jesus, seen by Muslims as the bearers of God's revelation in the Torah and gospels. In naming these prophets Obama followed Muslim practice by adding the phrase, "Peace and blessings be upon them." As he spoke I remembered vividly the frustration of a major American Muslim leader after hearing Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell denounce the Prophet Muhammad. Extremely upset, my friend said. "They denounce and damn our Prophet but we cannot respond in kind. We also love Moses and Jesus, They are also our prophets." My friend's two sons are named Musa (Moses) and Issa (Jesus), which are very common Muslim names.

Perhaps the most striking statement, one that would echo across the Muslim world was Obama's mention of Jerusalem, one of the great sacred cities of Islam and a major hurdle in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Only shortly after Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to a belief that Jerusalem is the eternal capitol of Israel and will remain solely under Israeli control, Obama described the Holy Land of three great faiths, the place of peace that God intended, and identified a radically different goal, a Jerusalem that is the secure and lasting home for Jews, Christians and Muslims, a place for all of the children of Abraham.

To speak most convincingly to Muslims globally requires recognition of the importance and role of identity politics. While one can compares the distinctive elements of Barack Obama's speech with those of his predecessors in the White House, there can be no comparison when it comes to the ground-breaking, and powerful religious dimension of Obama's address to the Muslim world.

Alon Ben-Meir: The Settlements: Obama's Demands and Netanyahu's Options

2009-06-09T10:29:10Z

Amidst the whirlwind of activity surrounding President Obama's diplomatic efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, one issue has stood out among others as particularly contentious. The renewed statements by President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the rest of the US administration on ending Israeli settlement activity has caused considerable discord on how to find common ground in this controversial issue. The Obama administration's demand that Israel end all settlement activity, including natural growth, has been deemed unacceptable by Netanyahu's government, which insists that a total freeze will severely aggravate normal life and engender internal political rift. Mr. Obama reaffirmed his position in his address to the Muslim world from Cairo when he stated: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." It is unlikely after such a statement that the US administration will retreat from this position. This will undoubtedly compel Netanyahu to revise his stance on settlements and a two-state solution as he addresses his countrymen on Sunday.

A close review of the Israeli point of view suggests that putting an immediate stop to natural growth on settlements, especially those which have become full fledged cities like Ma'ale Adumim, will be extraordinarily difficult to implement both politically and practically. Not only would the settler's movement rattle the government, but violence might inadvertently erupt, creating a scene that the Netanyahu government would want to avoid at all costs. The question is, what can be done to resolve this problem which has such potential to strain US-Israeli relations and undermine the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

To understand the serious nature of the problem it first must be put in its proper context: More than any thing else, the existence of the settlements reminds every Palestinian of the Israeli occupation, and the expansion of these settlements not only reinforces that painful feeling and humiliation, but suggests that Israel is intent on maintaining the occupation indefinitely. The fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has refused thus far to accept the idea of a two-state solution further strengthens the Palestinian argument that Israel has no intention of relinquishing the occupied territories. President Obama must insist on stopping the expansion of the settlements as a prerequisite to instilling some confidence and integrity into the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Mr. Netanyahu has thus far been against the freeze partially because it would imply an early concession on one of his main bargaining chips: the idea of the two-state solution.

To resolve this quandary it seems unlikely that President Obama will settle for less than a 'moratorium' on further expansion. Changing the semantics from a freeze to a temporary moratorium could initially provide some maneuvering room to agree on a workable formula. A temporary moratorium would mean a halt on the expansion of all settlements and settlement related activity during a set negotiating process, likely between three to six months. This might well work if it were done with the understanding that Israel and the Palestinians would enter immediately into negotiations with direct and active American involvement to determine the future borders of the two states. Once the borders have been agreed upon, Israel can expand settlement activity within them and will be prohibited from any development outside these borders. Whether the objective of the negotiations from Netanyahu's perspective would be a Palestinian state or not, he has already conceded as much when he stated that the Palestinians have the right to self-rule living side by side Israel in peace. Netanyahu may be able to sell the moratorium idea to his centre-right coalition partners because the alternative will be a direct confrontation with the United States, which could bring his government down. This may explain his likely change of heart, especially when recent polls show a majority of Israelis support the freeze.

