I'm only halfway through, but I think the right is going to freak over this one. See for yourself. It's something to see a president greet the world with, "As-Salamu Alaykum." Amazing.
When has the right NOT freaked over anything Obama has done. They have been freaking over this since he got on the plane to Egypt. They were denouncing the speech before he even made it.
You would think the fact that the other group going equally wacky crackers over this speech is Al Qaeda might give them pause, but they have never been the most self aware bunch.
The right is freaking, not just in this country but in Israel. Openly calling settlement expansion unacceptable is big--yes, we will have to see what comes of that, but it's an unprecedented step really for a sitting president.
I'm more pro-Palestine so I'll admit that upfront. I'm always amazed by the rhetorical gymnastics required to explain Israel. I know it's not going away, and I don't want it to, but I think Obama did a great job of handling the conflict in his speech.
I have to confess, I had to watch some O'Reilly last night. He and Morris talked about this speech as if Obama was encountering a bear in the woods, quite frankly, and it would be disaster for Obama to show weakness. Why? I mean, seriously, why? I find it amazing that we keep hearing this concept of realism coming up. Why should that be a concept--this is reality we are talking about. Instead, Obama treated them like human beings--a sign of reality. He mentioned the problems of the Cold War as it pertains to Islam; that's pretty groundbreaking, and I think that's important to the Muslim world. I'm rambling, but overall, I was impressed. This will cause controversy, but I don't think it will cause actual controversy--it'll just be talking heads type stuff.
I for one would welcome the end of talking heads talking about what other talking heads are talking about and see a return to actual reporting on real events, policies, and practices that make a difference in the world, can we imagine a world without professional gossips?
Well, I'm sure the professional gossips can't. I really feel lucky to be able to experience this moment; I forget where I was reading it (probably Sullivan) but this article made the point that Obama is a president that doesn't fear complexity. In a sense, now is the perfect time for that because the blogosphere created more analysis and is really tearing away at the echo chamber. We are getting a more complete picture of the world. We aren't limited to a couple Op-Ed writers or cable news blocks. In fact, they are taking (sometimes with credit, and sometimes not) from the blogs to get stories.
If you want the middle-eastern view on what to do with O'reilly et al....fuck them. They're irrelevant. Both the pundits and the politicians. But especially the pundits! And especially fucking rightard like O'Reilly, what the fuck does he know about "fuuurners"? He's barely been outside of the US. Fuck him, Morris and the horses ass they rode in on! Btw...obama blew my mind with the line about palestinian responsibility...loved it!
I don't think O'Reilly and Morris are irrelevant as much as I'd like them to be. First of all, there's the ratings. Americans are watching (again, not proud of that). Of course there's always going to be a few people who take his word as their own, but I do find it meaningful to compare their rhetoric to Obama's and look at polls. Right-wing media has always been theatre, but even though the numbers aren't going down, I feel like there's a sense more people are coming to realize it is actually theatre.
Oh man, I'm watching Liz Cheney on MSNBC right now getting interviewed by Andrea Mitchell.
What fucking world are they in. It's fair to say that the Right is composed of nothing but Haters.
"I find it troubling that . . ."; "A president shouldn't . . . on foreign soil."
Like Liz Cheney provided over some of the worst foreign policy disasters in US history. Why are they even given nominal credibility. She's even defending the Atta link. "he (dick cheney) never said there was a link between 9/11 and Sadaam, he said there were links between al-qaeda and Sadaam."
It's so sad. We all want to defend our fathers. It's even sadder when you can't realize that your father was wrong.
I wish there was a credible, real opposition, that makes strong analytical arguments against certain Obama administration policies. Instead we have just a bunch of haters.
1) This is the third time in history that the Jews have had an independent nation on that land. No other people have ever had an independent nation on that land.
2)Jerusalem has never been the political capital, and cultural and religious center of any other people other than the Jews.
