Obama's Cairo Speech and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict: Good Intentions Plus Misunderstanding Equals Failure

By Barry Rubin, June 5, 2009

President Barack Obama’s discussion in his Cairo speech of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is so important that it took up about 25 percent of the text.

Obama sought to put the United States into a neutral rather than pro-Israel position. This is not so unusual as it might seem compared to the 35 years U.S. policy has been trying to be a credible mediator, a length of time many forget--including Obama himself—through numerous peace plans and negotiating structures.

The speech is beautifully constructed and carefully crafted. But what does it say, both intentionally and implicitly?

Obama began by stressing U.S.-Israel links, not downplaying or concealing this from his Muslim audience:

“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.”

He then makes two points: the reality of the Shoah (Holocaust) and opposition to wiping Israel off the map:

“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.”

Previous presidents have often said such but Obama is wrapping this in his attempt to show Muslims he is on their side it might be deemed especially effective. But putting almost all emphasis on the Holocaust—which in Arab and Muslim views is a European crime whose bill they are unfairly paying—may be the wrong approach.

He also roots Jews desire for their own country mainly in persecution, to which the Arab/Muslim answer has been that this isn’t their responsibility or that Jews can live happily—as Obama wrongly hints they have done in the past—under Muslim rule.

While Obama tries hard, his approach may reverberate only for a small minority of politically powerless Western-oriented liberals who already understand it.

Turning to Palestinians, he uses an appealing image but one so wrong that it undermines Obama’s entire approach. The Palestinians, he says, have “suffered in pursuit of a homeland” for more than 60 years.

But if that were true the issue would have been solved 60 years ago (1948 through partition), 30 years ago (1979 and Anwar Sadat’s initiative) or 9 years ago (Camp David-2). What has brought Palestinian suffering is the priority on total victory and Israel’s destruction rather than merely getting a homeland. This is the reason why the conflict won’t be solved in the next week, month, or year.

Obama states, “The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.” But in real political terms that’s untrue. If it were true, the leadership would move quickly to improve their situation rather than continue the struggle seeking total victory. The Oslo agreement of 1993 and Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip were both based on this premise and both failed miserably for this very reason.

And so will Obama’s effort.

Pulling out of Gaza, for instance, Israel urged the Palestinian Authority to provide stability, improve living standards, and stop the war on Israel. Huge amounts of money were provided. And the result has been evident.

For Obama, Palestine is what Iraq was for George W. Bush. By rebuilding and reshaping its situation, providing its people with good lives and democracy, he expects to win Arab and Muslim gratitude. Obama’s supporters have ridiculed Bush for trying to remake other peoples, cultures, and countries. The same point applies to Obama.

He concludes, “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.” True. But what else is new? Israelis’ aspirations—despite misunderstandings by others--can certainly be met by this outcome. The same is not true for Palestinian aspirations as they really exist, rather than as Westerners think they should be.

While Obama might have said it in a different way, his words echo those of the last five American presidents. In the way he argues, however, Obama reveals his weakness in dealing with these issues. First he says—and this sounds wonderful to Western ears:

“Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed,” citing the American civil rights’ movement as example. This sounds noble but it is silly because it ignores the social and ideological context.

Fatah believes it got control of the West Bank and leadership of the Palestinian people through violence and killing. Hamas in Gaza; Hizballah and Syria in Lebanon; and Iran’s Islamist regime as well as the Muslim Brotherhoods believe that “resistance” works.

From the standpoint of Palestinian leaders, violence and killing are not failures. Moreover, violence and killing are commensurate with the goal of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian leadership, which is total victory. Their main alternative “peaceful” strategy is the demand—shared by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas—that pretty much all Palestinians who wish to do so must be allowed to live in Israel. A formula for more violence and killing.

Obama also says: “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.” This, of course, is what we’ve been hearing since 1993, when the responsibility for governing was supposed to transform Yasir Arafat from terrorist to statesman. Isn’t there some reason that this didn’t happen?

He continues: “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.”

The mind reels. Hamas doesn’t just have support, it governs the Gaza Strip. It disagrees with Obama. Fulfilling Palestinian aspirations means for it creating an Islamist state from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean. Unifying the Palestinian people means for it seizing control of the West Bank also and putting all the territories under its rule.

And what will Obama do when nobody behaves the way he wants them to? In this respect, Israel is not his problem, though he doesn’t seem to understand that yet.

Consider the otherworldliness of what he says about Israel. Here’s an example: “The continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.” Actually, the latter point is precisely the current Israeli government’s policy. As for Gaza, mitigating the alleged humanitarian crisis means strengthening a Hamas government. Ending the “crisis,” by opening the borders and infusing lots of money that will inevitably be used to strengthen Hamas’s rule threatens Israel’s security far more than the status quo.

One of Obama’s best lines was to say, “The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.” But this is so basic to the needs of the existing regimes, why would the governments respond to Obama’s call to do this, any more than to Bush’s urging for democracy?

Here’s Obama’s main theme: “Privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.”

