Obama in Cairo
A good speech.
These are the parts that hit the right buttons for me:
That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum – “Out of many, one.”
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practise one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the US government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Then there’s this:
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
The namechecking of Bosnia and Darfur was spot on.
Here is Obama on Israel/Palestine. It is worth reading in full.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
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.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and antisemitism 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.
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 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring 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.
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.
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.
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 centre 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, recognise past agreements, and recognise Israel’s right to exist.
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.
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.
Finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognise Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognise that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognise the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
This could have been a Harry’s Place article, n’est ce pas?
There is this on Iran and the Middle East’s nuclear arms race:
This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
And on democracy:
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realise this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
Notably, this was a speech that given in front, not only of democrats like Ayman Noor, but also certain Muslim Brotherhood politicians. The last sentence was directed at them.
There is a section – too short a section – on freedom of religion. And I wonder if this is a boo boo.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition
Huh?
But this is a good point:
Likewise, it is important for western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit– for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Nicely tied together with the point on womens’ rights:
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the west that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
All in all, Obama said pretty much everything that needed to be said. We can nit pick – but I’m impressed.
As they say: read it all.
Gene adds: You can watch the entire speech here:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Comments
| 4 June 2009, 12:54 pm |
Good speech my arse. One nutcase theist preaching at more nutcase theist. A plague on all their houses!
| 4 June 2009, 12:55 pm |
What about the Copts? What about the massive, institutionalised discrimination against many other non-Arab minorities, not least the Kurds (who deserve their own state at least as much as the Palestinians)? What about the routine state-sponsored anti-semitism of Al Ahram and other state media? Why was the Muslim Brotherhood, that aims for a Caliphate through force and by other means, invited to hear Obama speak, as if they were partners?
The Arab Peace Initiative, that he applauds, calls for Israel to be filled with an unspecified number of third and fourth generation descendants of people who used to live where Israel is (AKA “refugees”). This is a direct call to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.
Taheri was right-Obama implicitly sees the world as Muslim and non-Muslim, as Bin Laden and the MB would, which is more than just an oversimplification. I am almost but not quite reminded of Mark Steyn’s criticism of many on the left: I paraphrase slightly “We have no enemies, just friends whose grievances we have not yet managed to address.”
Sorry, I know Obama is almost divine to many.
B.
| 4 June 2009, 12:58 pm |
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.
Yep, and so did the conquistadors
One wonders if Obama didn’t farm peanuts in a past life.
This is all wrong.
| 4 June 2009, 1:01 pm |
That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.
He wants a partnership? between a state and a religion. Whatever happened to separation of the two and the small matter of the US Constitution.
Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.
Apart from American War of Independence, WW1, WW2, etc, etc. Is he an idiot?
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition
Utter madness.
Likewise, it is important for western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit
What? Like killing apostates?
This speech is crazy…
| 4 June 2009, 1:06 pm |
This could have been a Harry’s Place article, n’est ce pas?
Good point, indeed it could, particularly this bit:
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. [. . .] Hamas must put an end to violence, recognise past agreements, and recognise Israel’s right to exist.
Greeted with a standing ovation in Gaza, Damascus, and Tehran?
| 4 June 2009, 1:08 pm |
I’ve been moderated again, I really don’t know why.
| 4 June 2009, 1:08 pm |
Here he is on Copts etc:
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt
| 4 June 2009, 1:14 pm |
In politics it is symbolism as much if not more than ideas which carry weight. President Obama shook hands with Queen Elizabeth; he bowed to King Faud.
Moslems will ditch the pacific bits and concentrate on the image of an American President apologising for the last twenty odd years of resistence to Islamofascism. Moral: Kill enough westerners and you can win.
The Islamists have always insisted that the west is essentially indolent and given over to material pleasures. It cannot and will not resist if this involves sacrifice. This speech (which plays well if you are an educated western liberal) will be taken in such circles not as a sign of a new beginniing but the beginning of the end.
| 4 June 2009, 1:14 pm |
The very act of doing this will lead to just more death. Why grace a collection of 57 human rights abusers, aka the Islamic world, with an equivalent status to that of the free world?
When will someone muster the courage to call the Islamic world on the carpet for it horrendous human rights abuses? Why do western politicians gloss over all of this, and indeed lie about it with statements like ; “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance”
These days, with all that’s happened, with all the murder and mayhem and violence inflicted by ISLAM on humanity, why the same old silly displays of crass ignorance?
And worse, why the obstinate determination to put lipstick on this pig and to continue to commit to it qualities and attributes it never had, doesn’t have and never will have?
The Obama ‘team’ is where Labour was back in 1997 wshen it comes to an accurate and honest comprehension of Islam.
Christ, Obama’s principle advisors on muslim issues in America, Dalia Mogahed, is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and thinks “islamophobia is perhpas the most serious probleme facing America today”.
Obama has agreed to partner with the utter insanity, and has taken a conscious and most dishonest decision to pretend the wolf is a lamb.
And that’s exactly the deception the fundies need in order to advance their agenda.
| 4 June 2009, 1:15 pm |
Well Barad, maybe if the Kurds blamed all their troubles on the jews, they too would have the support of arab nationalists and saudi oil barons.
| 4 June 2009, 1:21 pm |
Talking about Islamic tolerance in Egypt where people are not allowed to legally leave Islam and the Copts have recently had all their pigs killed is crazy.
Going to Egypt is like going to pre 1990 South Africa.
| 4 June 2009, 1:23 pm |
Saw some of it, huge amounts of wishful thinking, denial and out and out falsehoods. Also, the very fact that he’s addressing ‘The Muslim’ world is acknowledgment that its a fuck-up.
No speeches to ‘The Buddhist Word’, the ‘Hindu World’ or ‘Christiandom’, because they just don’t cause nearly so much shit in the name of their superstitions.
| 4 June 2009, 1:24 pm |
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 centre of America’s founding.
I think the point that Obama is making here is not dissimilar to that of many commentators and commenters here, i.e. that Palestinians would today have a state had that actually presented a viable alternative to the Terrorism that is so synonymous to their cause. Terrorism as a tactic in bringing the Palestinian agenda to the fore of World thinking may have actually achieved its goal, but today it is an impediment to the future success of the Palestinian National Cause. Israel, or an sane country, can never treaty with a national cause that defines itself by the intention to destroy its enemies rather than to create a viable Nation.
Putting aside the American Civil War, Barak seems, in my mind, correct in saying that “Black” America has largely broken down the barriers of institutional racism through a campaign that included a combination of civil disobedience and legislative pressure to change the culture of America. Terrorist violence was only a nominal part of the struggle that was counter productive to the cause.