3)The Jews did not voluntarily give up their Sovereignty. Jews did not voluntarily mostly depopulate the land, and Jews always prayed and sought to return, and did re-establish communities in many parts of the land, and for most of history have been a majority of the population of Jerusalem. strictly speaking Israel did not rise simply out of European persecution and the holocaust as an expression of "Christian guilt" as the Iranian president and apparently Mr. Obama think.
4)Almost half of Israel's Jewish population came there or are from people who came there from Arab countries.
5)From 1947-67 Arabs controlled all of Jerusalem including almost all Islamic, Chiristian, and Jewish holy sites. Jews were denied access and Jewish sites were abused. Arabs also during this period controlled all of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. No Palestinian nation was created by them, and any peace with Israel was 100 percent rejected.
6)I am actually for a freeze on settlements for various reasons but I realize that settlements and the "occupation" are not the real root of the conflict. The root of the conflict is that the Arab and Islamic world with little exception deny the legitimacy of Jewish ties and claims to the land, and seek no matter what the means(and it's mostly violent)the destruction of Israel, including within the 1967 boarders.
7) Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Huzbullah, etc have the guns. "Moderate" Palestinians or Arabs who might wisper sweet nothings in Western ears are not the ones with the guns and the support on the street.Hmmas is really stronger among Palestinians than the Palestinian authority, and PA leader Abas is really not that much more than the Mayor of Ramallah. So just who is Israel to make all the concessions and turn over all the land to, and what will really be the result. . . more rockets or worse. As things stand now the result is highly unlikey to be peace. The US is also weaker than it's been in memory,over stretched,and it's credibility is not at it's high point. So just who is going ensure that Israel doesn't end up with a noose around it's neck.
I'm not going to threadjack here too much. I'll just say that you're arguments are partially propagandistic, and mostly religious. As an agnostic and a realist, I don't really have use for those arguments.
You may be an agnostic and that's fine, but if you don't think religion is involved in this on both sides your in a heck of a fantasy. I think there is a very good case for Israel, and the Jewish people are entitled to the same rights that have been afforded so many others all round the world. I am for a two state solution and always have been, but I see an even narrower opportunity to have it now than 10 years ago for instance. Right now the chance of another war in the region is probably greater than the chance of any real progress toward peace. . . sorry to say. It's unfortunate, but Bush and both the Palestinians and Israelis really screwed things up. I just don't know what the answer is right now. I hope some good comes out of Obama's effort but I'm really deeply sceptical.
This must be the feeling the greatest generation felt after WWII. We are doing the right thing in the world.
Finally, after sixty years of realpolitik, bullying authoritarianism, and generally screwing things up for everybody else, America has a voice that turns outward and asks others what they think. A masterpiece. This President is so consistently impressive.... you'd think I would have learned by now and not been amazed again. But he is just so much better than what we have had. Stunning once more.
It is no wonder that his critics are angry. Fleas fighting against the flowing waters. They have no chance against this intellect and this vision. They know it. We know it. The world is beginning to know it.
I woke up at 6:00 this morning to watch this speech. Finally. A president who understands that both Israel and Palestine have the right to exist as sovereign nations. Well done.
Words, rhetoric, and advertising are an American rage that does not work exactly the same way in the lands where "may the Americans bring you democracy" is a curse.
Apparently threatening and posturing doesn't and hasn't worked either. How about if we try a new tact and see what happens. If it fails, then we can go back to threatening and posturing.
Agreeing with Brian. Dredd must have been thinking he was watching a rerun of an American Enterprise Institute speech.
Clearly to anyone reading or watching the entire speech, the POTUS was affirming each nation's right to go their own way, while also reaffirming our national belief in individual rights. No where did I read anything remotely close to the Bushian philosophy of forced democracy.
Do you know anything about the cultures you're speaking on?
Islam was literally built on rhetoric (as was, in fact, Christianity!) Before that, the highest-respected form of art for many int he Arabian area was poetry. for centuries after, poets and singers were the most-feted groups of entertainers; indeed, the world for "assembly" in many majority-Islamic countries (majlis) is based on a term used, centuries ago, to describe gatherings of musicians and poets.