During these negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians can agree within a few months as to which of the settlements will be incorporated into Israel proper under a peace agreement, and what contiguous land of equal size and quality can be swapped with the Palestinians in its place, which should be enforced under American monitoring. The two sides have negotiated in the past (at Camp David and in Taba in 2000-2001) and agreed in principle about the status of these settlements. Although the Palestinian Authority will want all issues on the table to reach a final status agreement -- including the Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem -- it appears that they are willing to discuss borders first once Israel accepts the moratorium. Mahmoud Abbas, along with Jordan's King Abdullah has publicly agreed that borders would be the first order of business. Throughout the duration of these negotiations, the Palestinian camp would be expected to make discernable progress on security and ending incitement, in keeping with the mission of the US security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority General Keith Dayton.

It should be noted that historically the Israeli public has not tolerated and will not support any Israeli government that alienates the United States. Moreover, no Israeli Prime Minister could hold a government together should the United States decide to exert direct pressure -- which the Obama administration appears to be willing to wield. The Wye River negotiations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Clinton in 1998 over Hebron clearly indicate that Netanyahu is capable of surpassing expectations. The idea here is to start the negotiations with a significant concession, and then let momentum and American pressure move the process forward.

To provide some practical suggestions, it is necessary to break down the settlers' movement into its three basic constituencies. In doing so, some interim solutions can realistically be made to satisfy the American demands, meet the Palestinian and Arab requirements for resuming negotiations, and to provide Netanyahu with a face saving way out that he can bring to his coalition.

The quality-of-life settlers are those who moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons, the majority of whom live in the block of settlements located closer to the green line. According to Peace Now statistics, there are about 196,000 residents in these settlements, several of which are no longer considered settlements and resemble large cities, home to more than 30,000 people each including Ma'ale Adumim, Modi'in and Beitar Illit. The routing of the security fence leaves most of these settlements on the Israeli side of the fence, though some deep inside the West Bank may not be included into Israel proper. The pressure on the government to allow for natural growth in these settlements is enormous and it is here where the Netanyahu government will experience the greatest difficulty in trying to implement the moratorium. This can be done however, because American overt pressure offers a high degree of political cover and limited options.

The second group consists of ideological settlers who use religious arguments to justify their presence in the West Bank. They view the return of the Jews to the land of "greater Israel" as a fulfillment of God's will. They occupy settlements located for the most part deep inside the West Bank and often in the heart of Palestinian populated areas. It is quite evident however that the public support for these settlements is declining. A growing majority of Israelis accept the fact that Israel will need to evacuate most of these nearly 100 settlements that dot the West Bank. The pressure to expand these settlements is minimal and it can be denied without considerable cost in political capital.

The third group is made up of Ultra-orthodox settlers in the West Bank who are a function almost exclusively of cheap and segregated housing close to the Green Line. They are descendants of devoutly religious Jews who oppose change and modernization. They have historically rejected active Zionism and continue to believe that the path to Jewish redemption is through religious rather than secular activity. There are eight ultra orthodox settlements that were built in the eighties and nineties with roughly 80,000 residents, all of whom are located within the settlement blocs that Israel wants to incorporate into Israel proper. These settlements are currently expanding more rapidly than others due primarily to a higher birth rate. Here -- once an agreement on the borders is achieved-the expansion can then be quickly resumed within Israeli lines.

Based on the settlers' ideological leanings and location of the settlements, and considering the political constraints under which Netanyahu's coalition government operates, the Obama administration should focus on four possible areas where it can persuade the Israeli government to take action.

First, the US should push for the dismantling of all illegal outposts-which the government has already begun-but must also insist that no new outposts be allowed to rise under any circumstances.

Second, the United States should focus on removing small clusters of settlements occupied by ideological activist settlers in places such as Nablus and Hebron that are troublesome and heavily tax Israel's security forces. All of these settlements are deep in the West Bank and most Israelis agree that they must eventually be evacuated for any peace deal as soon as there is an agreement.

Third, Israel must create a program of diminishing incentive that will provide settlers who are willing to relocate voluntarily with equal housing an extra incentive if they leave within the first year from the initiation of the program. The incentive will then be reduced every few months thereafter. The idea is to create reverse migrations to Israel proper while psychologically preparing the Israeli public and the Palestinians for the inevitability of ending the occupation.

While many settlers will not accept the compensation and try to hold out for a better deal, the government must be resolute and not give into blackmail. There have been some discussions about the fate of a few thousand Israeli settlers who simply refuse to relocate to Israel proper. Some suggest that they may continue to live in their homes under Palestinian authority, though neither side has reached an understanding on this issue in previous negotiations. This idea remains a viable one as a matter of principle, and can be worked out between both governments. Finally, as difficult as a complete moratorium on expansion of settlements will be, the United States must still exert sufficient pressure on Israel to be sensitive to Palestinian and Arab sensibilities and stop major development projects in and around East Jerusalem.

