« More on Tiller and the Taliban | David Seaton's Blog | "Feeling the Hate"... looking on the bright side »
Cairo: George Bush gets his lipstick
Oink
Let's not forget that President Bush, and Condi Rice, also went to the Middle East and made lofty speeches about freedom and about how the U.S. was not in conflict with Islam. It was not the rhetoric that failed them; it was the disconnect between the rhetoric and the policies.(...) What he says in Cairo will make little difference to the way he's perceived in the Arab world and beyond; he'll be judged by what he does. Tony KaronSpeaking about a policy of pursuing a war against extremism and working towards two states for peoples on Palestinian lands is no different from the policy of his predecessor, George W Bush. Ayman Taha, Hamas spokesman in the Gaza strip - BBC
Arabs are waiting for pressure to be exerted on Israel so it can stop its violations in Gaza and the West Bank. Iraqi government spokesman - BBC
"The United States is in a weaker position now," said Omar Amiralai, a well-known 65-year-old Syrian film maker. "They are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and don't know how to get out. Bush, after the Iraq war, had some ability to pressure Sharon on Israeli settlements, but I don't see that the United States has the ability to impose its law or desires on Israel now." New York Times
The immediate effect though is to buy America space and time. Daniel Levy - TPM
I ask the question because the stated objective, the Palestinian state, if it ever gets off the ground, will be nothing more than a huge concentration camp with no sovereignty over its borders or air space, with the most trusted inmates being allowed to run the day to day affairs of the prison, keep order among the prisoners, keep their jailers well informed of the other prisoner's doings and presumably to skim the cream off the "state's" budget for their pains.
This, of course is essentially repackaged Rice/Bush.
On assessing the timing of Obama's Cairo speech, one essential thing to remember is that on Sunday Lebanon will be holding elections, which very well may be won by Iran-backed Hezbollah. Any large advance for Hezbollah will be true "game changer" in the Middle East and signal a major failure of US policy in Syria and Lebanon. The Cairo speech and the massive media coverage it will get in the region should be seen in this context and are directly connected to offsetting that.
This brings us to an essential problem that the USA has had in the Middle East for many years and which the arrival of Obama is not likely to change. The problem is that -- as Bush always maintained -- the people of the region, in fact, do thirst after democracy, but the rub is that whenever they are allowed to vote freely, they seem to vote for Islamist parties, which are hostile to the USA.
So in fact this ongoing democratic revolution which the neocons imagined would benefit the USA is, in fact benefiting Iran, whose regime, with all its faults, is infinitely more democratic than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan or Kuwait and all the tiny oil sheikdoms, which are America's clients. Iran's policies toward Israel and the Palestinians are simply much more in tune with the feelings of the region's people. Adjusting to the inconvenience of democracy in an essentially colonial situation, is at the heart of the US's problems in the Middle East.
So, the "assalaamu alaykums", and quoting the Koran, combined with being seen to be putting some pressure on Netanyahu are basically just an exercise in playing for time; hoping to keep America's clients from being swept from power or especially the situation in Iraq from deteriorating too much, too fast, before the new administration has really found its feet
My assessment of the situation is that Obama, with his pressure on Israel to make what Ariel Sharon called, "painful concessions", and his Muslim-friendly rhetoric is trying to hang a fig-leaf on the authoritarian and unpopular American client regimes of the area: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Simply to buy them some time.
The danger is twofold: these regimes may be beyond salvation and the Israelis, specifically the settlers that Obama appears to want to evict are some of the most dangerous people in the world for an American president to pressure... and I don't mean politically, I mean physically. These are the spiritual descendants of Meir Kahane, Dr. Baruch Goldstein of the Abraham's Tomb massacre and Yigal Amir, Yitzak Rabin's assassin. Many of the most fanatic settlers are American citizens, men and women who can enter the United States with no restrictions whatsoever, who can blend perfectly in any American crowd and who are very familiarized with firearms. These people are as American as apple pie... or as the person who pulled the trigger on Dr. Tiller. So I must say that I think that Barack Obama is a very brave man.
Here we have the president of the USA putting his life on the line to create, what for all extents and purposes will, at worst, be a huge Palestinian concentration camp, or at best, a Palestinian Potemkin village.
Advertisement
"Here we have the president of the USA putting his life on the line to create, what for all extents and purposes will, at worst, be a huge Palestinian concentration camp, or at best, a Palestinian Potemkin village."
And the alternative? When the Bush administration took power they tried really hard to stay away from Israel/Palestine negotiations. They said pretty much nada when Sharon incited riots. This is not repackaged Bush.
June 4, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
I agree that Obama has to play the ball where it lies and that he is making an effort to change the context, but the "two state" solution is no solution and things have gone too far. When noble men and women fail at noble objectives it is called "tragedy".
June 5, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mainly argued it is unfair to call it repackaged Bush. Bush had zero interest in Palestine until forced to.
I tend to agree that things have gone too far in Palestine; like here, it's a hard sell to try to win office by suggesting anything that could be cast as surrender, so elections will be won by the hardliners more than otherwise. The likely future is more oppression as Israel tries to simply outlast their troublesome evicted tenants.