America, as well, was built on rhetoric. We've lost some of that, and believe that only anger, rage, fury, badgering, the bully pulpit as a hammer -- only these tools work, and if they don't then PUNISH. Standing in contrast is the very beginnings of this country, where we called for blood to be shed in words that clearly echo to today. Where men compromised, and spoke with passion, but also with poetry, to forge a compromise. If you read, for one example, the Federalist Papers, you read the thinking of Founders who knew the power of words, and put a subtle poetry into the most critical of writers, advertising for the very Constitution of this country.
No, Dredd, he who's ideas echo the grim Judge of the infamous comic series, we need MORE, not less, rhetoric. In comparison to the idea that all the rest of the word needs is to "fall into line", I'm pleased to see America, once again, take the first place in promoting understanding and dignity as the cornerstone towards the hard work for forging peace. This is only one step in a long, long road, but it's far more important, to far more people, than you seem to conceive of.
Thank you. I am sick and tired of people on all sides acting like words never accomplished anything. Like dialogue never increased understanding and peace. Like a well-written speech doesn't actually make action easier. Talk without action is cheap, but action without talk is inadequate when you're dealing with human beings.
I'm seeing faultlines open up on my Facebook page, of all places. Conservatives despairing over "weakness" and kowtowing to Islamism, moderates passively noting that it sounded kinda reasonable to them, and far-leftists insisting that there's nothing to see here, America's still an evil empire, pay no attention to the man trying to say something decent to the Muslim world for a change.
I feel like my homepage could substitute for any and all televised "political debate" shows.
Another great speech from President Obama. I have no doubt his speeches will live long past his Presidency and life. So in that sense, I believe his words (the pen being, in the long run, mightier than the sword) will have beneficial effects.
In the immediate political noise machinery: first, an hour long address in our nanosecond era will not be as widely listened to as it ought to be; thus, it will fall victim to out of context sound byte edition for the purpose of spin, and cynically. How could that be a surprise?
Secondly, many of these issues Obama raises are invested with blood and poisoned by ruthless exploitation for more than a generation in recent (not ancient) history, that is, in ways that have traumatized memory. Thus, as with all things Obama, even he is subject to the past in real ways that will inevitably diminish his vision.
Finally, one thing in this speech bothered me. While I am a pacifist and a strong believer in non-violence, it should be noted that while Ghandi's first successes occurred in South Africa, the overthrow of apartheid was not a victory of non-violence, but that of armed resistance, and there have been non-violent movements that have suffered defeat all over the world (Guatemala in the fifties comes to mind). I do believe the Palestinian cause if fought in a non-violent manner would win over the world and be successful in ways that the current violence will never effect. But I believe President Obama mispoke, given our own nation was born from violence, when he spoke to its lack of efficacy.
Good point. However, I think that Obama's message is primarily about the way forward for peace in the Mideast with emphasis on both 21st century interdependence and the failure of war and terrorism to resolve US/Israel/Arab issues.
I just hope that most people appreciate how brave it is for a newly elected Democratic US president to confront Israeli hardliners, challenge what they believe is their right to continue settling land needed for a Palestinian state, and say it to the entire world from a stage in Cairo.
Of course, Obama could not extend the hand of diplomacy to Muslim nations without addressing Israel/Palestine in a meaningful way. What I find hopeful about this is that Obama recognizes that diplomacy will not be possible until the Palestinians are recognized as having a right to live in a sovereign state. Without that, Muslim nations will reject his speeches as empty rhetoric and it will be business as usual - occupation, war, terrorism, no diplomacy, and no Palestinian state. If Obama does not make progress in this area, his Mideast foreign policy will be a continuation of George Bush because the one and only way to initiate change in that region is for the US to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. Obama gets it as he had this as the number two issue on his list just behind "violent extremism in all of its forms" and ahead of "nuclear weapons." He gets it.
I'm just afraid of the a lack of support in the US, not because reasonable people won't understand Obama's long view of this, but because they won't even know about it. Mainstream media will not be supportive.
