Obama’s Speech

There were many themes at play in the speech by American President Barack Obama in Cairo on Thursday. Most of them are controversial and can be analyzed and reviewed, even though some of them were already known, such as the attitude toward Islam and “fighting stereotypes” of the religion and behavior inimical to US ideals, Iraq as a source of tension in the Middle East, the two-state Palestinian and Jewish state, etc.

However, Obama put forward a position in ways that are new and different from the older talking points. He certainly laid out new topics that he had yet to deal with, such as his reference to “the tragic violence” generated by divisions between Sunnis and Shiites, especially in Iraq. He also discussed the need to respect the rights of Lebanon’s Maronites and Egypt’s Copts, in the context of dealing with religious freedoms, not to mention his intention to strive for a world in which no nation possesses nuclear weapons; in theory, there was the hint that this should include Israel and not be limited to Iran, in addition to his “personal” quest for the goal of two states.

Many people might treat Obama’s speech as an international event par excellence, or as merely an exercise in propaganda. Nonetheless, those who were justifiably and understandably impressed by what he said, or those who were apprehensive due to their hostility to US policy, which has caused tragedies in the Middle East, must not quickly react (whether negatively or positively) to Obama, and draw the careful, important conclusions. This is because the speech was very precise and had several objectives, all laced with modesty and realism, and a good amount of determination. These work to oblige the young president to live up to historical commitments that one might not see accomplished in one’s lifetime, since they are based on higher values that could form the foundation of a new method of America’s dealing with the Middle East for decades.

While we await the serious reactions to Obama’s vision, there are various impressions, observations, and questions that have arisen, such as:

1- It was the first speech to tackle the issue of international leadership, not to mention US leadership. It contained a critical review of US policy toward Islam and the countries of the Middle East, even if this evaluation was deficient or sought “balance” in treating the hostile relationship and the lack of trust between Washington and this part of the world. The most important components of this review are the reference to the mistake of Washington’s support for the coup against Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s, and to the role of colonialism in tension with Muslims and the tragic shock of the 11 September attacks of behavior inimical to US ideals. However, although this review was an important and positive one, it remained deficient when it came to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The structure of the speech equated between the injustice suffered by the Israelis and Palestinians. The spirit of these words indicates that Obama, despite his quasi-decisive tone vis-à-vis Israel’s determination to build settlements and ignore the two-state solution, did not subject the legacy of the US-Israeli relationship to a real evaluation. The Arab-Palestinian problem with Washington is that each time it tries to solve the issue, it acts based on a status quo enshrined by its total bias toward one side, ignoring that Israel’s historical reliance on Washington’s blind support is what generates the obstacles to solutions. The negotiation begins based on what the Israeli side has achieved on the ground in the way of oppression and violence, and the absence of a historical, critical review leads us to asking the Arabs to undertake one concession after another.

2-The changes enshrined and launched by Obama in his country’s policies, and in this speech, are modifying the situation vis-à-vis the approach to these policies by Arab and Muslim states, and proving the adage that was used by Obama’s predecessor, George Bush, to confront the world, namely: improving America’s image in the Arab and Muslims worlds depends on an improvement in its policies, and not failed propaganda campaigns undertaken by the Bush administration, which have cost billions of dollars without producing any result.

3-In his new approach, Obama is trying to “repair” America’s leadership in the world, starting from the Middle East, after previous administrations, and the Bush administration, tried to set this leadership on a collision course with the world. This repair, which requires multi-polar pluralism, instead of failed unilateralism, is also in need of an opening to Islam and the adoption of different policies toward Muslims.