The Obama administration is likely to intensify the pressure on Netanyahu to make meaningful concessions for advancing peace. Although Netanyahu as a Prime Minister will be a tough negotiator and will demand full compliance in return from the Palestinians for any concession he makes, he may also prove to be the more worthy interlocutor and more trusted by the public. It should be noted that the largest territorial concessions-the Sinai, Hebron and Gaza were all made by Likud leaders Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon respectively.

Special envoy George Mitchell, who is now President Obama's Arab-Israeli point man, concluded his report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee with the following words, "Israelis and Palestinians have to live, work, and prosper together. History and geography have destined them to be neighbors. That cannot be changed. Only when their actions are guided by this awareness will they be able to develop the vision and reality of peace and shared prosperity."

No American president has taken such a keen and immediate commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this early in his term as President Obama. And no agreement between Israel and the Arab states has been achieved without direct American involvement. If time, resolve and visionary leadership matter, there may not be a better time to push for a solution than now.

Richard Valeriani: June 8 2009: news update

2009-06-08T23:53:37Z

President Obama makes major Middle East policy address in Cairo.

1. Asks Palestinians to forgo violence. Hezbollah and Hamas, big yawn.

2. Demands end to building of illegal Israeli settlements. Netanyahu, big yawn.

3. Patronizes Muslims by saying Islam has given us "cherished music," (except where it's forbidden) and that "Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." That's obviously the "Hussein" in Barack Hussein Obama talking.

4. Notes Islam also gave us algebra. High schoolers, big yawn.

Obama makes first stop on trip in Saudi Arabia, saying he wanted to visit place where "Islam began." Does not mention it's also place where 9/11 began.

At same time Osama bin Laden puts out dueling statement excoriating US policy in Pakistan. Who does he think he is, Dick Cheney?

First time in modern times a US President goes to Middle East without visiting Israel. In Cairo speech, presses Israel to stop building settlements and recognize Palestinians' right to their own state. Pro-Israel lobby in Washington goes into overdrive.

Obama also visits Paris, with Michelle and daughters in tow. Did you see what they did? They stayed behind and shopped. Shopped! When GM is in bankruptcy. When Chrysler is fighting for its corporate life. When unemployment approaches 10%. Where's the RNC when we need them?

General Motors, now busted to Private Motors, will be mainly owned by US Government and UAW Union. What could possibly go wrong after that?

GM sells Hummer to China. Problem now is, half hour after filling up, you have to fill up again.

Ex-VP Dick Cheney finally concedes no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. But daughter Liz continues to insist there was a link. Guess she didn't get the family memo.

Cheney, whose daughter is gay, okays gay marriage. In this case, did get the family memo.

News reports claim major Taliban leader in Afghanistan killed. Reports disputed. NY Times story said Taliban could not be reached for comment. Did you try tweeting?

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner visits Beijing. Wanted to get first-hand look at US economy.

North Korean leader Kim Il Jong names son, Kim Il Un, as successor. To be known as Seven-up Kim-the Un-corean.

Media mogul David Geffen reportedly wants to buy big chunk of NY Times. Maybe just wants to see more gay marriages featured in Sunday Styles?

Polka dropped as Grammy category. Lawrence Welk two-stepping in his grave?

Researchers report development of gene that produces talking mice. What's the big deal? Disney has had talking mice for 60 years.

George W. Bush makes speech in Michigan, saying he misses flying on Air Force One, White House food and encounters with military personnel. What do people in Michigan miss about Bush? Nothing.

OJ Simpson to appeal conviction in Las Vegas. Tells judge he has to get out of jail to pursue search for Nicole's killer.

"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!

Rahm And Reggie's Excellent Adventure: White House Hotties Get On Camels, Don Casual Clothes (PHOTOS)

2009-06-08T10:12:26Z

While President Obama made his whirlwind trip through the Mideast and Europe last week, personal aide Reggie Love and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel found some time for fun. Love won the Huffington Post's White House Hottest poll, while Rahm Emanuel came in third place.

See photos of the two palling around in Egypt on Thursday and returning to the White House in their dressed-down clothes on Monday.

Lance Simmens: Be All That You Can Be

2009-06-06T12:41:33Z

The nagging criticisms leveled at the President's overtures to the Muslim world this week prove once and for all that the historical maxim that "politics stops at the water's edge" is as quaint and irrelevant as the Victrola. Politics, and political considerations now knows no boundaries and it is particularly noteworthy that the attacks are being launched by those who professed just a short time ago that any criticism, constructive or not, of our national security posture was at a minimum unpatriotic.