This is just another example of how the Bush Administration screwed us and the world. Previously, every administration worked to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the Israelis with its Arabic neighbors. The eight year long vacation just taken created an atmosphere of even more violent polarization than previously existing (and given the Oslo accords by a long shot) there and here at home. At home, even a Jew such as myself who contends that Israel must change its policies toward the Palestians can be subject to being considered antisemitic, can be shouted down in the name of Islamophobia.
At the same time, many under the legitimate guise of supporting the Palestinian cause overlook how they would respond (my god, look at Iraq) to terrorist violence if it were to occur in New York city or LA, and worse they do fall prey to one of the oldest and most virulent forms of prejudice in history, anti-semitism.
In Israel and Palestine, the discussion is in the hands not of those who would take a wiser more conciliatory position but extremists on each side. And right now, this family feud is holding the world hostage.
I think the Israeli-Palestinian issue is of greater urgency than that of the post-colonial, oil jonesed west and extremist, fundamentalist Islam. Break the gordian knot of this first problem, and the latter begins to unravel as well.
Instead of invading Iraq, the Israel Arab conflict should have been addressed. Israel should have withdrawen from almost all of the occupied territory and it turned over to a US led coalition that would have insured security in a no nosense fashion and would have dearmed radical factions. No nonsense would have been tolerated from om Israel either. The Palestinians would have been "guided"toward elections and independence by a us Coalition of US, Europeans, and "moderate" Arabs. Elections would have happened only after massive aide to improve conditions and armed groups opposed to peace neutralized. 3-5 year timeline for Palestinian Indepedence in 95-97 percent of territories. Status quo on holy sites in Jerusalem. Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem under Palestinian authority. Palestinians allowed to have Political presence and offices in East Jerusalem. No right of return for Palestinians to Israel but a lot is put into development in Palestinian lands and nothing is stopping Palestinians from elsewhere to relocate there. Palestinian State is largely demilitarized and does not control it's own airspace. Arab states begin normalization of relations with Israel during 3/5 year period of guided indepedence.
This is what should have happened but now it is too late.
Every once in a while a reporter will get some official of Hamas or a group like them to speak candidly or off the record, and they'll admit that they know the suicide bombings don't work, haven't worked, and aren't going to work in the future. But they can't figure out how to stop them, maybe because they haven't tried hard enough, because of internal disagreement or maybe just because they haven't had good reason to.
For myself, I figure that if your opponent can beat you (easily) in warfare then non-violent resistance is the only sane way to go.
It's not just Hamas that carried out suicide bombings, but also factions within Arafat's Fatah. It was a competition between homicidal thugs. One can see how much it gained for the Palestinian people.
"It's something to see a president greet the world with, "As-Salamu Alaykum." Amazing."
It's worth remembering that when there was still smoke rising from the ruins of Ground Zero, George Bush invited a Muslim cleric to give a prayer at the National Cathedral. Reaching out to Muslims (while bombing some of them) is an area where Obama is continuing, not deviating from, Bush Administration policy.
One of the very few things I can give credit to "W" for is his behavior towards Muslims in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He certainly did more in terms of speaking out against violence directed towards Muslim-Americans than FDR did in terms of speaking out against violence directed to Japanese-Americans following Pearl Harbor. And he became only the second US President to visit a mosque, W doing so only six days after 9/11.*
Of course, after a few months, everything went to hell. What with the talk of "crusades", the bombings that you so rightly mentioned....particularly during the start of a war against a country that never attacked us, the torture of hundreds of innocent people,...yeah, that kind of thing.
And of course, you want to know who was the first US President to visit a mosque? Ike! Eisenhower and his wife Mamie visited the Islamic Center of Washington in 1957, upon the buildings dedication. The Eisenhowers were unaware that one is not supposed to wear shows inside the mosque itself and they were offered shoe coverings as to avoid the sight of the US President without his shoes on. They refused, with the President walking around in his socks quite willingly and Mamie doing the same in her nylon stockings.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
When has the right NOT freaked over anything Obama has done. They have been freaking over this since he got on the plane to Egypt. They were denouncing the speech before he even made it.
