Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMost Arabs Know This Speech Will Make Little Difference
I suspect that what the Arab world wants to hear is that Obama will take his soldiers out of Muslim lands
More and more, it looks like the same old melody that Bush's lads used to sing. We're not against the Muslim world. In fact, we are positively for it. We want you to have democracy, up to a point. We love Arab "moderates" and we want to reach out to you and be your friends. Sorry about Iraq. And sorry - again, up to a point - about Afghanistan and we do hope that you understand why we've got to have a little "surge" in Helmand among all those Muslim villages with their paper-thin walls. And yes, we've made mistakes.
Everyone in the world, or so it seems, is waiting to see if this is what Barack Obama sings. I'm not sure, though, that the Arabs are waiting with such enthusiasm as the rest of the world.
I haven't met an Arab in Egypt - or an Arab in Lebanon, for that matter - who really thinks that Obama's "outreach" lecture in Cairo on Thursday is going to make much difference.
They watched him dictate to Bibi Netanyahu - no more settlements, two-state solution - and they saw Bibi contemptuously announce, on the day that Mahmoud Abbas, the most colourless leader in the Arab world, went to the White House, that Israel's colonial project in the West Bank would continue unhindered. So that's that, then.
And please note that Obama has chosen Egypt for his latest address to the Muslims, a country run by an ageing potentate - Hosni Mubarak is 80 - who uses his secret police like a private army to imprison human rights workers, opposition politicians, anyone in fact who challenges the great man's rule. At this point, we won't mention torture. Be sure that this little point is unlikely to get much play in the Obama sermon, just as he surely will not be discussing Saudi Arabia's orgy of head-chopping when he chats to King Abdullah on Wednesday.
So what's new, folks? Arabs, I find, have a very shrewd conception of what goes on in Washington - the lobbying, the power politics, the dressing up of false friendship in Rooseveltian language - even if ordinary Americans do not. They are aware that the "new" America of Obama looks suspiciously like the old one of Bush and his lads and ladies. First, Obama addresses Muslims on Al-Arabiya television. Then he addresses Muslims in Istanbul. Now he wants to address Muslims all over again in Cairo.
I suppose Obama could say: "I promise I will not make any decision until I first consult with you and the Jewish side" along with more promises about being a friend of the Arabs. Only that's exactly what Franklin Roosevelt told King Abdul Aziz on the deck of USS Quincy in 1945, so the Arabs have heard that one before. I guess we'll hear about terrorism being as much a danger to Arabs as to Israel - another dull Bush theme - and, Obama being a new President, we might also have a "we shall not let you down" theme.
But for what? I suspect that what the Arab world wants to hear - not their leaders, of course, all of whom would like to have a spanking new US air base on their property - is that Obama will take all his soldiers out of Muslim lands and leave them alone (American aid, doctors, teachers, etc, excepted). But for obvious reasons, Obama can't say that.
He can, and will, surely, try his global-Arab line; that every Arab nation will be involved in the new Middle East peace, a resurrection of the remarkably sane Saudi offer of full Arab recognition of Israel in return for an Israeli return to the 1967 borders in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242. Obama will be clearing this with King Abdullah on Wednesday, no doubt. And everyone will nod sagely and the newspapers of the Arab dictatorships will solemnly tip their hats to the guy and the New York Times will clap vigorously.
And the Israeli government will treat it all with the same amused contempt as Netanyahu treated Obama's demand to stop building Jewish colonies on Arab land and, back home in Washington, Congress will fulminate and maybe Obama will realise, just like the Arab potentates have realised, that beautiful rhetoric and paradise-promises never, ever, win against reality.
38 Comments so far
Show AllHow does an armed camp of brutal colonialists get to be called a 'nation' that has a 'right to exist'?
This is why Americans see the little reflection of themselves and just can't help loving the Nizi's for doing what our own predecessors did to the native population here.
Surely a man with the intelligence of a Robert Fisk knows this president is no Franklin D Roosevelt. I knew FDR, he was a good friend of mine, well at least of me and all working people in this country. Also FDR meant just what he saidndl said what he meant including to the Arab world. He wasn't wedded to any doctrine, as one British documentary maker once pointed out, but he stood by his word pretty damn well. We should be so lucky as to have him or Jesse Jackson Sr in the White House today.