There is something particularly galling to the conservative right about the prospect or resolving problems through either diplomatic means or by collective security measures. In their worldview might makes right, and unequivocally on this issue the right is dead wrong.

How naive, what an appeaser, how wacky is this guy? How elitist of the President to go to Egypt and suggest that there are certain ideas, ideals, and concepts that beg mutual cooperation between our nation and those in the Middle East. Why, it is downright un-Christian to suggest that Muslim-majority countries have any conception of democratic processes, freedom, or human rights. I mean, after all, don't they hate us for our freedom?

As preposterous as it may sound, there are moderately well-educated and at times rational individuals out there who are contemptuous of the eloquence with which Barack Obama delivered his worldview this week. The eloquence of his words and the smoothness of his delivery surely must mask a fundamental misunderstanding of the region, if not the world, and put at risk the hard fought safety rendered by a preemptive war against an unacceptable regime.

And to suggest that this great nation, America, might actually have exhibited human faults and made human mistakes such as mis-gauging intentions of others and not appreciating cultural and religious differences, to suggest that we may have erred in our zeal to promote democracy abroad through the outmoded and outdated methods of gunboat diplomacy rather than by showcasing our collective morality and tolerance for diversity, how treasonous.

It is interesting to watch and listen to the critics of this Administration scold the President on his attempts to reconcile the differences between us by appealing to the commonalities that potentially link us together. And they are predictable in their attacks: indignant about our superiority; resistant to the notion that we may not always be right; delirious over the appearance of weakness; and defensive about their complicity in constructing the current state of affairs.

But let's look at exactly what Obama was attempting to convey through his eloquence. First and foremost he is attempting to define the enemy. For far too long we have been told that we are in a war on terror. But war itself is terror and it is terrifying. I must admit I never understood the concept or the terminology. But implicit in it, I fear, was the idea that Islam was a religious foundation for terrorism, thereby fueling religious intolerance and suspicion in a country essentially founded on the concept of fostering religious freedom. Remarks from the previous Administration invoking the Crusades did little to dispel the notion that religious differences were essentially at the heart of the conflict.

However, as Obama made crystal clear in his speech, the enemy was not and is not Islam, but rather violent extremism and those who practice it. What we should be engaged in is a war on terrorists, or a war on terrorism, which includes those who practice it. This is not an unimportant distinction. Terrorism and terrorists have no basis in religion.

Obama pledged "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear". Under the banner of defining common ground, common principles, common dreams and shared responsibility he called upon Muslims to reject crude stereotypes of Americans as well.

The knee-jerk reactionary right criticisms aimed at Obama for attempting to redefine the dangerous world we find ourselves in, a world preeminently less safe, more volatile, and more economically fractured than generally acknowledged, only serve to marginalize and isolate an increasingly small but intensely frustrated fringe element in our society. If nothing else, this is a plea to give this President, in the great American tradition, a fighting chance to realize the dreams he has for our nation, dreams which are common to all of us, regardless of political party, ideology, or religion: peace and prosperity for our children.

Criticisms and competition are the bedrock of a free society and should be encouraged. Rooting for failure crosses the line and is at best poor sportsmanship, at worst it makes us as a society something less than we can be. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and those oppressed everywhere to be the best we can be.

Mark Levine: The Student of History Needs to Go to Summer School

2009-06-06T12:12:42Z

Near the start of his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world, President Obama described himself as "a student of history;" by the end it was clear that he needs to get back to the classroom.

For all its well-intentioned rhetoric, President Obama's speech was, sadly, conceptually flawed, empirically challenged, and politically blind to the daily realities that drive hundreds of millions of Muslims to increasing despair.

Conceptually, the President's goal was clearly to help correct the mistaken notion shared by so many Muslims and Americans of the notion of an essential conflict between them. He even spoke of Islam, rightly, as being "always part of America."

But such rhetoric was overshadowed by the use of language and themes that hew closely to the long-held notion of "Islam" and the "West" as being two essentially different and civilizations traveling on separate historical trajectories.

To bridge the rift between them, Obama had first to establish a deep, centuries-long tension driven by "historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate." Islam "carried the light of learning" and "paved the way" for modernity and globalization, but it did not participate directly in their birth or development. Instead, modernity and the "sweeping change" it brought "led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam."

This idea of an essentially European modernity forcing its way into hostile Muslim territory is belied by the historical record. Indeed, the banking, credit and trading systems that fueled modern capitalism were born in Muslim-led trading systems of the Mediterranean. And where possible Muslims adopted the latest developments, from weapons to steam engines to agricultural technologies, as soon as they became available.

