Aside from us being blackmailed for billions, I like Obama approach to Muslim world…

At the end of my last blog I wrote something to the effect that I would like to go back over any details of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world to see if there was anything I might have missed or that I would disagree with and that I would be interested in world reaction.

After reading the official White House transcript, complete with notations of applause and someone blurting out “Barack Obama we love you!” and the president saying “thank you”, I concluded that I had indeed heard the speech in its entirety and I did not find anything particularly objectionable, save his promise to provide billions of dollars for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in even that I can accept the concept, just don’t see how we can afford it.

So, my plan here is to go down through the transcript, paragraph by paragraph, and make some comments. Before that, I note that as of this time it seems overall world reaction, particularly among the target audience, the Muslims, seems to have been quite receptive and quite good. And, as I expected, his biggest detractors were the American far right (you know, those folks who love to hate and love torture) and some Muslim extremists (you know, those folks who love to hate and love to torture).

And now the paragraph by paragraph analysis of the transcript of his speech:

The president greeted his audience at the Cario (Egypt) University and noted that for a thousand years it has been a “beacon of learning”, and he said he carried with him a greeting from Islamic communities in the U.S.: “Assalaamu alaykum” (Peace be upon you), to which he received enthusiastic applause.

Later on a talk show someone commented that it is good that he spoke at a university and there were a lot of young people in the audience, and it was said that it is a mis-perception that terrorists come out of only the poverty-stricken class. In fact, many, including the 9/11 terrorists, are highly educated.

And I realize now that commenting on each paragraph or each line is too tedious, but I am going to arrange my commentary in descending order of the transcript paragraphs.

He noted that there are great tensions between the Muslim world and the U.S. (And the whole Western world) and he acknowledged the role colonialism played in all of this and the fact that the best interests of the inhabitants were not looked after and that in the Cold War Muslim country’s were treated as proxies in the struggle between the West and the communist block nations (although he did not actually mention the communist nations or the former Soviet Union). But anyone who has any grasp of recent history knows that it was all about the competition between primarily the U.S. and the Soviet Union for influence in the Middle East and other areas of the world. The president also said that Islamic traditions were not always respected. And I think that the fact that President Obama recognized Islamic traditions and even used some Islamic phrases and quotations from the Koran is a major deal. You do not have to adopt someone’s religion to respect it. And this recognition, a show of respect, plays big in the Muslim world.

And the president said that he had come to Cairo to “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”. And that “new beginning” phrase I note was used in headlines around the world – pretty powerful stuff.

To show his sincerity, Obama noted that although he is a self-professed Christian, he has Islamic roots in his family and lived in a Muslim country (Indonesia) and heard the morning and evening prayer calls (he did not say, but I think it is correct that he attended a Muslim-run school for a time). He also said that he worked among Muslims in Chicago neighborhoods. I don’t know if he meant members of the “Black Muslim” sect or just Muslims in general. But it does demonstrate his unique ability to connect with Muslims. And it shows that he is an adept politician in that he downplayed (had to ) his Muslim roots and connections during his presidential campaign (does anyone think that in this day and age anyone who even hinted he might be a Muslim could be elected president of the U.S.?). I think it is a de facto requirement at present in the U.S. that one be a Christian or profess to be in order to get elected president (that might change some day – stranger things have happened, like the election of Obama).

He noted how the whole world is interconnected and thus has mutual interests. In the global economy all nations suffer at a downturn. Disease threatens all. Nuclear weapons threaten all.

And I’ll jump in here and note that just going chronologically doesn’t work here either. So I will jump to the fact that he said that Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but that developing nuclear weapons, no. And that is the great irony we have come to and these are my words. The U.S. was the first to develop nuclear weapons and the only nation to ever use them. They are so terrible we are stuck with the quite necessary and difficult task of doing everything we can to make sure no one else who has not already got hold of nuclear weapons does.

President Obama assured his audience that the U.S. in not at war with Islam. I note here that even George W. Bush said the same (but the overall tone from his administration and those who so adamantly supported his policies made it seem otherwise).

In probably one of the most important parts of the speech as far as U.S. policy and justification for it, Obama made it clear that the U.S. was and is justified in going after Al Qaeda (and other extremists) in Afghanistan and Pakistan as the result of the 9/11. He noted with some force and even anguish in his voice that nearly 3,000 innocent people in the U.S. were killed on 9/11.

And then he turned around and said that on the other hand, while we felt compelled to invade Afghanistan (because the 9/11 extremists were based there), our government (then headed by Bush) chose to go into Iraq and that there was much controversy within the U.S. at the time over that. Obama, who had been on record as against the Iraq invasion, implied in his speech that the U.S. made a mistake in doing so and had learned a costly lesson. I think that he essentially admitted that the U.S. had over reached in its rightful authority in Iraq (and I realize that arguments could be made either way on all of this, but in the end, the Iraq invasion does seem to have been a blunder – and even if it all works out, that does not make it right).