AD
Agreed.
Obama just indicates the true problem is not the conservative voters, who had a change of heart, but the liberals who are intelligent and educated - and are so pathetic that they just can't get it.
I suggest that we bill Obama voters for the bailout.
Back to the subject: I'm sure that the majority of Arabs see this pretty clear-sightedly.
Arabs know that Obama's words are empty words. He generally does the opposite of what he says. What incentive to they have to seriously listen? Obama supports Israel, arms Israel, is supported by AIPAC, allowed the attempted ethnic cleansing of Gaza's people with no meaningful response, and is woefully weak of character. Obama fools no one.
Obama's speech is postponed. Secret Service tests indicate shrieking emanating from mukhabarat torture centers causing potential audio interference. Soundproofing is underway. Egyptian and Administration officials are issuing reassurances that plans exist to shoot everyone in detention if the acoustic difficulties become too troublesome.
obama just may as well have said:
ching chong obama man sittin' on a fence,
turnin' his balls with a monkey wrench,
wrench slipped,
tickled his balls,
shot all over his overalls.
Guess, and it does appear, that obama man is enjoying his new duties as master-bator-in-charge.
Sorry to be a bit off topic here, but your comment reminded me of that wonderful line uttered by Madelaine Kahn in the Roman section of Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I: "The slave waits . . . while the master baits."
No apologies necessary, obama is quite the 'jerk-off' president now, so you are not off topic at all but I am glad you mentioned that movie as I have not seen it and will look for it now, madelaine kahn was one of my favorite entertainers.
Great movie! Made in like '81, I think. Mel Brooks, Madelaine Kahn, Gregory Hines, Harvey Korman, Dom DeLuise, Cloris Leachman, Ron Carey, Sid Caesar, . . .
Hilarious skits about the history of the world up to the French Revolution. He never made a part II, but there is a funny "preview" for a part II at the end. Madelaine Kahn plays the wife of the caesar in Rome.
And when you watch it, remember . . . "It's good to be the king." ; )
Oh yes, it is … so very _ v e r y _
__ G ◎ ◎ D __ to be _ K I N G _
… especially considering and contrasted by the "other" fluidic role of being the
__ P I S S a n t
__ ( peasant ? ), or
__ P E E S a n t !
Namaste
The "Muslim world", and all the world, sees Obama for what he is: a grinning, brown skinned, jug eared hollow sham; a bagman for the boys uptown; a dancing Bojangles for the Pentagon, and more, more, more of business as usual.
I agree with the conclusion about the boys uptown and the Pentagon and more of business as usual, but don't think his appearance is too important. If he was a grinning, brown skinned, jug-eared president who respected all people, the rule of law and the policy wishes of the American progressive majority, I'd think he was a great progressive leader, regardless of physical features.
Fisk is one of the premier experts on the ME in the English-speaking world. What he is saying here is really not controversial and fits the pattern from decades of observing the hollow, phony rhetoric from the US.
Unfortunately, even if Obama were to take a truly even-handed approach to Israel, the corrupt Congress would continue to give Israel billions, just like always. After all, Israel and its allies (AIPAC, JINSA, AEI, etc.) have the US Congress bought and paid for and they know it. Everyone in the world knows it except the American people.
Is it possible to understand the mindset of a Muslim? Has anyone in our government ever tried? We will never get anywhere with the Muslim world, or the Middle East, until we do. We don't have to agree with them, but we should at least try to understand them. Doesn't anyone ever play chess anymore?
Not that I am an expert or anything, but I've been to many places around the world, mostly off the beaten track and this is my opinion: basically people all over this world are the same. Most want a family, decent shelter, food, water and friends. Of course, there are always the greedy, the thieves, those who want something for nothing and care about no one but themselves, you know, the ones who become politicians are generals.
Understanding the mindset of Muslims? An excellent quest. We can try empathy—putting ourself in their shoes. I don't think Mideast Muslims, at least regular people—the majority—are much different than Americans in their distaste for domination.