Yet however inaccurate, such a dualistic narrative serves an important rhetorical function in the President's larger argument. With a gap so wide, he can rightly argue that "change cannot happen overnight." Indeed, before the speech Senior Adviser David Axelrod explained that the breach would likely take more than one administration to heal.

In fact, change could happen overnight; and the policies necessary to achieve it are simple and easily implemented -- precisely because Muslims and Americans share so many of the same values when it comes to respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of Law.

But change will only happen if President Obama takes seriously what most Muslim have long said, not merely "behind closed doors," but in the open and to anyone who will listen.

Here I'm reminded here of President Reagan's historic speech at the Berlin Wall, almost 22 years ago to the day, on June 12, 1987, where he exclaimed: "There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace... Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

This is the kind of language Obama needed to use in his speech. He needed to demand that the autocrats and occupiers of the region end their oppression, open the doors of their prisons and tear down their walls, and allow the peoples of the region to live in peace, freedom and democracy. And he needed to put the muscle and money of US foreign policy behind those words, the same way Reagan did in confronting the Soviet Union.

First and foremost, President Obama should have announced that the United States would stop providing political, economic and military support to corrupt and brutal authoritarian regimes, without exception. This goes for occupiers like Israel (and, one could add, India in Kashmir and Morocco in the Western Sahara) and governments of key allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt -- where thousands of activists have been harassed, imprisoned, tortured, burned and even killed by security forces without any fear US retribution, and will continue to suffer once Mr. Obama leaves.

Sadly, the President has offered little tangible support for some of Egypt's most important dissident voices, such as Ayman Nour, the one-time presidential candidate recently released from prison, who a bit over a week ago was almost burned to death by government thugs. Instead, he and his most senior advisors regularly praise Mubarak's "leadership" in an unending peace process that brings billions of dollars of aid and political support to his government, while well over 30 million of his compatriots live in dire poverty. Obama's effective silence on these issues is deafening to a generation of young Egyptians desperate to move beyond the current system and realize their natural, and national potential in a free society.

Instead of making concrete demands on President Mubarak and other regional leaders regarding freedom, democracy, human rights, and committing the US to a major shift in our policies on those issues, President Obama argued that the first step to healing the US-Islamic divide must be to "confront violent extremism in all of its forms." What the President doesn't realize is that from the standpoint of the peoples of the Middle East, US support for governments like Israel, Egypt and other authoritarian regimes, along with our invasion of Iraq -- which despite his pledge to "speak the truth" he refused to admit was wrong -- have been as extreme and violent as those of militant Islam.

He should have admitted that the Iraq invasion was flat-out wrong, not merely a "war of choice," and apologized for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and untold billions of dollars of their wealth and resources destroyed.

When it comes to Israel and Palestine, the President's words do mark a significant shift in tone from the rhetoric of his predecessors, especially his placing Palestine on equal footing with Israel as a nation deserving independence and sovereignty. But hearing them I couldn't help thinking that they constituted the speech President Clinton should have given sixteen years ago at the start of the Oslo peace process.

Back then, when there were only a bit more than 100,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, calling for a "stop" to settlements made sense. Today, with nearly triple the population and having rendered huge swaths of the West Bank permanently off limits to Palestinians, it is a decade too late. Stopping settlement construction will still leave the West Bank a mishmash of Palestinian islands that cannot form the nuclear of a sovereign state.

Nothing less than the dismantlement of the majority of settlements, bypass roads and checkpoints, will allow for the creation of a territorially viable Palestinian state. Muslim listeners to his speech understand that unless the President is willing to force Israel to choose between the settlements and continued US patronage, peace will remain impossible to achieve.

Mr. Obama has a steep learning curve before he can hope to fulfill the lofty rhetoric of his speech in Cairo. He seems unaware that the best and perhaps only way to get the peoples of the Muslim world to support US goals such as preventing Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, pacifying Afghanistan, and stamping out violent Islamism is to hold all the peoples of the region and their leaders, without exception, to one, easily measurable standard.

Unless his words are matched by a rapid and profound shift in the strategic calculus underlying American foreign policy, Obama's speech will be remembered as little more than "haki fadi," or empty talk, and peace in the Middle East -- and with it America's quest for a better relationship with the people of the Muslim world -- will remain an illusive dream.

Sanjeev Bery: Israeli Media Reads the Fine Print

2009-06-06T11:59:29Z

In the 48 hours since President Obama's speech in Cairo, Israeli journalists and pundits have had a lot to say. Their comments offer insights into U.S. foreign policy that many American observers might not get at home.