Stuart, WWII was not an act of internal resistance to imposed subjugation. The NAZIs and NAZI Germany was an implacable enemy, whose military and racial aims were completely incompatible with a negotiated settlement. However the NAZIism is a chiling example of the futility of negotiated agreements with parties that are mendacious in their motives, and exploit diplomacy as a cover for their more nefarious intent. Diplomacy is only a viable option when both parties are sincere in the desire to reach an accommodation. My fear is that Obama mistakenly and disastrously mistake diplomacy as an ends initself.
| 4 June 2009, 1:27 pm |
Its perfectly fair to say that in medieaval times the Islamis world was relatively more tolerant than say, the Christian world.
Realism and common sense however require one to ask in the next breath “so what went worng”!
| 4 June 2009, 1:28 pm |
David, I think both you & Obama are being extremely naive.
Obama’s outreached hand will be slapped.
It is moreover ridiculous to compare the Palestinians’ history to African-Americans’.
Last, Obama seems not to have recognised that a Palestinian state already exists in Jordan.
| 4 June 2009, 1:29 pm |
Here he is on Copts etc:
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt
Thanks David, I missed that bit. I am glad he mentioned it.
B.
| 4 June 2009, 1:31 pm |
If only the US had a President Morgoth to tell 1bn Muslims that “the lot of you are stupid nutters WHO NEED TO GO”, it would go a long way towards solving the world’s problems…
| 4 June 2009, 1:33 pm |
He also said :
“So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”
I think that is a stupid thing to say – dictators will quote that in years to come ad nauseam.
Otherwise there was a lot that was good but the kind of relativistic wishy washyness indicated by the above remark is worrying.
| 4 June 2009, 1:35 pm |
“Well Barad, maybe if the Kurds blamed all their troubles on the jews, they too would have the support of arab nationalists and saudi oil barons.”
Maybe so (tongue firmly in cheek)!
I seem to remember that Israel has had long and good relations with the non-Islamist Kurdish groupings in Iraq and Iran (post-Shah), both military and latterly commercial (in Iraqi Kurdistan). It is a tough balancing act to get close to the enemy of your enemies, the rulers of Iraq, Iran and syria whilst not pissing off your sometime friends in Turkey, the Turkish army at least, at the same time.
| 4 June 2009, 1:35 pm |
The richness of religious diversity must be upheld…the Copts in Egypt
One wonders why there were no Christian dignitaries/clergy at Cairo University or the proposed small-scale Copt parade was suppressed at the last minute…and why no mention of Iraq’s plethora of minorities and their persecution at the hands of radical Islam?
I agree with Barad: Taheri was correct to underline the foolhardiness of stressing a Muslim over an Arab identity.
For me, there was also too much emphasis on Israel/Palestine as an epoch-making, earth-shattering conflict; with its resolution heralded as a panacea for all the ills of Muslim-maority countries. This is just the sort of narrow purview through which the Islamists project their own delusional obsession.
All in all, plenty of sound rhetoric, but the sceptical Egyptian public and others around the Middle East will take more convincing that Obama means what he says. He has, after all, effectively lent legitimacy to what is possibly the most corrupt regime in the Middle East.
I’d like to see more practical evidence of US support for minorities at the coalface.
| 4 June 2009, 1:37 pm |
Good speech. I was listening in on radio 5, the bbc’s diplomatic analyst mentioned the applause patterns were 180 degrees out of phase with what he’d get back home.
Praise for Islam, criticism of israeli settlements – loud applause.
Praise for america – silence.
| 4 June 2009, 1:40 pm |
Last, Obama seems not to have recognised that a Palestinian state already exists in Jordan.
Aha! Let there be no more talk of a Palestinian state; rather, let us celebrate the benefits of a future Transjordania and its diverse inhabitants. The Jordanian Brothers would be proud…
| 4 June 2009, 1:44 pm |
This speech is crazy…
Stuart hates it. Discussion over. The speech is obviously a corker.
| 4 June 2009, 1:49 pm |
<i.If only the US had a President Morgoth to tell 1bn Muslims that “the lot of you are stupid nutters WHO NEED TO GO”, it would go a long way towards solving the world’s problems…
Human Civilisation is coming to a crux, a fork in the road. There are only two alternatives for our future:
One is an enlightened scientific technological society spread out among the stars.
The other is a theist nightmare where women are shrouded and locked up, science is forbidden and what is left of humanity pitifully labours under the dread yolk of the servants of Mohammed and Yahweh in total ignorance and cruelty.
Until all right-hand path religions are utterly destroyed and their priests and imans treated like the nazi party, the second future is inevitable.
And The One ™ has now revealed himself to be (and those of us who didn’t swallow the Kool Aid knew this already) yet another dangerous mentally-ill loon with an IQ of 8.
| 4 June 2009, 1:53 pm |
My nitpicks re: Israel:
Nothing about the Palestinian “right of return” being a fantasy.
Nothing about how *Muslim* states (not Arab) would need not sacrifice anything, other than their own encultured hatred, by recognizing Israel and opening normal relations with the Jewish state.
| 4 June 2009, 1:55 pm |
“There are only two alternatives for our future”
There are at least three actually. The third alternative being that there are not two.
| 4 June 2009, 1:56 pm |
“One is an enlightened scientific technological society spread out among the stars. The other is a theist nightmare where women are shrouded and locked up, science is forbidden ..”
Why can’t we compromise? Like, we could have Betelgeuse and leave them Antares or something.
| 4 June 2009, 1:57 pm |
One is an enlightened scientific c society spread out among the stars.
Morgoth 4 June 2009, 1:49pm
Please explain this non-sequitor to me: How are “enlightened” and “scientific technological” actually causative of each other.
Rail against dogmatism all you want, but the religion of Science is can be equally as dogmatic as any “God centered” religion. Witness your own dogmatic, and murderous posts.
Similarly, the belief in God and religion are not antagonistic or mutually exclusive to enlightenment and liberalism.
| 4 June 2009, 2:02 pm |
Actually, Morgoth, considering the history of Science, as a political culture, I seriously doubt that it will lead to enlightenment. What it will lead to, without restriction placed on it by religious sensibilities, will be Eugenics, euthanasia of “unproductive members of society”, survival of the fittest. If their are Alien species as we populate the stars (this itself is a fantasy), it will also lead to Xenophobia and possibly even Xenocide. Such is the nature of human (scientific) psychology.
| 4 June 2009, 2:10 pm |
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition
I suggest Barack Hussein googles “Cordoba massacre”:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dhimmi
In the twelfth century, rulers of the Almohad dynasty killed or forcibly converted Jews and Christians in Al-Andalus and the Maghreb, putting an end to the existence of Christian communities in North Africa outside Egypt.[18][19] In an effort to survive under Almohads, most Jews resorted to practicing Islam outwardly, while remaining faithful to Judaism; they openly reverted to Judaism after Almohad persecutions passed.[20] During the Cordoba massacre of 1148, the Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician Maimonides saved his own life only by converting to Islam; after Maimonides moved to Egypt, this conversion was ruled void by a Muslim judge who was a friend and patient of Maimonides.[21] As a result of Almohad persecutions and other forced conversions that took place in Morocco afterwards, several Muslim tribes in the Atlas Mountains, as well as many Muslim families in Fez, have Jewish origin.
Not to mention Granada…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre
On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, which was at that time in Muslim-ruled al-Andalus, assassinated Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city.[1][2] According to scholars Richard Gottheil and Meyer Kayserling: “More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day.”
| 4 June 2009, 2:17 pm |
I found the reception, the speech recieved from the audience,
a little bit disturbing. Not even a moderate, polite applause at
the mention of the things the Muslim world needs to do to build
bridges.
| 4 June 2009, 2:19 pm |
An American president who believes his job is to protect American lives does not go groveling to our enemies the way this hack has done. Obama is an embarrassment. And enough of this koran this, koran that. Jeesh!
| 4 June 2009, 2:21 pm |
Interesting speech.
Politically Obama has put down several markers, the most conspicuous one on settlements, but the other less obvious was an acknowledgment of Hamas, and the implied point was that some dealings will have to be made with them, eventually.
| 4 June 2009, 2:21 pm |
I agree it was a good speech, setting out aspirations not just for a new relationship with “the Muslim world” but for real change within that world.
His condemnation of Holocaust denial was welcome, and, like the name-dropping of Bosnia and Darfur, there were clever coded references dotted throughout.
“The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.”
was aimed as much at Arab governments as the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Did I also detect a subliminal message for our own hapless rulers?
“I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things… confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people… you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.”
I do hope that one zealot in particular was paying attention to that part.
| 4 June 2009, 2:23 pm |
So what happened to the footwear act? Barry managed to read his speech all the way through to the end without getting a single shoe thrown at him. How did he manage that? Ah . . . Nobody’s in a rush to test the amenities available in Egyptian prisons. By no means as comfortable as an Iraqi prison under the Crusader Zionist Infidel occupation.
| 4 June 2009, 2:24 pm |
David T
Agree entirely. A great speech.
| 4 June 2009, 2:27 pm |
US Prez goes to Cairo, systematically takes everyone out to the verbal woodshed and spanks em, alternating with a friendly word, then another thwack. Then another smile and a kind word and they know whats coming next. Thwack.
Frothing Wingnuts not happy. What a surprise.
| 4 June 2009, 2:30 pm |
Yes the US Islam partnership is odd. my nitpicks: The Palestinian/slavery experience equated. (The BBC commentator also noted this.) The rationale given for the existence of the State of Israel- nothing about an ancient link to the land- he based it all on European persecution culminating in Holocaust- and of course absolutely not a peep about the expelled Jews from the Arab lands finding refuge in Israel.
| 4 June 2009, 2:30 pm |
Stuart hates it. Discussion over. The speech is obviously a corker.
You could at least congratulate me on my consistency. Anyway how is tractor production? Up again I assume?
| 4 June 2009, 2:33 pm |
takes everyone out to the verbal woodshed and spanks em, alternating with a friendly word, then another thwack. Then another smile and a kind word and they know whats coming next. Thwack.
A disturbing insight into Neil W’s childhood…
| 4 June 2009, 2:35 pm |
“Palestinian ..pursuit of a homeland” Deborah Maccoby please note. She had a letter published in JC last week criticising Geoffrey Alderman for using the word homeland re Palestinians. She crowed that users of this word betrayed their affinity with Apartheid SA as this was the word used for the bantustans. (I actually read an article just this week by yet another Palestinian academic talking of their yearning for their lost homeland.)
| 4 June 2009, 2:46 pm |
Actually, Morgoth, considering the history of Science, as a political culture, I seriously doubt that it will lead to enlightenment.
That computer you’re typing this bullshit on wasn’t manufactured from prayers and ambrosia, you pillock. It was a product of enlightenment and science.
| 4 June 2009, 2:46 pm |
A disturbing insight into Neil W’s childhood…
I’m still waiting for the debate he promised on another thread to Bonkers or Francois Kevorkian…I forget which…
David T Agree entirely. A great speech.
He’s also an insufferable brownnose.
| 4 June 2009, 2:46 pm |
God and religion are not antagonistic or mutually exclusive to enlightenment and liberalism.
Well no but then nor is having a Body Mass Index of over 30 is “not antagonistic or mutually exclusive” to Marathon running, but it’s not a stretch to say that its rather inversely correlated and quite distinctly contra indicated.
So it is with God and Religion and Enlightenment, liberalism and scientific objectivism.
| 4 June 2009, 3:02 pm |
I like my extended woodshed analogy, thanks, ‘course I may be in a minority in that belief.
“I’m still waiting for the debate he promised on another thread to Bonkers or Francois Kevorkian…I forget which…”
I said I remembered some of the debates in the past on here. No promise or suggestion of a debate. Possibly you are confused? You seem to have decided to go down some sub Bertie Wooster type routine. Upto you of course. Free will and all that.
“”David T Agree entirely. A great speech.
He’s also an insufferable brownnose”"
Ahhhh bang to rights, I loves Mr Toube I does [touches forlock..well, I thhink its a forlock anyway]
| 4 June 2009, 3:04 pm |
GOOD SPEECH.
| 4 June 2009, 3:04 pm |
That computer you’re typing this bullshit on wasn’t manufactured from prayers and ambrosia, you pillock. It was a product of enlightenment and science.
My computer was the product of enlightenment? Wow, and here I was thinking that it is the product of consumerism and marketing.
My computer may be used a tool to further either or both religion and enlightenment, not to mention science. Yours on the other hand is a tool for dogmatism and bigotry (not to mention stupidity).
| 4 June 2009, 3:12 pm |
Well no but then nor is having a Body Mass Index of over 30 is “not antagonistic or mutually exclusive” to Marathon running, but it’s not a stretch to say that its rather inversely correlated and quite distinctly contra indicated.
And Copernicus and Mendel were not Priest and Monk. Newton wasn’t devoutly religious.
Mengele, Heisenberg, von Braun are the pillars of Ethical Enlightenment.
Let us not forget the Terror of the Enlightened French Revolution.
| 4 June 2009, 3:16 pm |
Until all right-hand path religions are utterly destroyed and their priests and imans treated like the nazi party, …
Morgoth 4 June 2009, 1:49 pm
And of course Enlightened Science is not so dogmatic as to be able to tolerate “other” belief systems and “deviant” behaviour.
Morgoth is no Dogmatist, …. No!
| 4 June 2009, 3:28 pm |
@ Joe Camel:
“So what happened to the footwear act? Barry managed to read his speech all the way through to the end without getting a single shoe thrown at him. How did he manage that? Ah . . . Nobody’s in a rush to test the amenities available in Egyptian prisons. By no means as comfortable as an Iraqi prison under the Crusader Zionist Infidel occupation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntadhar_al-Zaidi#Injuries
Yes, sounds really comfortable…
| 4 June 2009, 3:30 pm |
Any chance we could move away from Morgoth’s pro-Satanist nonsense, hardly much enlightenment there, and back to Obama’s speech and what it could mean in reality for people in the middle east?
| 4 June 2009, 3:31 pm |
President Obama hates schisms, hates dissension, it seems to me, and like all such people desprately wants to be loved and assumes that he only has to win parental approval and he will be loved. If I had been making the speech I would have concentrated on shared challenges such as ecological disaster and famine, the need for provision of work and services for all people in the world. I wouldn’t have drivelled on about Islam. Wouldn’t have mentioned it. But, then, I ain’t the President of the United States. (Yet.).
| 4 June 2009, 3:39 pm |
And Copernicus and Mendel were not Priest and Monk. Newton wasn’t devoutly religious.
Mengele, Heisenberg, von Braun are the pillars of Ethical Enlightenment.
You can throw in the present day Professor Alister McGrath if you want. All grist to the mill. Still over 90% of top US scientists are non theists…..yup theism and scientific knowledge are inversely correlated and contra indicated. Not surprising, one really doesn’t expect a decent 21st scientist to subscribe to suprenaturalism.
| 4 June 2009, 3:43 pm |
back to Obama’s speech and what it could mean in reality for people in the middle east?
Very little I suspect.
| 4 June 2009, 3:46 pm |
Still over 90% of top US scientists are non theists
And, pray tell, does “top US scientist” mean? What proportion of TOTAL US scientist are “top US scientist”?
Sometimes statistics are just meaningless!
| 4 June 2009, 4:14 pm |
Oh I am teh happey at the moment. Seeing that one-eyed scottish idiot squatting in No. 10 in the state he’s currently in guarantees almost constant total happiness.
P.S. your link is bollocks. The plural of anecdote isn’t data.
| 4 June 2009, 4:16 pm |
Rail against dogmatism all you want, but the religion of Science is can be equally as dogmatic as any “God centered” religion. Witness your own dogmatic, and murderous posts.
No, that in itself is the non-sequitur. Morgoth does not speak for science, only for himself. He may be a deluded individual. So what? There are plenty of them on all sides. But ‘the religion of science’ is a nonsense term. Individual scientist may be dogmatic and murderous, but that makes them bad scientists, and they are not in the majority, especially the murderous bit (which I’ll grant you does describe Morgoth very well).
I think Newton was a devout person, by the way.
| 4 June 2009, 4:23 pm |
Well, I guess Newton was mentioned in reply to Nick, and even more so to Morgoth. If so, then good point.
Nonetheless, this computer is indeed a product of the enlightenment, not just of consumerism. Scientists had to discover the properties of semiconductors out of pure scientific curiosity, before engineers could put them to practical use and then computer companies put them in computers. That curiosity wasn’t absent in Mendel and Copernicus, but did cause some slight hassle to the latter, if I remember my history lessons correctly.
| 4 June 2009, 4:27 pm |
Am guessing the Israeli far right isn’t too happy:
From Jeffrey Goldberg:
“An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible”
From David Grossman, an Israeli who shares Obamas view:
“Fifteen years ago, it was easy to understand the grip the settlers had on our government. Now, 200,000 people have been allowed to enslave the future of Israel for their own messianic hallucinations, to dictate the internal dialogue in Israel, making it violent and merciless. The settlers have trapped us in a historical mistake. To begin to correct this, we must have a removal of the most extreme, remote settlements. I know this process will be painful, violent, and there will be bloodshed, but this must be done. They are a limb that has to be amputated so the body can stay alive”
Quite.
I wonder what drivel Bibi will come out with??????
| 4 June 2009, 4:32 pm |
I wonder what drivel Bibi will come out with…
In what way is Bibi’s statement that the future of Settlements is a subject to be negotiated as part of a Final and Complete settlement between Israel and Palestinians drivel?
| 4 June 2009, 4:39 pm |
Joe:
The clue is in my sentence – I wonder what..etc
I.e. I haven’t read or seen how he has responded.
| 4 June 2009, 4:45 pm |
Obama pulled a classical verbal trick on everyone.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and antisemitism 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.
Great. What a mench!!
Then!
On the other hand, ……..
This is a verbal device much like the use of the word “But”. Its use is to actually trash what preceded it and modify it.
If he was serious his speech writer would have used something like. “Also….”, “We shouldn’t also forget……..” or could have just said “The Palestinians…….”
Trust me, I know. Its one of my specialities.
| 4 June 2009, 4:45 pm |
Philo-Semite
4 June 2009, 1:28 pm
David, I think both you & Obama are being extremely naive.
Obama’s outreached hand will be slapped.
I cannot imagine Egypt slapping the hand that has handed it billions and continues to. More likely, the response for western audiences’ sake will be to talk about how nobly Egypt has behaved since Sadat signed the accord with Begin, etc. For the domestic audience, it’ll be business as usual.
| 4 June 2009, 4:47 pm |
Andrew Sullivan nails it:
“Reading the speech today, I am reminded of why many of us saw this unlikely figure a couple of years ago and concluded that he was uniquely capable of guiding the West – and East – away from a catastrophic conflict that we learned, by bitter experience, could not be won by force of arms alone. Arms remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this speech buttressed that hard power with a soft and vital appeal to the masses below – the people who determine whether a global insurgency succeeds or fails. My reader is right: no other figure in global politics could have done this. At its heart, the speech sprang, it seemed to me, a spiritual conviction that human differences, if openly acknowledged, need not remain crippling. It was a deeply Christian – and not Christianist – address; seeking to lead by example and patience rather than seeking to impose from certainty:
Obama: “I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart”
Sullivan again:
“Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” The man has, for a politician, done this more powerfully than any president I have known since Reagan. And his vision is Reagan’s: a world without nuclear weapons, in which our differences are occasions for healthy and human interaction, not terror, torture and mass destruction. To criticize this speech as not tough-minded enough is to miss the point: it is precisely by opening ourselves up, by showing who we really are, by dropping the pretenses and brittleness of cultural conflict and taking up the challenge of our faiths at their best: peace, and respect – that we can win the war against Islamist terror and tyranny. This does not mean going soft on al Qaeda, which remains as evil as it ever was:
Obama: I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with”"
Good to have a real Leader of POTUS, been awhile.
| 4 June 2009, 4:52 pm |
I heard Michael Medved articulate an interesting point yesterday. “Are you telling me the a settler building and extra bedroom on his house to accommodate grown-up children is a threat to peace and creates instability in the Muslim world?”
If a settlement boundary has a space reserved for 100 houses and they build 100 houses then how does that affect any final peace deal? If the deal is that the settlement stays and the settlers become citizens of Palestine then the houses stay.
If the agreement is that the settlement is evacuated then the houses are unoccupied.
The hold is surely not to build MORE NEW settlements and israel agrees.
I don’t understand why building within existing settlements is a problem. Its seems more symbolic than a real problem.
If Palestinians insist all Jews leave Palestinian territory then would it be fair to ask Israeli Arabs to move out to accommodate them and let the Israeli arabs move to the evacuated settlements?
I say this only to highlight some of the absurdity around this.
| 4 June 2009, 5:33 pm |
The speech Obama should have given:
| 4 June 2009, 5:43 pm |
I was wondering who the Muslim American nobel laureate was. I found this. I am not linking to the site where I found it as it is unpleasant.
“Another MINO [Muslim in name only] is Ahmed Zewail, a most busy scientist to whom many Muslim websites like to proudly point as an example that a Muslim can indeed achieve scientific success. However, Zewail himself has written that one of the barriers to scientific and technological success in “developing countries” is the mixing of “state laws” and “religious” beliefs. That “certain cultures, nations, religions” (without naming them) lack appreciation for science and technology. There is more detail in his commentary given to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican, “Science for the Have-nots” [PDF].
Zewail recalls what happened to a fellow Egyptian Nobel Laureate, Naguib Mahfouz, who got himself stabbed in the neck with a kitchen knife by Egyptian Islamic militants, so Zawail knows to keep his name off a fatwa by not saying bad things about Islam.”
Readers who read my article at the top of the fold know that Ahmed Hassan Zewail is an Egyptian American chemist, and the winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his pioneering work in femtochemistry. The operative word here is American.
| 4 June 2009, 5:46 pm |
In reply to Arfur, the extra bedroom point would be answered by some by saying that these people are messianic, hallucinating monsters. Not human beings going about their peaceful business, as the vast majority of them are. No, they are monsters. Everything they do is an obstacle to peace, simply because they are messianic, hallucinating monsters.
What can you say to people putting this view forward? Not a lot, I suspect. They are prisoners of their own rhetoric, and that of others.
| 4 June 2009, 5:55 pm |
Apart from the idea of Muslim tolerance in andalusia and Cordoba DURING THE INQUSISTION, a vision of a Muslim underground railway spiriting conversos away from freshly built pyres a century or so after they were expelled, its not a bad speech, but here are worrying parts (defending islam against sterotypes defending Muslim womens clothing (not stereotyping much).
I think though he was poorly briefed in some areas and so missed a few key leverage points (unless he really does believe there is a dar al-Islam).
Until the rise of Arab nationlism in the 1920s Egyptians were not , and did not consider themselve Arabs.
there is a strong sense of ancient continuity in Egyptian society that , like Iran, often sees itself as having a great history prior (and superior) to Islam.
He should have pimped Egypts praise (always flatter your host) while subtlely laying this down as a marker against Arab nationalism and islamist nationalism.
There are strong racial overtones to this as well Nasser was seen as Arab but Sadat as more ‘pharonic’.
Had he done this starting with the torurist attraction but ancient pyramids , through Pharoas (and Moses) ptolemies and Romans, he would have embraced the copts not as a minority whithin a Muslim world but as a sacred national treasure of their heritage.
Most importantly he could have embraced the ancient jewish prescence in Egypt ‘where are they now, what a terrible shame to lose such a cultural repositary of Egyptianness etc’.
Big big mistake to talk of israel and jews only in relationship to the Holocaust and its creation as a sentimental act of the US big mistake. Missed golden opportunity.
I have met many young Egyptians completely unaware of the strong Jewish prescence in Egypt since Pharonic times), the Nasserites and the Muslim Brotherhood have done a good job.
My fear is that he is smply restating the I/P narrative but saying ‘can’t we all just get along’ without the lateral disjunctions and points of leverage that can allow competing narratives.
Surely the story in Egypt is to undercut the Islamists claims of restoration to a golden age, is to say the Golden age is pre-islamic islam is the cherry on our great civilisation but our great semitic civilisation is the cauldron of civilisation in the region and the jews and the Copts are our heritage, which we must reclaim too.
It is all very well talking to a Muslim world but a Muslim world is not going to make peace with Israel and commit to buidling a viable palestinian State, Muslim states might.
lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt could do many things (including permanently resettling their Palestinian ‘refugees’ by granting them citizenship and taking a responsibility for allowing trade and preventing terrorism through their borders with palestine.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have to be bribed and threatend to lay the fuck off.
But who knows maybe Obama’s personal address (messianic tendencies duly noted) to the Muslim people will have some effect as he hopes and imagines with ‘da Muslim street’.
Only last year I was assured that the US is so racist they could never elect a black President.
I certainly think that his personal appearance and revelation of 7 million muslims with freedom of worship and higher than (US) average will act as a positive immigration stimulus.
Unfortunately the desire to emigrate to the US in the developing world has alays been at least as strong as the readiness to condemn it.
Not getting a visa has always been one of the things on a greivance list after all.
| 4 June 2009, 5:59 pm |
The official Israeli government reaction to the speech is very supportive -shared values and the like. You can read it on ynet in english.
Neil W. -much as you may disagree with the WB settlers and laud remarks such as those you quote above, it is worth remembering and understanding that those of us who live in ‘occupied territories’ do not do so because we woke up a little bored one morning and decided to take over that jabel on the horizon.
The settlers settled where they did because the government of the time allowed and encouraged them to do so for reasons of strategy and national security. Many of us spent years living in border settlements, often at considerable risk to our own security and that of our children. We did it out of ideology and a willingness to contribute to the security of our country.
Times and fashions may have changed; some people may now think the settlements superfluous and indeed a hinderance, but the people living in them are still human beings and do not deserve to be equated to a limb to be amputated.
It’s so easy to sit in London, Washington or even Tel Aviv and dismiss the lives of 200,000 people as a ‘hinderance’. Many of these are people who in their early 20s opted not for the easy, comfortable life in Tel Aviv or Netanya, but went to live in caravans and created new villages and towns with their own hands. They did so in order that the heartland of Israel would be safer and more prosperous. They have born the brunt of Palestinian terror for years and many have paid for their decision to contribute something to their country’s security with their lives or the lives of their children. They are now in their 50s and 60s -a time when they should be thinking about the prospect of enjoying the fruits of all those years of hard work. Instead they are thinking about being made homeless and jobless.