How about the mindset of resistance to empire? We don't need to use all that much cross-cultural nuance to get the idea that Muslims are human beings who would prefer not to be dominated by foreign powers. My favorite way as a US citizen to understand many of the Muslims in the Mideast who object to US and Western policies is this: I imagine China parking 25 aircraft carrier battle groups off of our shores and in our harbors; and I imagine further that they have millions of troops on bases in several US states and Washington DC, and are supporting a puppet government they installed to help us improve our new Constitution that they are backing under occupation; and I imagine they are shipping US soil and coal from the US to shore up decreasing supplies of both under the control of Chinese corporations backed by the Chinese nation.
If Americans fought against this, would it be hard to understand the mindset of unruly Americans who object to this state of affairs in the world? I don't think so. Most people don't like others controlling them, their land and their resources. As George Tenet said in 1998 (who seems in this quote to understand Muslims very well) " . . . bin Laden's overarching aim is to get us out of the Persian Gulf." Duh.
(I use China as an example because they are the largest nation in the world. I don't think they want the US/UK baton of empire. Their problems at home are too great and the technologies of resistance against empire are equalizing too fast.)
Mindset of a Muslim? I don't understand. Do you mean a Turkish Muslim in the suburbs of Istanbul or perhaps a Muslim in Chad? Or for that matter, a Muslim in Eastern Turkey v Istanbul?
Perhaps an example of a mindset is noted by the similarity in statements from you and Obama when you say " we don't have to agree., but we should try to understand...." Obama pledged "I might not agree with you, but I'll listen to what you have to say."
Not quite the same at all. I see your statement as an attempt to persuade people to talk/play chess. I see Obama's statement as a fallacy intent on giving the impression of dialogue/communication.
Chess is no longer creative and satisfying now that so many young winners are not examples of creative thinkers but just really the best examples of opening book memorization. One should look at Obama in the same light.
Oddly enough, the other Bush did better at making Israel toe the line and face reality. A similar threat to cut off US subsidies and support, even an actual cutting of it (after all, the US had no scruples about sanctioning Iraq - and 500,000 children died), might do the job. For all Israel's "soft" power in the US and "hard" power thanks to its illegal nukes, the US has a much bigger stick. If Obama is really for hope and change and if he really stands for justice, he'll demand Israel withdraws to its 1967 boundaries forthwith. That really would make the world sit up and realise *this* administration is different.
America will wake up after it goes through a disaster like the one that happened to the Gazans a few months ago! The Americans have been asleep or perhaps just completely brain washed for the past eight years and thought that they had woken up but had actually gone into the deeper sleep state of the Obama strain. Obama will continue the Bush/Cheney criminal cabal with his deceptive smile while ordering the continued murder of innocent Iraqi's , Pakistani's and Afghans!! He is the new terrorist president!
You are right, except it's been a lot longer than 8 years. Try 62 years, or more. 1947 was when the UN, bullied by the United States and England, partitioned Israel into two states, thus beginning the process of depriving Arab Palestinians of their freedom and their land. Oh, there were few Arabs in Palestine, say the Zionists, and it was ruled by other Arab states. Sounds like what we here in the States say about native Americans. We had the poor persecuted Puritans, the Zionists had the poor survivors of the holocaust. But A land grab is a land grab, no matter how you justify it.
Israel was founded about 3000 years ago. Jews have been living on their land there for a very, very long time. Long before there was a UK or US. It's not a land grab if you already own the land.
Try again... Maybe some day you might get the fact straight.
jonabark
Jews have virtually never in their history had sole or complete control of this region. Through most of their history they have been part of , and have themselves been the multi-cultural and polytheistic inhabitants of the region. The Bible is religious propaganda which is full of historic fabrications. Archeology shows a very different picture. Read The Bible Unearthed, by Finkelstein and Silberman or its recent summary in Harpers. The Bible has much wisdom and humane truth but is also heavily laced with racist, and religious propaganda exalting a puritanic cult of the tribe of Judah who assembled and wrote the book we know as the Bible. I am not saying that Jewish people have no legitimate claim to have once occupied what is called Israel, but mostly this was shared with other people Caananites, Phoenicians, Philistines, Aramaeans, and those many occupiers, some of whom stayed, intermarried etc. Assyrians, Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Persians, Edomites, etc.