Some were particularly struck by Obama's implicit linkage of Palestinian aspirations and other global struggles for freedom. In the liberal newspaper Ha'aretz, journalist Akiva Eldar wrote:

Obama placed violence against Israel on a par with the settlements and the humiliation of Palestinians in the territories. He spoke in the same breath about the struggle of Palestinians who lost their homes more than 60 years ago and the struggle of African slaves in the U.S. The Israelis could see themselves in the sentence that mentioned the apartheid state of South Africa.

As is a frequent occurrence in U.S. discourse, Obama's words were built around criticism of Palestinian violence. Israeli commentators, however, paid closer attention to what he said than many American pundits did. In Obama's original words:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.

This tidy framing by Obama skillfully dodged the role of America's bloody Civil War in ending slavery. But setting that aside, the implied link between Palestinians and historically oppressed populations drew a fair amount of official reaction from Israeli media.

The somewhat conservative Jerusalem Post editorialized against Obama's comments:

...we cringed when he associated the Palestinian struggle with the US civil rights movement and with the campaign for majority rule in South Africa -- even if the punch-line of this false analogy was: Terrorism is always unjustifiable.

The full editorial board of Ha'aretz also weighed in, though from a very different perspective:

As such, Obama does not consider some more equal than others. The right of Israel to exist as an independent and sovereign state does not supersede that of the Palestinians. The suffering and humiliation of the Palestinians under occupation are unacceptable, and therefore they must be granted human and political rights; no less unacceptable is the condition of Israeli citizens who live under the threat of rockets.

While much of Israel's media commentary is conducted in Hebrew, key outlets like those above offer English editions that give insight into the thoughts of the Jewish majority. Another such source is Ynetnews, an online English-language news site owned by Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest newspaper. Ynetnews reporter Attila Somfalvi analyzed the domestic political implications of Obama's continued call for a two-state solution and an end to settlements:

For Netanyahu, this is a major junction that offers only two directions: A collision course with the world's greatest power, which will lead to Israel's isolation and ostracism in the international arena - or a dramatic policy shift that will exact difficult political prices. In other words: The prime minister must decide whether he's going with Likud's more rightist members, or with Obama.

One of the most interesting reactions focused on a single sentence in Obama's speech. It wasn't the comment itself that was so thought-provoking, but the broader issue it hinted at. Professor Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University responded harshly in the Jerusalem Post Online to Obama's comments regarding Hamas:

The call for Hamas - the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood - to act responsibly to "put an end to violence" and "recognize Israel's right to exist" is extremely far fetched, even for Obama. Hamas belongs in the first part of the speech, which focused on confronting "violent extremism in all of its forms," including al-Qaida and the Taliban.

What Steinberg was referring to was a single carefully-crafted sentence in Obama's speech. Though the words were again structured as a criticism of violence, they contained something even more interesting. Tucked between the commas was a recognition that Hamas must be a part of any successful peace process:

[Emphasis added] To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Steinberg's comments reflect a fear of this necessary reality -- that Hamas must be included in any successful agreement. In the days ahead, more fears are likely to be expressed. But for Israel and a viable Palestinian state to coexist, Hamas has to be part of the solution.

Keith Ellison Explains The Significance Of Obama's Trip To The Middle East

2009-06-05T19:44:04Z

President Obama embarks this week on a long-anticipated visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt in North Africa and the Middle East. It's a region that, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corps. poll, 46 percent of Americans regard unfavorably. And with the President's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan and block the release of detainee abuse photos, among other U.S. policies, many in the Middle East harbor a similar mistrust of the United States.

David Gartner: Obama's Call for Educating Women

2009-06-05T18:08:21Z

As part of his historic Cairo address, President Barack Obama raised the hopes of millions of women around the world by highlighting how educating women can change the economic future of nations and promote equality. "I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality . . . countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous" proclaimed President Obama. The president has a unique opportunity to fulfill these hopes by delivering on earlier promises to create a new Global Fund for Education and contribute $2 billion so that all girls can go to school.

Education, especially for girls and women, is the most highly leveraged investment now available for developing countries. Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, has found that "educating girls yields a higher rate of return than any other investment available in the developing world." Women's education is a key driver for the economic growth of countries around the world. A 100 country study by the World Bank found that every 1 percent increase in the level of women's education generates .3 percent in additional economic growth. Educating women increases their wages by as much as 20 percent for every additional year of schooling. Women's education is a key driver for the economic growth of countries around the world.

Educating women is also essential for ensuring food security and protecting recent gains in global health during the current economic crisis. Educated women use their expanded knowledge and improved financial situation to provide for their children. One study of 63 countries found that women's education accounted for 43 percent of all progress in reducing child malnutrition. In Africa, the children of mothers who received five years of primary education are 40 percent more likely to live beyond the age of five. Education is a "social vaccine" against AIDS, dramatically reducing the risks of infection, especially for girls.

