Obama raises the ante
The real mischief in President Obama's Cairo speech is not in his words per se (I thought the speech was fairly good), but rather in the policies that Obama now must pursue if the speech is to have its intended consequence of making the U.S. more popular, and Obama a hero, in the Arab and Muslim world
Let's look at what Obama had to say about Israel:
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Not bad so far. Israel's supporters would have liked to hear Obama praise Isarel's unique (for that part of the world) form of government and its strategic importance as an ally. But Obama was never going to do this, much less in Cairo.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
High marks for that passage.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
The suffering of Palestinians is, indeed, undeniable. And, whatever the legal arguments on both sides, the term "occupation" is pretty accurate as a matter of ordinary parlance. The Palestinians, I assume, consider their situation intolerable, and not without reason. If Obama meant that their situation is intolerable for us, he's wrong. The Palestinians are one of many peoples who suffer. Each such instance is unfortunate but not intolerable (under any normal meaning of that word) to the U.S. However, Obama is correct that we should not turn on backs on legitimate Palestinian aspirations, nor have we.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
Here, Obama errs: this hasn't been a stalemate; Isarel has been winning big for decades. But Obama isn't the first American president to pretend that there's a stalemate.
Some have criticized Obama for positing a moral equivalence through his "finger pointing" comment. But Obama never says there's an equivalence, and I don't see any between the "displacement" resulting from a "founding" in compliance with a U.N. vote (Obama deliberately chose mild terms here) and the "constant hostility and attacks" on Israel ever since. Obama is wrong to say that the two state solution is the only resolution, but it's an arguable position to say that it's the best resolution, and that has been the position of the U.S. government.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.
This is mostly rhetorical flourish. However, Obama's statement before this audience of his intent "to personally pursue" the two state solution is a big deal and, as I argue below, portends mischief.
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. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. 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.
The historical analogies Obama posits are imperfect, but this is pretty good stuff. It's a bit jarring to hear talk of Hamas playing a role, but Obama's conditions for them to do so are reasonable in theory.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. 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.
This key passage is stated in muddled terms (deliberately, I assume). Does "continued Israeli settlements" mean "existing settlements"? Does "it is time for these settlements to stop" mean it is time for them to disband or just to stop expanding? Depending on how one construes Obama's statements, there isn't necessarily anything new here. Every American president since Reagan has opposed the expansion of settlements. Before Reagan, the American position was that all Israeli settlements are illegal.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
This, I think, could have been written in almost the same words by Benjamin Netanyahu.
In sum, the speech isn't the problem. Rather, the problem is that Obama gave it in Cairo to much fanfare. Arabs and Muslims will now expect Obama to follow through, and not with respect to his statement about what Hamas "must" do.
Only by doing what Arabs have been unable to accomplish -- pushing Israel around -- can Obama fulfill his dream of winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims; indeed, this is the only way he can even retain whatever credibility his speech has given him with these groups. And, as much as he basks in it, Obama didn't go to Cairo just to gain momentary acclaim.
Thus, while Obama's speech was no worse than even-handed, it portends a hand that is heavy and uneven.
View Responses