The violence and theft in Israel and throughout the region does not speak well of Abrahamic religions. By your reasoning of land ownership the Celts have a right to reclaim Britain and the Native Americans own the Americas. Does intermarriage water down ancient land claims based on legends? I've noticed Polish Jews look a lot more like Polish Poles and that Yemeni Jews look a lot more like Yemenis and so on. Does everyone get to claim any house or land that one of their great grandparents owned. How far back do we all go?
Avi Shlaim in his "The Iron Wall" puts the Jewish population in Palestine at 57,000 in 1917 (1918?) when Britain advanced the Balfour Declaration calling for a Jewish homeland; this at a time when the Palestinian Arab population stood at 600,000.
so... perhaps you would support giving most of the United States back to the people who lived there (and whose descendents still live there) before Europeans arrived?
Let's see... what state are you in? Ohio, kentucky and parts of Indiana would be given back to the Shawnee.... much of upstate New York to the Iroquios confederacy... how else shall we follow your idea of divine deed based on who lived there thousands of years ago.
George, you are right, US and Western unjust policies go back to the post-WWII era. I'd say they go back to the post-WWI era as well, especially the betrayal of Arab and Muslim interests embodied in the Sykes-Picot agreement.
Here is the current Wikepedia summary of the results:
Consequences of the Agreement
"The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western/Arab relations. It negated the promises made to Arabs[17] through T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire.
The agreement's principal terms were reaffirmed by the inter-Allied San Remo conference of 19–26 April 1920 and the ratification of the resulting League of Nations mandates by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot
There are a couple of things Obama could say (and more importantly do) on his trip to the Middle East which would be "heard" by the Arab street. As Mr. Fisk says, mere words of friendship and good intention, even the intention to "get tough" on Israeli, will be treated with a Reaganesque response: "there you go again Mr. Obama." (We've heard all that before.)
What I'd advocate for this trip is some "propanda of the deed" (accompanied by appropriate words) in a couple of areas. He could go to the apartheid wall in the West Bank (at Bethlemen for example)---how could his "friend" Netanyahu deny him this access?---and might hone his own Reagan rhetoric, and say "Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this wall!" I promise you, the Arab world would hear that, nothing else would be on al Jazeerha. Or, he could go to the border of Egypt and Gaza---how could his "friend" Mubarak deny him this access?---and say: "Mr. Mubarak, tear town this border-crossing barrier," a barrier erected by Egypt at the urgent insistence of the U.S. as well as Israel. This also they would hear. Failing Netanyahu and Mubarak to fulfill these mandates, when he gets back to Wasnington (if he ever does stop travelling to do this), he could order his staff an immediate "review" of U.S. military support for Israel. These are powerful things that a U.S. President could do and say, and without such deeds and words, the U.S. policy in the Middle East will remain the dog wagged by Israeli tail.
Jerry, your "could dos" for Obama are sensible and progressive. They are also obvious, and need to be pointed out as you have done. Sadly, if Obama were progressive, he would do them or like-minded other acts. But he isn't so he won't. Thanks for articulating such compelling progressive scenarios.
Here's another one . . .
"After reviewing the history of US policy in the region, I've decided to review where and how the US has violated international law in the Mideast. Meanwhile, we will immediately stop US attacks on the sovereign territory of Pakistan unless and until we get UNSC and Pakistani approval, and we will initiate a process for multinational forces to replace US and other NATO forces as peacekeepers in Afghanistan—primarily from the OIC Muslim nations."
Again, these are obvious things to do, IF Obama were a progressive in his worldview.
Yes, Earthian.
and If I may, I would like to suggest An *Exitable* Afghanistan/Pakistan ("Tribalistan") Strategy:
It's based on a) statements by Tamim Ansary (Afghanistan expert), and on the fact that we already are in country there with momentum. I use the term "Tribalistan," since the people, especially of that key border region respond much more as one community of tribes (the "Tribalistani") than as two nations - especially to outsiders.
Ansary most appreciates NGO's building community amongst the tribes, those few that have hung in there while not taking credit for the U.S. while doing it. He gave the example of Julia Bolz building schools. He lists more at his site (links below). He said essentially that the word "Taliban" should be replaced with "Talibanism" because that was more akin to the actual reality in there. That if you want to rid the land of destructive ideas, killing "the bad people" was far from the best solution available.