This argument—peace is rational so just do it!--has been the basic concept governing Western policy toward the issue at least since the late 1970s. Even before. In 1955, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles asked why the Arabs and Israelis didn’t settle their differences like “Christian gentlemen?” Obama is more cultural sensitive, but his ethnocentric approach is basically the same.

After decades we are no closer to implementing this idea, perhaps even further. Obama’s task is to come to understand why this is so. Here’s one hint: almost all Israelis publicly support a Palestinian state if it leads to a stable peace. Those Muslims ready for full peace with Israel are still a minority who are too afraid to speak other than “privately.” This imbalance explains why the conflict continues, who is responsible for it, and what must be done to change that situation.
-----------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

Do Obama's words reveal his Middle East sympathies?

A close examination of the speech underscores how Obama, four months into his presidency, is still introducing himself -- and what he stands for -- to Americans and the world.
By Peter Wallsten June 5, 2009 LA Times

Reporting from Washington -- As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama left some fuzzy edges to his biography. He affirmed strong support for Israel but implied a strong empathy for Palestinians. His personal story played up his introduction to the black church, leaving his father's Islamic roots in the shadows.

It was a narrative designed to ease any voter concern about Obama's background and counter false Internet rumors that he was a Muslim.

But now, with Thursday's speech in Cairo, Obama is laying bare more of his sympathies and inclinations in the volatile area of Middle East politics.

Obama spoke, for example, of Palestinian "resistance" -- a word that can cast Israel as an illegitimate occupier. He drew parallels between Palestinians and the struggles of black Americans in slavery and of black South Africans during apartheid. Both references made some allies of Israel uneasy.

Moreover, in his defense of Israel's legitimacy, Obama cited the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism, but not the belief of some Jews that their claim to the land is rooted in the Bible and reaches back thousands of years.

A close examination of the speech underscored how Obama, four months into his presidency and five years after stepping onto the national stage, is still introducing himself -- and what he stands for -- to Americans and the world.

The country has come to know Obama as someone willing to face a skeptical audience -- a Muslim world wary of U.S. power, abortion rights opponents at the University of Notre Dame and, during the presidential campaign, voters questioning his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. -- and to ask that audiences move beyond old divisions.

Obama's style has been to cast himself as ready to lead the nation past the entrenched battles of the Clinton and Bush years and to ask Americans to look beyond old fault lines and accept a new politics of pragmatism and compromise.

Now, a key test of Obama's presidency is whether he can actually find new paths across old ideological battlefields.

In some cases, as in his speech last month at Notre Dame, there were few signs that either side in the decades-long fight over abortion rights felt obliged to give ground.

On Thursday, by contrast, the discomfort of some Jewish leaders stood as a sign that Obama may be willing to accept some level of criticism from political forces at home in the course of recasting the contours of an old dispute.

Nathan Diament, public policy director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and an advisor to the White House during speech preparations, said he was struck by "some surprising word choices."

In particular, Diament was troubled that Obama shifted from his previous use of the term "Jewish state" and referred instead to a Jewish "homeland." It is a subtle distinction, but Israel advocates worry that it implies a downgrading in status.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti- Defamation League and one of America's most ardent Israel supporters, said Obama's remark that Jewish aspirations for a homeland were "rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied" was incorrect and "legitimizes the Arabs who say Israel has no place there."

Foxman said that Obama's views -- among them seeing lessons for Palestinians in the struggles of oppressed blacks and others with a moral high ground -- stem from his biography. "Every individual brings his own baggage," Foxman said. "He's an African American . . . and he has rediscovered his Islamic roots after two years. I don't like it, but I understand it."

Many Jewish leaders reacted with praise for much of Obama's speech, including his assurances that U.S.-Israel ties were "unbreakable" and his call for Muslims to reject violence. But there was also a concern because Obama does not have the long public record on Middle East politics that most other national leaders have developed by the time they run for the White House.

He built his early political career, on Chicago's South Side, by courting leaders from the large African American and Arab American communities. Then, as he sought statewide and national office, he also wooed Jewish leaders.

Supporters of both Israel and the Palestinian cause thought that when it came to the Middle East, Obama was sympathetic to their side -- even though his language always showed a stalwart support for Israel. A majority of American Jews supported Obama in last year's election.

"When he was a candidate he was more careful," said Ori Nir, a spokesman for the left-leaning Americans for Peace Now. In the Cairo speech, Nir said, Obama demonstrated his true feelings, free from the constraints of a campaign.

"Now he is showing great determination and courage, knowing what is needed to lead such a momentous effort," Nir said.

Several Jewish leaders described Obama's stance toward Iran's nuclear ambitions as too soft. Some also complained that he did not label Hamas a terrorist group, as he had in the campaign. Instead, he used more diplomatic terms, saying that to "play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations . . . Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist."

Others said they were troubled by Obama's apparent desire to be evenhanded in his descriptions of the region's history. They objected to how the president, after invoking the bloody legacy of the Holocaust and criticizing Holocaust deniers, added: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

Said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee: "It's the search for the perfect balance that sometimes concerns me."

peter.wallsten@latimes.com