Q: How to measure the impact of President Obama’s speech in the Arab world?
Everyone and their brother in America is talking about what they think the impact is. But in my view, we have to track down actual responses from influential Arab intelectuals. Such as Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of London’s Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper and one of the top 5-10 most influential journalist in the region. He is a long-time critic of US foreign policy in the Middle East. What does he think about President Obama’s effort to repair relations with the Muslim world? This is my paraphrased/summarized translation of his Friday column.
Obama demonstrated that he knows how to adress the Arab and Muslim world. He made the right cultural references, cited some phrases from the Quran, and hit on all the essential causes. But he didn’t say anything we haven’t heard before. …
Obama, a brilliant orator, wants to please everyone: the Iraqis with his commitment to withdrawal; the Afghanis by saying he has no desire to maintain permanent bases; [Arab] democrats when he says he supports their cause; the Dictators when he avoids any talk of change; the Jews when he shed tears about the Holocaust; the Palestinians by emphasizing with their suffering.
He hit all the right chords, but we are quickly reminded of the Arabic saying ” I hear chattering but I don’t see anything substantive.” ( ‘اسمع جعجعة ولا ارى طحنا’ , I’m all ears for a better translation)
Obama goal was to convince Arabs and Muslims of the necessity of joining the US government’s war against “terrorism,” or the Islamic Extremist groups that Obama claims threaten them before they threaten the US. Yet he totally avoids any talk about the “state terrorism” that Israel practices on a daily basis against the Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon, and maybe soon in Iran.
President Obama spoke of how his country gained its freedom by overthrowing British rule. But then he denies that the same principle be applied to the Palestinians, calling on them to stop the use of violence, saying it won’t achieve anything. This is an odd stance from an American President who boasts of belonging to a Muslim family in East Africa (Kenya). Without the use of Armed Resistance, the US wouldn’t have been liberated. Nor would the county of Obama’s father (Kenya), or most of the countries in Africa and Asia…
Obama speaks of the need for Muslims and Arabs to stop being prisoners of the past. Excellent point. But we are not talking about something that happened 700 or even 100 years ago, but only the last few years. In March, we passed the 6 year anniversary of the US occupation of Iraq, which led to the martyrdom of a million of its citizens; in October, we will celebrate the eight year anniversary of the US attack on occupation of Afghanistan, which transformed the country into a failed state.
Aside from adjusting the style, Obama has not made any substantive changes in US foreign policy, abandoning provocative phrases like “war on terrorism.” His effort to start a new relationship with Muslim is possible and welcomed. But on the condition that it be accompanied with a clear apology for American crimes against Muslims, and their continued wars against them, and full compensation for the material and human costs of these wars. By saying that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, unlike the war in Afghanistan, Obama was making a half-apology. So he should do what the Germans did to the Jews after WWII and the Iraqis to the Kuwaits after 1991 and offer a full and unequivocal apology with full compensation.
And what price shoud Muslims and Arabs pay in return for Obama’s demand that Israel freeze settlements? The President said bluntly that the Arab peace initiative isn’t the end of Arab responsibilities, that they need to do more. I wonder, does Obama want us to normalize relations with Israel in exhance for a mere settlement freeze? Or amend the initiative to drop the right of return? We call on Arab leaders not to make concessions lightly.
Obama’s intentions are good and his desire for reconciliation serious, but intentions alone don’t suffice. We demand this his words be translated into actions as quickly as possible. The sympathy [generated in the Arab world] for the color of his skin, by his success story, and his powerful speech, will quickly evaporate if it is not translated into practical action as quickly as possible.
Readers can expect to read detailed posts on reactions of at least four other major Arab intellectuals during the next few days…..
Filed under: Uncategorized
I’m not sure if I misunderstood or not, but I find this excerpt confusing:
“…Palestinians, calling on them to stop the use of violence, saying it won’t achieve anything. This is an odd stance from an American President who boasts of belonging to a Muslim family in East Africa (Kenya). Without the use of Armed Resistance, the US wouldn’t have been liberated. Nor would the county of Obama’s father (Kenya), or most of the countries in Africa and Asia…”
I understand the historical references to the US and Kenya (though i know nothing of Kenyan history) but it seems that the author is implying that someone from a Muslim must know that it is untrue that violence “won’t achieve anything.” Or rather the inverse, A Muslim should know that violence is the way to achieving things.