But if we got lucky the two-state solution is the only one possible, I'd say. As always, I ask what's the alternative? One state? Three? None?
June 5, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, David, David. I was once full of despair. On a bad day I feel it.
But as I pointed out elsewhere today, you could listen to a speech, read a speech that shall be replayed for centuries.
This was a speech to consider for all time.
You missed the point.
June 4, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, dd. He missed the point entirely. If those 2 enumerated options are the only ones available, then Obama doesn't know it.
Psssssst! I actually think that Barack Obama is smarter even than David S.
June 4, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bet he's smarter than I am. If US policy had followed the lines given in the speech ten years ago, we would be looking at a different Middle East, but now is now.
Basically the USA is in an impossible, "General Motors" type situation in the Middle East. The speech was one of the most brilliant examples of the "my dog ate my homework" school of persuasion that I have ever heard.
I give Obama full points for audacity and effort. If Clinton had talked and acted in his time, when America's power was intact, as Obama is doing now, it might have worked.
June 5, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
David. Your communication skills are fantastic. I never miss your blogs. Never. I may not rec--as they say--or even comment. But I always read you.
And I know we need to have what you write, read.
But I am getting older, and time keeps on ticking.
I find so much hope in this speech. And sometimes I think you have given up. You become so dour and in despair.
I choose not to go in that direction.
I think there were such new things said today or yesterday depending upon your relation to Greenwich time, that it is indesputable.
Maybe it is due in part to the inability of w's administration to communicate.
Maybe it is due just to the genetics of our new President, whom I respect soooo much.
He stuck his neck out today. He toooook real chances. He made some bets.
Maybe not 'all in', but he laid some chips on the table.
He told Israel--this is where I am at.
He told Palestine--here I am. This is where I am at.
Who knows. I am seeing blue skies, nothing but blue skies do I see.
LET US PRAY AND HOPE TOGETHER.
June 5, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with David, dd. Only time will tell whether the speech will be memorable as a pure rhetorical exercise. But on the Israeli-Palestinian front, nothing substantial has changed. This conflict isn't just a damned poetry contest.
The Israeli government and society have shifted sharply toward the far right, yet right now people in the US are getting all excited about half-hearted US efforts just to shift the diplomatic status quo back to where it was before Israeli invaded and locked down Gaza and before the far right took over Israel. And that old status quo, we'll recall, was itself going nowhere and doing nothing to end the Israeli occupation and colonization of the West Bank.
All of this hysterical hoo-hah about Obama getting tough with Netanyahu is simply about trying to get him to freeze further settlement activity. And we can't even get them do that. But even if the Israelis never built another settlement, they have close to half a million people in colonies in the West Bank, and no viable Palestinian state can be established given that situation. Obama has given no indication since being in office, and gave no indication yesterday, that he is prepared to take anything close to the kind of steps that would be necessary to create a real and viable Palestinian state. he offered no vision of such a state yesterday, not even a broad one.
The administration is wasting valuable time. And it appears they are going to waste even more valuable time by embarking on yet another Oslo-like "peace process" that did nothing but give Israel years of diplomatic cover to consolidate even more gains, and build more colonies, and then to blame the failure of the peace process on the Palestinians. Obama is headed down the same doomed road. He and supporters of Israel are embarked upon a marketing camapign aimed at packaging a whole lot of nothing up as some great messianic initiative, and that campaign will then be used to screw and blame Palestinians again when they have the temerity to note that the US is once again involved in a joint US-Israeli operation to screw them out of their territory and subjugate them. Before a year is out, liberals in the US will be all over those Palestinian ingrates for their failure to respond to the magical poetry of the Great Obama by accepting the shriveled up, subjugated, Israeli-surrounded Bantustania he is offering them.
It's absurd to hear some of the deluded Stockholm Syndrome statements coming out of the Obama fan club, illustrating their absurdly miniscule expectations and grasp of the nature of the challenge: "Oh, my God! He said "Palestine"! And did you hear? And he said Palestinians have suffered! Peace and justice are surely at hand!"
I hate to see so many people getting manically and delusionally caught up with flights of rhetoric. I just ask people to pay more attention to what Obama is doing than to what he is saying. And so far, he has done nothing concrete.
June 5, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
David-
You surprise me. I always took you for someone who listens to understand not to just respond. This diary and the selective quote use says to me you merely listened to fit a preconditioned response.
June 4, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foxy,
Here is a take that will start you thinking.
June 5, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here is perhaps the best contrarian article of all by Ahdaf Soueif from the Guardian
June 5, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=770a874d-9279-4cda-b0e4-2fd0533b07b6
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/05/the-morning-after-further-reaction-from-the-arab-world.aspx
June 5, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
David's right!
The principal if not singular purpose of the Cairo speech was to slip a velvet glove over the mailed fist.
And the resulting principal if not singular question is -- how long before the velvet unravels.
"Events are in the saddle and ride mankind." RWE
June 4, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that you are a lady of understanding.
June 5, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least no one threw a shoe, or two, at Obama.
June 4, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We take our comfort where we can.
June 5, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama hasn't brought about Middle East peace in his first four months in office? Why, George bush didn't either! They're exactly alike!
---David Seaton
June 5, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink