Well Mr. Obama, the big speech has been given. Many people around the world were impressed with it, particularly those that have been enthralled with the "new Tutankhamen," (as the Egyptians refer to you) from the start; while most others took your speech with a grain of salt. All in all your speech didn't offer much new, what it did was put into clear terms what's been said all along. And by the way, it doesn't seem that it made the Muslim world too happy to hear. While you spoke about accepting Iranian nuclear power (which Israel has a severe problem with as you know), and about freezing Israeli settlements (another debatable issue discussed below), what you really focused on is much the same as has been said in the past by your predecessor, albeit in a much more conciliatory manner.
So you've called on the Muslim world to give women equal rights. I might be wrong on this one, but I think that many may interpret that as directly criticizing their way of life, for in most Muslim nations a women's status is dictated by the modern interpretation of Islamic law. And calling for the Palestinians to stop incitement against Israel and telling them it's difficult to take the moral high ground when they're launching missles at sleeping children and blowing up old women on busses was probably also a tough pill to swallow. Though don't get me wrong, we appreciate it being said, and it was about time you said it, and they heard it.
So all in all, while your speech was wrapped in silk, to many Muslims it seems more like you were preaching morality than you were trying to build bridges. And a little disclaimer here, I didn't actually watch your speech, per say. I saw the twitter feed based on the hash tag #cairospeech. Which gave me the micro-blogging of hundreds of tweeters, American, Arab and Israeli. So I speak based on the comments and reactions I saw real-time on the twitter feed during your speech.
During your speech you also made quite a few comparisons. And the tragic thing about comparisons in the Middle East conflict is that in they end they always appear to make a moral equivalence between two completely opposing worlds. For example, during the second Intifada when innocent Israeli civilians were massacred wholesale due to terrorist attacks that were planned and executed to maximize civilian casualties, Yasser Arafat would say to the world that he condemns all death, both Palestinian and Israeli thereby making a moral equivalence between Palestinian suicide bombers that purposely murdered children in pizza parlors, and Israeli soldiers that inadvertently killed Palestinian civilians while trying to prevent these same terrorists from conducting their murder.
And sad enough none other than the Secretary General of the United Nations took that exact line, stating on many occasions "We condemn the death of all civilians, Palestinian and Israeli." Thereby making it UN public policy to make a moral equivalence between homicidal maniacs out to massacre children and the army of a sovereign nation doing its best to stop these murders. Its all right to express sorrow for the death of innocent Palestinians, if not absolutely necessary. But the moral equivalence thing just doesn't go over very well. As a matter of fact, it’s a key factor in ripping the moral fabric of society we've worked so hard to sew together.
Moving on to your comparison between the Palestinian's struggle for a nation to those of African American's struggle for freedom over the years. You said "For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation." However, thank g-d the Palestinians have never been enslaved. At least not by the Israelis. Nor are they the children of slaves. No, Palestinians became refugees not as a result of their being sold into slavery by Israelis or being bought, sold or traded by Israelis. They became refugees by a geo-political situation created when their forefathers rejected a two state solution and continued on to try to eradicate the Jewish state. Many will claim that this Jewish state was built on stolen Palestinian land, this is a serious falsehood I shall address in another entry, for Jews owned vast swaths of land across this nation before 1948. And of course, while poor, and stateless, the Palestinians are not slaves.
Furthermore, until 1948 what are today called the Palestinians (before 1948, Jews were also Palestinians) were equal citizens of the Middle East on par with those found in any other Middle Eastern land. The land lacked any national sovereignty, something which is ignored by most, and relic of years past. For as we all know, there is not an inch of land in this world today without some sort of sovereignty.
The Arabs that fled in 1948 at the calls of other Arab nations and ended up refugees whether in the West Bank or Gaza strip were not enslaved. And while from 1948 until 1967, when the Gaza strip was in the hands of the Egyptians, Palestinians had no rights and lived under a cruel oppression managed by the Egyptians, as can be read about here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244034989178&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, under Israeli possession, while being occupied, the Palestinians obtained more freedom and rights than they ever had under the Egyptians.
If you feel the need to compare an Arab or Muslim people that are enslaved today there is no lack of examples, but certainly the Palestinians do not fit the profile. People are regularly enslaved in Muslim nations. Do a Google search for yourself you'll see no lack of background. Full blown slavery can be found in any number of places in the Muslim world, such as with the Dinkas in southern Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Sudan), and through bonded labor as is commonly practiced in Pakistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1357_slavery_today/page4.shtml).
While more subtle forms of enslavement can be found in almost any Arab nation where people are kept as unpaid servants and beaten at their "employer's" whim much like any one of dozens of incidents in Saudi Arabia, such as the incident that can be seen here: http://www.a1saudiarabia.com/Maid-beaten-tortured-and-kicked-out/ . And then we have Sudanese refugees that managed to escape from murder and enslavement in their own country often find a similar fate in other Muslim countries like Egypt as can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_refugees_in_Egypt.
So in all honesty Mr. President, to make a direct comparison of the plight of the Palestinians refugees with the "African American's struggle for freedom over the years" is extremely disingenuous. As a matter of fact, not only is it disingenuous, but stating this indirectly implies that Israel is in fact the slave master. And while we all know your speech was geared towards the Arab world, it was no less significant to Israelis. Even more so, making this implication to the Arab world to them in some way justifies all of that same libel and incitement you so admirably called to end. And that you didn't or couldn't see that is not only disappointing, it's significantly concerning.
What for me that was interesting about your speech isn't what you said; it was what was mysteriously missing, as has been lacking throughout your numerous calls for peace between Israel and Palestinians. And it was, is and apparently shall continue to be the deep dark secret that everybody wants to keep under wraps. And that is, just how do you assume to make peace between the "Palestinians" when in fact you have two diametrically opposing governments in the two territories that are earmarked to become the new Palestinian state? Or in other terms, what about Hamas? Now of course, we all heard you say that "Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist," but you speaking these words doesn't actually solve the problem. Nor does it actually address the problem.
The problem of Hamas. The problem of other nations funding, arming and training Hamas. The problem of the hidden war of Iran against Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. And of course, the issue of a nuclear Iran already at war with Israel and who has already called to destroy Israel. Was there a reason you didn't speak of this? Was it due to your trying to "build bridges" with Iran? And if this is so, does that mean that you are willing to accept Iranian support for these insurgent armies against Israel and their obtaining nuclear technology as a conciliatory measure? We all know that you said that Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear power. But is that an honest addressing of the issue? When the jump from "peaceful" nuclear power to nuclear weapons is negligible? When Iran just last month launched a vehicle into space, an event that is interpreted by all to be a significant stage in the building of a vehicle capable of carrying a nuclear warhead? Are these not obstacles to peace?
We in Israel have heard an awful lot about how are settlements are supposedly the main obstacle to peace. But we have a different idea, we tend to think that it is Arab and Muslim rejectionism and their ongoing funding, training and arming of militants to fight against Israel, and the indoctrination of Muslim children into a culture of hate for Israel around the world that are the obstacles to peace. The settlements? It would seem they're more of a symptom, not the problem.
But I don't want to discuss the settlements. They're not for me to discuss. They are for the Israeli and Palestinian governments to negotiate over. I'll agree, it is a sensitive issue. But to demand that Israel completely stop all construction, in existing settlements seems to me to be pushing it, particularly when you have yet to answer just how you intend to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians with Hamas stuck in the middle like the big pink elephant it is.
Yes Mr. Obama, your speech had its merits, and its faults. You spoke from the heart, and reiterated many things said already in the past, albeit in a more conciliatory manner. Most of your demands seem reasonable, but the comparisons need to stop. Whether it be between the Palestinian plight and that of African Americans struggling to break the bond of slavery; or comparing the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of a maniac bent of eradicating them from the face of the earth to the suffering of Palestinians as a result of Arab refusal to accept the existence of the State of Israel, even though they possess all the rest of the Middle East.
I have to admit, your good. And we very much appreciate your efforts. But I'll have to kindly ask you to refrain from making comparisons, they never work out. I recommend that you argue each issue on its own merits, or beware of falling into the trap Mr. Annan fell into (or perhaps consciously accepted); that of making a moral equivalence between terrorism that targets and massacres innocent people to the army of a sovereign nation trying to prevent these terrorist from succeeding in murdering their civilians. For that would be like making a comparison of those that caused the death of Americans that were murdered on 9/11, to the American soldiers in Afghanistan today fighting against the Taliban and fanatic Islam. I also suggest working on that answer about peace with Hamas. For the way we see it, it just isn't going to happen.
The Four Agreements
1 day ago