Despite all the incredible returns that come from educating girls and the world's commitment to the U.N. Millennium Development Goal that all girls should have equal access to education as boys, more than half the countries in the Arab world, in South and West Asia and in Sub-Saharan Africa have yet to achieve gender parity in education. In Afghanistan, for example, fewer than 70 girls enter school for every 100 boys. Overall, 75 million primary school age children are still out of school and most of them are girls.

Reducing the cost of education, employing an adequate number of teachers and creating safe environments for girls to learn are essential strategies for expanding access to education for girls. A number of countries have eliminated school fees in recent years, catalyzing dramatic expansions in enrollment and achieving gender parity in primary education. Bangladesh closed the education gap for girls by providing stipends for attending secondary school to cover the costs of supplies, textbooks and uniforms and more than tripled the number of girls enrolled.

Creating safe environments in which girls can effectively learn is also vital to promoting educated women. Training more female teachers is especially important in countries, like Pakistan, where many parents are reluctant to send their girls to schools with male teachers. Burkina Faso recently made substantial gains in the enrollment and performance for girls by building schools in rural areas that included separate bathroom facilities for girls and provided lunch for students.

In an earlier speech, President Obama promised to create a Global Fund for Education and pledged to invest $2 billion in order to "erase the global primary education gap by 2015" and ensure that every child can go to school. By fulfilling these commitments, Obama could leverage investments from the rest of the world and actually achieve the Millennium Development Goal of education for all by 2015. Obama's words in Cairo have raised the sights of millions of girls around the world, and creating a Global Fund for Education holds the promise that they will finally get the chance to learn.

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.

Deepak Chopra: Obama's Call to the Faithful

2009-06-05T14:39:36Z

President Obama's superlative speech at Cairo University will be much analyzed. It was, as expected, an address that was rational, intelligent, eloquent, and fair. In stark contrast to George Bush's catch phrase, "clash of civilizations," Obama made every effort to weave common threads between the West and the Islamic world. He won his first applause with the phrase "holy Koran," and in that vein more applause followed whenever he praised Islam and the glories of its past.

Overall, it was a cobweb-clearing speech. The content wasn't exceptional. Before Muslims assumed the role of bogeyman after 9/11, any tolerant educated person realized that Islamic civilization has a great heritage. Nor is it news that the Muslim world is far more complex than the picture painted by a tiny minority of fanatical extremists. Yet to hear an American president reiterate these things had a powerful emotional effect.

The heart of the speech, once we get past its effort at reconciliation, was Obama's candid talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the social obstructions in Arab society. It was bracing to hear him say that "Israel isn't going away," just as it was moving to hear the words, "peace be upon them" when he referred to Muhammad and Abraham. In one stroke Obama set America's policy toward the Arab world back on a sensible, moral, even idealistic path.

Yet there is a glaring problem that the speech didn't confront directly, which is the inability of "good" Muslims to stand up for change. "Good" is equated with devout, and that's a huge obstacle to reform. The Muslim world has not liberated its core values from the dogmas of religion. In the name of devotion to God, women are denied even basic rights; terrorists march under the banner of faith; mullahs control credulous masses of believers; education for the average citizen is totally centered on the Koran. All of these are backward trends. They run counter to the modern world. In fact, the overwhelming dominance of dictators and royal families in the Arab states doesn't begin to be consistent with democratic values that are two hundred years old in the West. Human rights are more or less non-existent. This is an appalling state of affairs, and no amount of tolerance from America's side alters that fact.

Therefore, as civilized as it was for President Obama to extend a hand to the faithful, Muslims cannot have it both ways. They can't demand respect while using religion as a reactionary force. In every Muslim country without exception, core social values have medieval roots. Atop the swelling masses of illiterate people, a tiny oligarch sits. This oligarchy is rich, secular, and westernized. It pays lip service to the mullahs and fears their power. But the oligarchy rarely lifts a finger to share its wealth and influence, to extend opportunities to average citizens, or to challenge the reactionary social forces that the jihadists represent. Their sole aim is to stay on top and suppress anyone who opposes what the elite wants.