Certainly there must be something I’ve missed. Certainly it is not a Muslim religious or cultural principle that political struggles, including ones of liberation, need to be violent.
Can you shed any light on this?
Atwan is pointing out that Obama proudly boasted in the speech of how the US rose up against the British empire, using violence (though he didn’t mention the violent part in the speech).
But then President Obama says to the Palestininians, also fighting to drive out what they consider a foreign occupation, that they must denounce violence in all forms.
Atwan finds it hypocritical that Obama recognizes the principle for his country, but when it comes to others fighting for their indepence, especially the Pals, when they violently resist what they consider occupation, Obama calls it terrorism.
Its not “violence” per se that Atwan means. Its more accurately the principle of right of Resistance (Muqawama). In cases where Muslim lands are occupied by foreign troops, such as Iraq, Afganistan, and some part of Israel-Palestine, in the eyes of the vast majority of Arabs, there is a legitimate right to “Resist,” using violence to drive out the occupier if necessary.
Many, if not the vast majority in the Middle East, interpret calls for the Pals to foreswear all armed Resistance as basically surrending to Israel’s will. After all, they would say, since when has Israel ever given anything up if they weren’t pushed into doing so through violence pressure (best case being the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000)
Rob,
Thanks for such a prompt reply!
I understood the points you mentioned and I understood the Arab perspective you explained. I suppose it was just the phrasing of the phrase I highlighted that struck me. It sounded to me like the implication was violence is the way to get things.
Certainly, nations have been formed out of great movements that did not employ violence. The Indian example stands out in my mind.
As for the last point about Israel not yielding except in the face of violence–perhaps this is another reason why Egypt was a significant choice for the speech. It’s a country with whom Israel made official peace while in a time of general calm on the border. The same count be said for peace with Jordan, but I doubt Jordan was ever seriously considered as a site for this speech.
Many thanks for translating/summarizing this.
It’s interesting to see that Atwan, despite (or perhaps because of?) being outside the fawning US press coverage of Obama, is able to see through the earnest happy-talk to realize what so many Americans don’t yet understand: that the Panderer-in-Chief’s most highly developed skill is ingratiation. Falling for this, US voters (admittedly, in the aftermath of Bush and with McCain as the alternative) voted for this empty suit who, it seems, truly believes that he can split the difference in any dispute and leave both sides happy.
Although I personally can’t stand to listen to his speeches, I do understand that many others find him a very effective orator. As Atwan points out, however, even if he “gives good speech”, the policies are key, and so far he shows little sign of deviating from those of his predecessor. I suspect that, to the extent that the speech is remembered at all six months from now, it will be seen not as any sort of turning point in America’s relations with the Islamic world, but rather as yet another patronizing effort to re-package the same old policies and attitudes, little different from the earlier efforts of Karen Hughes.
Despite my skepticism, I will be interested to follow your recounting of the views of the other regional commentators.
[...] is half empty.” Abdel Bari Atwan, editor, Al-Quds Al-Arabi. I summarized his Friday article here. He doesn’t drasticallly differ with Eissa in his reading of Obama’s foreign [...]
It’s no wonder the Muslim world has negative feelings toward the U.S., if one of their most influential columnists is making false statements.
He says the invasion of Iraq resulted in a million civilian deaths. This is an order of magnitude greater than most estimates.
He says the invasion of Afghanistan created a failed state. Afghanistan was already a failed state.
Finally, this might be my own ignorance, but what “state terrorism” does Israel conduct in Lebanon on a daily basis?
Peace is the only option. The self perpetuating circle of violence will only be stopped through visionary leadership. Not just from Obama. While Obama may be the catalyst to reduce the bully brother syndrome of Bush, the leaders across the middle east need to recognise that an imperfect (from whatever point of view you come from) peace is better than a perfect war.