A time may be approaching when some or all of these settlements will be evacuated, but I for one think that these people deserve some respect and admiration for what they have done for their country. One may disagree with their ideology, but that is not a valid reason for painting them as some kind of cancerous obstacle to peace.
The people who were evacuated from Gaza had the same ideology as those living in Judea & Samaria. The Gaza evacuation was tremendously painful for all Israelis for one reason or another, but it was carried out. Interestingly, the world has shown very little interest in the subsequent fate of the Gaza evacuees, but those of us living in J&S and the Golan look at their lot with great concern, knowing that our fate is likely to be similar. And after the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel since August 2005, you can hardly blame us for asking what was the point of all that pain.
The settlers themselves have not ‘trapped us in a historical mistake’. Settlers cannot do anything the government doesn’t want doing. The Gaza and Sinai evacuations proved that when the Israeli government wants to pull out of territory it can. To my mind they also proved that it is only prudent to evacuate after a proper binding peace agreement has been signed.
It would seem that in his fervour, Obama has neglected to learn that lesson from history, but he and many others are willing to offer up the homes and hard work of 200,000 settlers as a scapegoat upon the alter of wishful thinking.
| 4 June 2009, 6:23 pm |
I found the reception, the speech recieved from the audience,
a little bit disturbing. Not even a moderate, polite applause at
the mention of the things the Muslim world needs to do to build
bridges.
A very astute observation and one which has many important implications.
Islam inculcates a sense of entitlement in its followers, one in which the Muslim remains still and passive while those around move and attend to his needs.
The world must be Muslimcentric because that is what god has ordained. That kind of narcissism is what lay behind the lack of response to Obama’s thoughts on what the ‘Muslim world’ must do.
Talking about Islamic tolerance in Egypt where people are not allowed to legally leave Islam and the Copts have recently had all their pigs killed is crazy.
Going to Egypt is like going to pre 1990 South Africa.
Yes and to step foot in Saudi Arabia and visit with the monarch is akin to visiting Nazi Germany and shaking hands with Hitler…
AFTER WW II had begun.
Obama and his team, as is evidenced by this speech and these ouvertures, havn’t a clue as to how to approach the Muslim world. It’s as though no one anywhere near The Whitehouse has ever read a decent, honest work on islamic history.
Saying “Islam has a long tradition of tolerance” is as clueless and as stupid as claiming Lapland is equatorial.
| 4 June 2009, 6:29 pm |
JP,
be honest, little of short of Obama promising to nuke much of the Middle East, etc would have pleased you? would it?
| 4 June 2009, 7:08 pm |
Obama mentioned that the violence and murder by the Palestinians must stop. He also said “freexe on settlements”. Why does the World focus ONLY on what Israel is supposed to do when in The Roadmap to Peace the requirement on Palestinians to “immediately and unconditionally stop incitement and violence” has never been started and it precedes the requirement for settlemet freeze since it is “immediate and unconditional”.
Why do the Palestinians get a free ride?
| 4 June 2009, 7:25 pm |
“Peace In Our Time.”
However Honorable, Progressive, Compassionate or Desirable it seems, Its not going to work, it didn’t last time and it won’t this time.
| 4 June 2009, 7:30 pm |
Israelinurse,
200M people live with the war clock at permanently five to midnight so you can enjoy your lifestyle. The arrogance of your position is staggering. 200,000 people versus 200M. Do you seriously believe that that is fair?
Grandma, you haven’t read the speech have you? He condemns palestinian violence and says it has to stop.
| 4 June 2009, 7:35 pm |
Neil W: I think you grossly exagerate the importance of the settlements as it concerns the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and it turn you also grossly exagerate the importance of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement for the Middle East and South Asia as a whole.
| 4 June 2009, 8:01 pm |
Overall a good speech– which, as Obama himself noted, won’t change anything in and of itself.
A couple of complaints:
He should have defended the right of Muslim women both to wear the hijab and not to wear the hijab.
The section on democracy should have been a lot stronger. It should have made rulers like Mubarak and the Saudi king squirm more than it probably did. Obama should have singled out for praise the brave dissidents standing up for liberal democracy and human rights in the Arab world.
I don’t have any real problem with what he said on Israel and Palestine. He said without qualification or apology that the bond between the US and Israel is unbreakable. Everything after that was, in a sense, commentary.
| 4 June 2009, 8:12 pm |
I agree with Neil. Much as I have always appreciated IsraeliNurse’s perspective, this time she omits certain cogent facts. I was a teenager when Israeli settlement of the West Bank began. The notion that it was bad for Israel in the long run, and ultimately bad for security, was a well-known position, even in the Jewish community, right from the start. It was also known that pro-settlement Israelis wanted to create “facts on the ground,” which they have in fact no done, though no doubt not to the extent they may have wished. Israelis were well aware that the settlement issue could come back to haunt them, that doing so was questionable when the West Bank was already densely populated; obviously, the religious and national right felt otherwise. Their politics propelled and continues to propel the settlement movement, but it is becoming more and more clear, even to those on the right, that this expansionist politics has had its day and the world has changed.
So as heartfelt as Israelinurse’s post was, I still have trouble feeling sympathy for settlers who may have to leave; the risks were obvious from the start, as were the negative moral implications of settling land already inhabited by other people with whom there was already a long and terrible territorial dispute.
Incidentally, all of the above doesn’t mean that sorting out the settlements would automatically lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians or even that israel should simply return the West Bank without an ironclad guaranteed real peace deal; i don’t believe that for a minute. Sorting out the settlements is not a sufficient condition, but it is, i’m afraid, a necessary one.
| 4 June 2009, 8:13 pm |
Neil W -which 200m people? What are you talking about?
| 4 June 2009, 8:47 pm |
Why do the Palestinians get a free ride?
Because they are mindless third worlders who cannot control their bad behaviour.
| 4 June 2009, 9:09 pm |
The populations of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi, Cyprus and Iraq who would be in the potential war zone of the next Arab/Israeli war.
And yes, the Turks and Cypriots aren’t Arabs but wars have a habit of not respecting such distinctions.
And anyway, you haven’t answered my question?
| 4 June 2009, 9:20 pm |
“Neil W -which 200m people? What are you talking about?”#
You really don’t see anything beyond your own needs do you?