The president also proclaimed that the U.S. seeks no permanent military presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And I think that is a major policy statement.

President Obama said that he has unequivocally made his position clear that the U.S. will no longer use torture (so I do not know what Dick Cheney meant when he claimed recently in his own defense that even Obama had reserved the right to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” — the right wing nut euphemism for torture). That is a powerful statement that hopefully puts the U.S. back on the high ground of humanity (if we become as ruthless as the terrorists, what do we have left worth saving?).

One part that bothered me was that he pledged several billions of dollars to build schools and hospitals and infrastructure and in economic support for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now probably that is a good idea in that folks with a better standard of living and a better standard thanks to us might be less inclined to become terrorists against us. But it also seems that we are being blackmailed here and there is a question in my mind: who needs this money more? folks over there or folks here at home? (Does not charity begin at home?) But that is the great quandary we always find ourselves in as the world superpower (and one wonders how long at this rate we can hold on to that claim).

And maybe the biggest thing president Obama proclaimed in U.S. foreign policy was his insistence on a two-state solution for the 61-years-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his insistence that Israel quit expanding its settlements into Palestinian territory. And I say, what other solution is there to all that and why have we not insisted on that all along?

He said he supported women’s rights and the right of women to education, which is significant in that conservative Muslims often deny such rights to women (but I note that conservative Christians in this country often put down the idea of women’s rights and seem to promote the idea that women must be subservient to men – it’s all biblical, you know).

President Obama also said that although the U.S. prefers democracy and the rule of law it would only promote its form of government rather than force it upon other nations. But I have to note that wouldn’t it be heck if after all of this that Iraq or Afghanistan, for instance, would wind up with hardline Islamic governments ruled by religious leaders without regard to human rights?

I probably missed some things to comment upon after all, but I’ve probably already gone on too long.

Personally, even though a cable news commentator said his speech contained no real policy statements, I think it was the strongest and most reasonable foreign policy speech I have ever heard from a U.S. president (and even though I was young at the time, my memory goes back to hearing Dwight David Eisenhower).

Obama appears as peacemaker for the world, but far right and terrorists line up together against him…

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”

So says the Holy Bible.

And if with the speech President Barack Obama has just given in Cairo, Egypt in an address to the Islamic world he is not seen as just that, a peace maker, well then no one could be seen as such.

He was extremely even handed in addressing the issues and extremely humble in admitting that the U.S. and the rest of the Western world has not always acted with good intentions or in the best interests of those in the Islamic world.

But at the same time he asserted in no uncertain terms that the U.S. would not back down from fighting extremists who threaten the U.S. and the whole world, to include their own Islamic world.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has a God given gift of speech. I actually think most American presidents going back over the years, at least as far back as Eisenhower, might have liked to have given just such a speech (maybe even George W. Bush would have – don’t know). But maybe the timing was not right and maybe they just did not have the abilities or the persona that Mr. Obama embodies.

As a black man (and half white in heritage), a Christian with Islamic roots and experience living in the Islamic world, even attending an Islamic school for a time, a community organizer on the mean streets Chicago’s black neighborhoods, a top Harvard Law graduate, and a masterful politician, the stars have just seem to come together for him.

Is he “The One”, the perfect person? Of course not. He is human and not everything he does can be correct – but all evidence so far is that he sure is trying.

Strangely, I imagine – have not heard a lot yet – that the biggest detractors of his speech will be both the far reactionary political right (Limburger/Cheney and company) and Islamic extremists. Neither side wants peace, well except if it is totally on their terms, but paradoxically peace cannot be obtained on either of the afore mentioned sides’ terms.

The president took a chance I think in asserting that we CHOSE to fight in Iraq and indicating we made a big mistake in doing so (even if that is correct). And the far right is certainly going to hate that he said not only that but that we will not maintain permanent military bases there or even in Afghanistan and that we are in fact on our way out of Iraq.

But the president also asserted that we (he) had a duty to defend the U.S. (and by extension the Western world) by fighting Islamic extremists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And his critics will (already are) howl about his call for a more even-handed approach in the 61-year-old dispute between the Palestinians and the Jews over the creation of Israel and the need for an independent Palestinian state (it seems to me that such should have been the U.S. position all along, but of course there is the Jewish lobby and all the money it throws the way of politicians, guilt feelings over the Holocaust, and the history of the Cold War when everything was seen as a competition between the West and the Soviets and so on).

I don’t think I heard all of President Obama’s speech, but I heard most of it and I will be interested to read more about it and catch up on parts I might have missed and that I might not agree with and I will be interested to see the reaction around the world, and of course particularly in the Middle East and Persian Gulf states and all of the Islamic world.

P.s.

Interesting that President Obama quoted from the Holy scriptures of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism – all with similar messages of peace. If only the leaders who profess so strongly in these beliefs all practiced what they preach.

Needed: Palestinian state, Israeli security…

(Copyright 2009)

The only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something at least as old as I am, will ever be resolved is with the creation of a separate Palestinian state, not this nebulous thing called the Palestinian Authority, and for the Palestinians and the rest of the world, particularly the Arabs and Muslims, to accept Israel as something that is not going away.

There is probably plenty of blame to go around for the disastrous state of affairs in that part of the world, but at present it seems logical that the Israelis would not want rockets fired into their territory. Would we accept Mexico or Canada, or Puerto Rico doing this to us? Of course not.

Way back before Israel officially became a modern nation, the Jewish militants fighting for a homeland were said to have engaged in “terrorism”.

But since then, the terrorism has seemed to come primarily from the Palestinian side. Hamas, who claims the legitimate authority over Palestine, wantonly and cynically mixes its soldiers and war equipment in with the civilian population in the densely populated Gaza Strip. It violates a cease-fire by firing rockets into Israel but hollers bloody murder when the Israelis take action to make that all stop.

There has been some argument that Israel in its initial action of air attacks and then in its movement of ground forces into the Gaza Strip was acting “disproportionately” to the problem of the rockets.

Personally, if someone or some group or some nation was firing rockets into my neighborhood I would want the proper authority to act as strongly as it could and take whatever action necessary to make it stop.

There’s been a lot of hoo-hah over the years about such things as President Jimmy Carter’s Camp David Accords and President George W. Bush’s Road Map to Peace, but nearly all has come to naught.

The problem is at least two-fold: One, the U.S. is under the grip of the Jewish lobby, and two, the Palestinians and their so-called supporters among the world Arab and Muslim communities are too full of dogma, religious intolerance, and generally uncivilized and uncompromising attitudes.

To the extent is has the power, the United States should demand that both sides come to a final agreement that would result in a secure Israel and a stand-alone and viable Palestinian state and no aid to or cooperation with either entity until such is accomplished. The other Arab, and even non-Arab states such as Iran, need to be called upon to do their part in providing support for a new state of Palestine, rather than using the suffering of Palestinians as a propaganda tool to turn against the West, most notably the good old USA.

I once did a college paper on why the U.S. so strongly supports Israel and of course I had such things as the history of the Balfour Agreement and the Holocaust and the strong Jewish lobby and so on, but I have noticed that the American public seldom if ever gets background information in news reports on the ongoing struggle between Israel and the Palestinians – not that many would be that interested in the long and arcane history. But the journalistic entities that report on such have in my opinion a moral obligation to keep the public informed and up to speed on policy in the Middle East and elsewhere and to include the supporting background information.

If you pay attention, you may have at least noticed that the Israelis, however justified they may be in their actions now and in the past, act rather heavy handedly with the Palestinians, periodically shutting many poor ones out of work at border checkpoints or cutting off food and supplies into Palestinian territory or in the past making illegal settlements on Palestinian lands.

I don’t buy any historical argument, Biblical or otherwise, that anyone now living has a special claim to the territory that comprises modern-day Israel, to include areas under the so-called Palestinian Authority. Control there has been changing hands constantly through the ages among such groups or powers as the Romans, the Jews, the Ottoman Empire, the British, and so on.

Modern Israel has solidly established itself as a nation-state. Whether it was such a good idea of the Western powers to allow that establishment could be debated, but to no good end. It is a fact of life.

But the Palestinians are a fact of life too. Their main problem, besides Israel, is a lack of responsible leadership. Not much the U.S. can do about that. However we could refuse to deal with the irresponsible leadership (darn, I kind of sound like George W.) and at the same time make demands of the Israelis, using a cut-off of all aid as a stick (not that the Jewish lobby would ever stand for that).

While I wished the U.S. could remain neutral in all of this, I suppose the problem of doing so is that groups, such as the Soviets of the past, and Al-Qaeda of the present, are always more than willing to fill a power vacuum.

P.s. With all the crises going on here and abroad, it seems as if we need to amend the Constitution again to allow new presidents to take over on Jan. 1 (and maybe move election day to Dec. 31). Too late for this time, but we should never face such a dilemma again – that of having a president with virtually no power and absolutely no influence, while the world falls apart around him.