The Confusing Visitor

Dealing with George Bush was easier. After the 9/11 attacks, he followed Bin Laden’s example and divided the world into two camps. You only had to choose one of them to be accused of enmity. We hated Bush who chose to uproot Saddam Hussein’s regime under various pretexts although there was nothing that called for sympathy with that regime. Bush supported the siege of Yasser Arafat, hence the feelings of Arab hostility to America and the West. There were many feelings: the feeling of injustice towards the extensive Israeli arrogance; the feeling of injustice towards the US biasness; the feeling of defeat before the most advanced military machine, the victorious example, the amazing scientific progress and globalization. The feeling of injustice bred a deeper feeling of concern over rights, presence, identity, and beliefs. Barack Obama came from another place; from the lessons learned after two open wars in the Islamic world; from the tarnished image of the US in the world, its conflict with the feelings of people, and the transformation of the relation with it into a source of embarrassment for governments. He also came from the lessons learned from the deep financial crisis, the repercussions of unipolarism, the precedence of force over wisdom, and the violent clash with beliefs or interpretations, with fears and customs.

Barack Obama came from the meeting of religions, cultures, and roots. The Americans chose him at a crucial moment in America’s relations with itself and its values, with the world and Muslims, with its role and its ability to rectify its course and improve its image. The Americans apparently voted for changing America inside America, changing America in the world, and changing the world.

Yesterday we only had one choice: to sit in front of TV. There is no need to remind anyone of the importance of the speaker and his country, whether or not we agree with it, of the importance of the place he chose, the moment of conveying his message, and the targeted audience. America cannot resign from the fate of the Islamic world, neither can the latter resign from the fate of America. It needs this world’s markets and resources, and the Islamic world needs America’s progress. The only choice is to coexist based on mutual recognition, partnership, and joint search for security, stability, and prosperity.

The speech – which was carefully, brightly, responsibly, and bravely written – needs a detailed interpretation in order to capture the stances, messages, and signals it contained. This is because the speaker is neither a university professor nor a dreamy young man. He is a man who wanted to say that the sole superpower has reviewed the past years and is not afraid to admit its mistakes. It has decided to reach out for the world with an extended hand rather than a clenched fist. It is seeking partners to encourage rather than give orders. Partners too should make the necessary revisions based on mutual respect, common values, and interests that can pave the way for a future partnership.

There were clear messages that carried reassurances and challenges. There is no place for terrorism no matter what the excuses are. There is bound to be a Palestinian state, but its establishment entails, according to Obama, the acknowledgment of the right of the other state to exist. The Palestinian state is a Palestinian, Israeli, and American interest. Expanding settlements is not acceptable. Iran is entitled to have peaceful nuclear power but the Iranian bomb is not acceptable. All sides must respect beliefs, minorities, women’s rights and right of expression.

In all likelihood, the speech is not just “public relations.” It is the result of an interpretation of the effective US interests in a world of intertwined interests and crises. The last years have proven that it is impossible to impose a unified garb on the countries and peoples, they who have varying degrees of economic and cultural development and read in different books. Obama’s deep respect for the Muslim world puts the latter to a test: create the conducive conditions in its countries and societies for a partnership with the US.

We must wait to see if Obama has the ability after he proved he had the desire. We must wait to see if the Islamic world has the desire and the ability to enter into a partnership of interests, dialogue and settlements.

I was overcome by journalistic curiosity when the speech ended. It is obvious that Bin Laden will consider it a violent and broad reply to the “invasions of New York and Washington.” But what did Benjamin Netanyahu feel while listening to Obama talk about the state, settlements, and Jerusalem? What were the conclusions of Ahmadinejad? What were Khaled Meshaal’s thoughts? What was Hassan Nasrallah’s interpretation? What did governments and parties feel? The visitor was confusing to his viewers, especially that he confirmed the attraction of the Great Satan.