Is this collective arrogance/myopia or just a general colonialist fuckyou to the rest of us? Whilst Israel is a superb country in so many ways (liberalism, arts, culture, tolerance, learning, technology, industry, medicine – the list goes on, per capita it is a brilliant land), beyond the 67 borders the settlers and settlements in the Wb look very much like Rhodesia or the old RSA and the region and the world hangs on the ‘need’, ahem, for 200,000 settlers to be entitled to be colonials on stolen land.
| 4 June 2009, 9:39 pm |
Overall good, but this makes a very good point.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/Obama_Cairo_OpEd.htm
He’s unfortunately nowhere near alone in making this error. Israel’s right to exist can’t be seen as being based on the holocaust.
| 4 June 2009, 9:45 pm |
Telepromptus has spoken wisely. Now we await the thoughtful opinions of the Bin Ladens.
| 4 June 2009, 9:47 pm |
The number of violent nutters following any ideology is small (probably exactly the same as the number of violent nutters in society in general). The violent nutters become a problem when they are able to recruit the previously-non-violent to their tactics. It is not possible to get rid of the violent nutters, but it is possible to slow or stop their recruiting.Hence the speech. Great speech.
| 4 June 2009, 9:51 pm |
Neil W, if the settlements are the cause of all this, why was there no peace before 67?
By your logic, the existence of Israel, in any form or borders Arab countries might disagree with, is putting the whole ME in danger of a war. 7 million people vs 200 million, not fair, etc etc.
| 4 June 2009, 9:54 pm |
You really don’t see anything beyond your own needs do you?
Neil it was a perfectly reasonable question.
Based on your answer … FUCK YOU!
| 4 June 2009, 10:07 pm |
Joe
I did answer and then you went off on one.
| 4 June 2009, 10:52 pm |
Neil W. -so can I understand that you attribute the entire Middle East problem to the fact that there are Israelis currently living in Judea & Samaria and the Golan Heights? And can I presume that the removal of these people would, in your opinion, solve all the problems and bring peace and harmony to the area?
There seem to me to be a few holes in that argument.
Firstly, from 1948 until 1967 no Israelis lived in either of the above areas, but we still had 3 wars. In 2000 Israel withdrew from Lebanon, but that didn’t stop a war 6 years later. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza and the result was an escalation of Hamas attacks.
Now I suppose you’ll say ‘Ah, but if Israel withdrew from J&S and the Golan, all that would stop.’
Rubbish! Hamas and Hizbollah have been very honest and open about the only thing that will stop them waging war on Israelis and that is when Israelis don’t exist any more.
Or maybe you just are one of those people who think that the establishment of Israel was ‘an historic mistake’.
This has nothing to do with my ‘needs’ or ‘lifestyle’ and it certainly has nothing to do with ‘colonialism’.
If a peace agreement is signed with Syria I will leave my home and my place of work -not happily -I don’t think anyone can be happy when they are forced out of their home, but I will go.
But I absolutely insist that if I am to give up everything I have worked for over 3 decades; the house I built and invested so much in, the trees I have planted, then it should be for the sake of a true and lasting peace -not a ‘maybe’.
If your 200 million people want to avoid another war, all they have to do is stop the one they or their proxies are currently waging against Israel.
Quite frankly your allusions to Rhodesia and SA are both ridiculous and offensive. If multiple Arab countries had not attacked Israel in 1967 there wouldn’t be a single settler in J&S or the Golan today. When the shoe was on the other foot in 1948, were you shouting ‘colonialist’ and ‘arrogant’ at the Jordanians for expelling (and murdering) Jews from Jerusalem and Gush Etzion?
| 4 June 2009, 11:18 pm |
Neil, What was your 9:20pm post about then?
As IsraelNurse said, and this ultimately is the brickwall that Obama is going to run into; Todate, the Palestinians have prooven themselves to be insincere negotiators. Nothing their various leaderships have done have actually suggest a serious and sincere desire for a compromise (with respect to the Palestinian absolutest demands) solution. Israel on the other hand has made many real and tangible demonstrations of good faith (evacuating Gaza being the most recent).
As Israel’s complete compliance with UN resolution 425 did not bring peace to its Northern border, rather it created a hostile pseudostate and proxy which continues in its hostile and belligerent actions, and persisting with more expansionist (from hizbollah’s perspective) demands.
UN resolution 242 neither demands immediate or complete withdrawal of Israel to the 1948 armistice lines, nor will Israels withdrawal be to those armistice lines. Rather the final border demarcation between Israel and a future Palestinian state will be subject to agreement between the relevant parties, at such a time as those two parties can reach an agreement. It is notable that Israel offered such an agreement in 1967, prior to any “settlement” by Jews inside the newly capture territories. The door was also opened in 1978, and again in the 1990s, 2000 etc. And we all know who slammed them shut each time!
Finally, while we correctly object to Lieberman’s policies, which requires all Israelies to make oaths of Loyalty, why are so many so willing to accept a Palestine that will by Judenrhine?
| 4 June 2009, 11:24 pm |
Israelinurse and everyone else who commented on the settlers:
I pretty much agree with what Vildchaye said. The Israeli settlers, the 30,000 or so who have settled on the West Bank beyond the Security Barrier did so to force Israel to hold on to the West Bank. Their presence inflames the local Arab majority who fear they are going to driven out. A relatively small Jewish minority of settlers protected by the Israeli Army & Police among such a large group of Arabs cannot help but result in a situation like that of Rhodesia, South Africa and French Algeria where a minority of European settlers exploited and tyrannized a native majority.
As to Obama’s speech: It was a good one and hopefully have some lasting positive effects in the Arab world. Suspect that both Mubarak and Netanyahu will react pretty much in the same way: Public praise for Obama’s speech so both countries will continue to get their billions, but privately work to undercut any pressure that might be brought on either country to change their policies such as Egypt regarding dissenter or Israel regarding the West Bank settlements.
As to the creation of a Palestinian state, that is not likely to happen until a Palestinian leadership comes about that is willingly to honestly settle for just the West Bank and Gaza and give up the Right of Return, i.e. until both Hamas and Fatah are replaced. As to what might replace them go to http://nizos.blogspot.com/2009/03/replace-both-palestinian-leaderships.html
for a modest proposal. Just add that similar replacements of at least part of current Israeli govt. might also be done.
| 4 June 2009, 11:32 pm |
DavidAll,
Bibi has stated that those settlements will be forcefully evacuated.
Just add that similar replacements of at least part of current Israeli govt. might also be done.
Usually this happens via a democratic processes, about every 2-4 years. Truth is that while I was appalled that Livni refused to join the Likud led government, thus forcing a right wing coalition rather than a center-right coalition, I think that her decision is going to prove to be inspired at the next election. Unlike Labor, Kadima is an alternative governemt, while Labour are whores to power.
History has shown that whenever a window has opened, the Israeli electorate has turned to the parties that are most likely to embraces that fresh air. I have no doubt that this will happen in the future as well.