Obama addressed multiple issues and threw light upon all of them. He didn't shy away from hot-button topics like women's equality, to the point that he chided Muslims for telling women how to dress in public. In all respects he told his audience what the modern world, and particularly the West, honestly thinks of them. Will they listen? The mullahs won't. The extremists won't. The illiterate will get only a vague sense that America isn't as hateful and fearsome as the demagogues have told them. But until the small sliver of privileged Muslims quit playing their hypocritical games, problems will only get worse. These are people who lunch in London restaurant and shop in Paris boutiques as often as they attend the mosque. Obama has delivered a wake-up call to them. If they don't change, then the religious backwardness of the Arab world will keep on blindly supporting its opposition to Israel, modernity, democracy, and a better future for ordinary people.

Published in the Washington Post

Related Article: Obama and North Korea - Not Too Much To Ask, By Gotham Chopra and Mallika Chopra

MJ Rosenberg: What Would Obama Do If His Only Concern Was Israel?

2009-06-05T14:06:47Z

The Middle East story line this week is that President Barack Obama is getting tough on Israel. He is insisting on a total settlement freeze (with no exceptions) and expects Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to endorse the two-state solution (with no conditions). In his groundbreaking speech in Cairo, Obama made it clear that just as the right of Jews to their own state cannot be questioned, neither can the right of Palestinians to theirs.

Observers have noticed that President Obama frames his policy toward Israel in the context of U.S. interests. He eschews sentimentality in favor of rationality: the recognition that the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict damages U.S. interests throughout the Middle East. He also believes that the perception of America as utterly one-sided in its approach to Arabs and Israelis fuels anti-American sentiment among Arabs and Muslims in general.

In short, President Obama's Middle East policy is primarily about American interests, which is as it should be, and not domestic politics, which it has long been.

But what if President Obama's primary concern in Middle East policy-making was Israeli, not American interests? Suppose that he, like some critics of his policies, only thought about the Middle East in terms of what is considered best for Israel.

That is, in fact, how the neocons of the Bush administration approached U.S. policy.

It was out of that concern that they promoted the Iraq war, rebuffed any dialogue with Iran, blocked U.S. aid to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that would have helped him defeat Hamas in the 2006 election, and supported Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in his determination to leave Gaza unilaterally rather than negotiating the withdrawal with Abbas.

It was out of that concern that they torpedoed efforts by Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Senator George Mitchell, General Anthony Zinni, and others to produce an Israeli-Palestinian agreement before Hamas came to power.

In short, it was their professed, but utterly wrong-headed, concern for Israel that produced a set of policies that did more damage to Israel (and produced more Israeli victims of terror) in the period 2001-2008 than ever before in Israel's history.

By the time the neocons were expelled from their positions of power, Iran was no longer checked by Iraq but rather was in alliance with it; Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ahmadinejad were all stronger than ever; Gaza was a launching pad for attacks on Israel; and the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process was in the dumpster.

By the end of George W. Bush's term, Israelis felt less confident about the future of their state than at any time in decades. Anxiety and fear replaced the upbeat and proud patriotism that had defined Israelis' view of their country for six decades. Leading politicians, most notably Binyamin Netanyahu, actually compared the peril of Israel's situation at the dawn of the 21st century to the condition of Europe's Jews in 1942.

And who did Israelis have to thank for this? One, the shortsightedness of their own leaders. And, two, the simple-minded policies promoted by Americans in the U.S. government and among some of those who believe themselves to be Israel's best friends.

Obama is not that kind of friend.

In an interview with NPR this week, Obama said that he was dedicated to maintaining the "special relationship with Israel":

I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values, obviously we're deeply sympathetic to Israel. And, I think, I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel: The notion that they should be driven into the sea, that they should be annihilated, that they should be obliterated-the armed aggression that's been directed toward them in the past-you can understand why not only Israelis would feel concerned, but the United States would feel it was important to back this stalwart ally.

But then he elaborated on how his conception of friendship does not simply mean agreeing with Israel on every issue. He said that, "part of being a good friend is being honest. And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region, is profoundly negative-not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that's part of a new dialogue that I'd like to see encouraged in the region."

That brings me back to my original question. What would Obama do in the Middle East if his sole concern was Israel?

Would he support the expansion of settlements, an end to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, repudiation of the two-state solution, a military attack on Iran, the permanent occupation of the West Bank, and perhaps the reoccupation of Gaza? Would he simply pay, as George W. Bush did, mere lip service to the two-state solution while confiding to Israeli leaders that the status quo is just fine with him? Would he tell the Arabs, as Bush essentially did, that the United States wanted their oil but not their policy input? Would he be prepared, as Bush was, to stand in splendid isolation alongside Israel in support of occupation but totally estranged from the rest of the world?

If Barack Obama suddenly abandoned his activist policies -- his call for a settlement freeze and the two-state solution -- would that make him a better friend of Israel?

The answer is obvious.

Click here to continue reading