Tamim said that he hoped Obama would use the military (so long as it was already there and not disposed to leave) for protecting those support projects that the communities themselves expressed need for. These projects would be the actual objectives to be accomplished by the US presence, and "killing the bad guys" may happen only as necessary to accomplish the objective (and probably would, given the apparent tenacity of resistance to any outside military presence).
I don't remember if Tamim said the military should also try to initiate such community support projects, but I'm assuming he would prefer they be initiated by those who were the best available for the work at hand. Which in some cases the US military might be (?), at least until their NGO betters can get to each situation in question.
* * * But from this point, I can see a US strategy * * *
...that would be drawn fairly directly from the above: select as many towns and villages, and networks there-of, as can be supported in their best interests, provide that support on an ongoing basis until the communities are sufficiently self-supportive and/or intra-supportive as a community network, and protect that community/network as necessary until they can be self-protected or protected by Afghan nationals; bring more communities into the those developed networks as resources allow, keep the network of networks growing and expanding as appropriate for long-term stability as can be managed by Afghan national government authorities. Assist in the stabilization of the later to the degree that it supports a true Afghan autonomy. Set goals for all the aforementioned such that the US military involvement has a stopping point as regards it's interaction and deployment. Provide motivation and assistance as needed for NGO's taking over community/network support roles where this will serve the higher good of Afghanistan.
Extending this to the areas that are officially parts of Pakistan should be far less complicated (in the long run certainly) than any military strategy that we've heard about so far. I'm not calling it simple, nor as non-violent and peace-oriented as I'd prefer. But given where we already are (Spring 2009), not to mention where we most apparently are already going, this can be a strategy that, for starters, may be sufficiently clear-cut, do-able, *and exitable* for the US in Tribalistan.
I might add that what we really don't need in Afghanistan right now is a bunch of walking (PTSD-loaded) time-bombs putting our worst US faces in the Tribalistani faces. Or in economically depleted main-street American communities, but that's another essay.) One thing that really puts believers of Islam into a mood, is Christians acting like they are God in their own communities - and that's how some of our behavior hits them. That's a "holy war" message to them, whereas they do respond to what they believe are true acts of God. (I'm suggesting that) A big part of our approach, besides helping them meet their greatest support needs, needs to be around *patience* - letting their own extremists screw up - as all extremists do, revealing their hypocrisy as all extremists do - in spades. Because as long as we keep doing things that their extremists can call out as sacrilege, we might as well be marked, and the Tribalistani's will give way to their extremists.
---
Tamim Ansary is a native Afghani, whose American mother taught English at the first girl's school in Afghanistan. His dad taught science and literature at Kabul University. He came to America in 1964 with a scholarship for high school. He graduated with honors from Reed College and took to the 60's counterculture wholeheartedly. Besides a having solid writer/editor career, his commentary has been heard on the Bill Moyers show, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, the Opra Winfrey Show, Hardball, and numerous NPR radio stations. This very short bio hardly does him honor, but only serves to put these notes here. His website, complete with list of his books as well as a number of other interesting features, is at http://www.mirtamimansary.com/
---
Thank you sincerely for your consideration. These thoughts are elaborated with resource links at http://www.chalicebridge.com/ObamaMomentum.html#Tribalistan
-Chris
Earthian, thanks for the kind words and for the addendum. He may never do any of our "could dos" but anyway we're getting it on the record that a few people at least were pointing toward solutions that would actually work in the Middle East and be consistent with the principles that Americans claim to observe. Jerry
You are welcome, and thanks also for your observation that "a few people at least" are pointing toward solutions that would work. That has value. Maybe we can prove here and there that not all Americans are conservative or neoconservative, imperial crazies who forgot the lessons of cause and effect they learned as toddlers--such as the idea that people who are deliberately harmed sometimes fight back in the name of justice or revenge. Trying the brilliant tactic of respecting Muslims hasn't been tried by the US government. Maybe the time will come.
Jerry, 7th, Earthian-- you've reduced me to dittoheadedness.
Oh, the shame!
· Yr Obd't Servant
An obedient servant should never be ashamed when his masters hath spoken.
"Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this wall!"
I like that!
And apparently, Roger Waters has the same idea . . .
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/185824-Pink-Floyd-rocker-to-Israel-Tear-down-the-wall
Israel has always pissed down America's back, and convinced America that it's raining. When will America wake up?