Joseph
| 4 June 2009, 11:35 pm |
Israelinurse,
More tomorrow (Uk time) but yes in effect they represent a significant element, particularly in recent years, in keeping the ME but a few moments from war.
Will pick this up tomorrow.
NW
| 4 June 2009, 11:51 pm |
You really don’t see anything beyond your own needs do you?
I have to agree with Joe, Neil. Israelinurse was polite and articulate. You, on the other hand, were rude and your argument silly.
I don’t know when you people are going to get it, but if the settlers withdrew tomorrow, they would still be “inflamed.” The Jews pulled out of Gaza, and all they got were thousands of missiles and mortars launched from Gaza into Israel and the kidnapping of Shalit.
So this stupid meme that giving up land will mean peace is bogus. There is nothing to gain by removing the settlements.
| 5 June 2009, 12:03 am |
I agree that the Israeli settlements on the West Bank may inflame the situation, but they would be withdrawn if the Palestinians were to negotiate and carry out a peace agreement in good faith.
| 5 June 2009, 12:07 am |
Joe -in a recent interview Abbas said that Olmert had offered him 97% of the WB just last year, and even offered the controversial right of return for refugees! Abbas declined the offer, obviously.
David All -if you’re referring to the illegal outposts, I quite agree that they should be dismantled as soon as they are set up.
(Although it’s a little strange that you should say that Palestinians fear being ‘driven out’ -not one Palestinian has been expelled from the WB.)
I’m not talking about those; I’m referring to the settlements set up with government permission, aid and encouragement. People can disagree with that government policy as much as they like, but I think it is wrong to demonise the actual settlers themselves -they are not evil colonialists acting on their own whims. They are for the most part honest, hardworking, self-sacrificing patriotic people who answered a call to contribute to the security of their country.
I do find it interesting though that so many people seem to advocate the right of return for Palestinian refugees (and their descendents) who may have lived in Palestine for a relatively short period of time before 1948, but have no qualms about advocating the expulsion of Jews who have been living on land for 42 years.
A ‘connection to the land’ seems only to work in one direction.
| 5 June 2009, 12:11 am |
Note, it is important to differentiate between the bulk of the Israeli settlers who are part of the West Bank that is on the Israeli side of the Barrier Wall and would probably remain as part of Israel under a peace agreement with the Palestinians and the minority of about 30,000 or so settlers who are in the midst of the heavly populated area of the West Bank beyond the barrier wall and who would have to be evacuated under a peace agreement.
| 5 June 2009, 12:15 am |
Israelinurse, I agree with you about dismantling the illegal outposts.
Also agree with you that none of the settlements should be given up except as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
| 5 June 2009, 12:50 am |
I certainly don’t demonize settlers (except for the Baruch Goldstein variety, who deserve it). I did say i don’t feel too sorry for settlers who have to leave. Incidentally, the only individual I ever knew who considered moving to a west bank settlement did so not for love of country of security for Israel but because property was cheaper. And I suspect she wasn’t the only one.
And i also agree that the West Bank should not be returned or settlements disbanded until there is an ironclad treaty for a real peace, with no phony baloney “right of return”. Dontcha just hate how they took our phrase?
| 5 June 2009, 2:07 am |
When have they ever honored a treaty?????? Open up your eyes.
That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.
What choice do women in Saudi Arabia have regarding whether to wear or not wear the hijab? The choice to get flogged if they don’t? Is he so dense that he doesn’t realize most muslim women in the mideast have no choice and no rights?
| 5 June 2009, 3:05 am |
To quote from another speech by Obama: these are “just words”. Of course, to Obama worshippers and, likely, to Obama himself, with every speech he makes, the world is transformed a little more. I haven’t seen so much mindless idolizing of a person since I was a teenager.
With regard to the settlements: I always thought that entangling Israelis with Palestinians is a bad idea that is going to undermine the Jewish nature of of the State of Israel, but I agree with Israelinurse: the lack of peace in the ME has very little to do with Israeli settlement activity and a lot to do with Arab inability or unwillingness to accept the existance of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Without their willingness to MOVE ON WITH THEIR LIVES and accept reality as painful is it might be, they are going to be stuck in their miserable situation, and no amount of speeches by Obama is going to change this.
| 5 June 2009, 5:26 am |
…-in a recent interview Abbas said that Olmert had offered him 97% of the WB just last year, and even offered the controversial right of return for refugees! Abbas declined the offer, obviously.
Israelinurse 5 June 2009, 12:07 am
It seems to me that Israeli leaders try to define the legacy by trying at all cost to be recorded as the peacemaker. On the other hand, Palestinian leadership actively seek to be defined by the steadfastness in saying “NO”.
| 5 June 2009, 6:18 am |
RE: Those “settlements.”
“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.”
Does he mean “to stop growing” or “to stop existing?” The wording is purposely ambiguous since he knows his audience prefers the later interpretation.
Also, what about the Arab settlements? Are there any restrictions being place on them?
Finally, what about the Christian community in the West Bank town of Bethlehem? Does it’s existence also “undermine efforts to achieve peace?”
We have heard about the tolerance of the Muslim world toward Jews, but what about the tolerance of the White House?
| 5 June 2009, 10:21 am |
He’s wrong by the way, it’s not non-Muslims who think that women are less equal to men; it’s Muslims who hold that belief.
| 5 June 2009, 10:48 am |
It may have been brave of Obama to go to Cairo and try to teach the Muslim world something new with a package of smooth words, but surely they can work most of what he said out for themselves. Or do they have a different mental process?
It will be interesting the see the subsequent impact on their lives – and ours – when the wisdom sinks in.
| 5 June 2009, 12:19 pm |
So for Harry’s Place, as for Obama, women’s rights are to be sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism?
No wonder you have only a tiny handful of female commenters.
Goodbye.
| 5 June 2009, 12:44 pm |
JP,
be honest, little of short of Obama promising to nuke much of the Middle East, etc would have pleased you? would it?
Don ‘t know ’bout you, but I,ve got better things to do with my plutonium.
I suggest we responsabilise the Islamic world, by ceasing to feed it.
The Islamic world, because of its outrageous birthrate due largely to a dearth of women’s rights, can no longer produce enough food to feed itself.
Yet we continue to give it billions in aid every year which just compounds the probleme and the dependancy. There’s nothing like a little tough-love hunger to trigger some honest introspection and self-examination, something the islamic brat lacks.
Now I’ll just take my plutonium rods and go fission.
| 5 June 2009, 6:23 pm |
Why I hate the media:
TOM BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your [Obama] visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?
| 5 June 2009, 10:02 pm |
Agree with you 100%, kmag. What Brokaw said was an obsencity of the worst sort. How did Obama respond?
Yes it’s a good speech overall, but what’s this about slavery being abolished without violence????? That comparison is a massive own goal.