You would think the fact that the other group going equally wacky crackers over this speech is Al Qaeda might give them pause, but they have never been the most self aware bunch.
The right is freaking, not just in this country but in Israel. Openly calling settlement expansion unacceptable is big--yes, we will have to see what comes of that, but it's an unprecedented step really for a sitting president.
I'm more pro-Palestine so I'll admit that upfront. I'm always amazed by the rhetorical gymnastics required to explain Israel. I know it's not going away, and I don't want it to, but I think Obama did a great job of handling the conflict in his speech.
I have to confess, I had to watch some O'Reilly last night. He and Morris talked about this speech as if Obama was encountering a bear in the woods, quite frankly, and it would be disaster for Obama to show weakness. Why? I mean, seriously, why? I find it amazing that we keep hearing this concept of realism coming up. Why should that be a concept--this is reality we are talking about. Instead, Obama treated them like human beings--a sign of reality. He mentioned the problems of the Cold War as it pertains to Islam; that's pretty groundbreaking, and I think that's important to the Muslim world. I'm rambling, but overall, I was impressed. This will cause controversy, but I don't think it will cause actual controversy--it'll just be talking heads type stuff.
I for one would welcome the end of talking heads talking about what other talking heads are talking about and see a return to actual reporting on real events, policies, and practices that make a difference in the world, can we imagine a world without professional gossips?
Well, I'm sure the professional gossips can't. I really feel lucky to be able to experience this moment; I forget where I was reading it (probably Sullivan) but this article made the point that Obama is a president that doesn't fear complexity. In a sense, now is the perfect time for that because the blogosphere created more analysis and is really tearing away at the echo chamber. We are getting a more complete picture of the world. We aren't limited to a couple Op-Ed writers or cable news blocks. In fact, they are taking (sometimes with credit, and sometimes not) from the blogs to get stories.
Apparently Israel is also going nuts because their government didn't get an early copy of the speech.
Well, I can see why...
If you want the middle-eastern view on what to do with O'reilly et al....fuck them. They're irrelevant. Both the pundits and the politicians. But especially the pundits! And especially fucking rightard like O'Reilly, what the fuck does he know about "fuuurners"? He's barely been outside of the US. Fuck him, Morris and the horses ass they rode in on! Btw...obama blew my mind with the line about palestinian responsibility...loved it!
I don't think O'Reilly and Morris are irrelevant as much as I'd like them to be. First of all, there's the ratings. Americans are watching (again, not proud of that). Of course there's always going to be a few people who take his word as their own, but I do find it meaningful to compare their rhetoric to Obama's and look at polls. Right-wing media has always been theatre, but even though the numbers aren't going down, I feel like there's a sense more people are coming to realize it is actually theatre.
Oh man, I'm watching Liz Cheney on MSNBC right now getting interviewed by Andrea Mitchell.
What fucking world are they in. It's fair to say that the Right is composed of nothing but Haters.
"I find it troubling that . . ."; "A president shouldn't . . . on foreign soil."
Like Liz Cheney provided over some of the worst foreign policy disasters in US history. Why are they even given nominal credibility. She's even defending the Atta link. "he (dick cheney) never said there was a link between 9/11 and Sadaam, he said there were links between al-qaeda and Sadaam."
It's so sad. We all want to defend our fathers. It's even sadder when you can't realize that your father was wrong.
I wish there was a credible, real opposition, that makes strong analytical arguments against certain Obama administration policies. Instead we have just a bunch of haters.
Please consider this
1) This is the third time in history that the Jews have had an independent nation on that land. No other people have ever had an independent nation on that land.
2)Jerusalem has never been the political capital, and cultural and religious center of any other people other than the Jews.
3)The Jews did not voluntarily give up their Sovereignty. Jews did not voluntarily mostly depopulate the land, and Jews always prayed and sought to return, and did re-establish communities in many parts of the land, and for most of history have been a majority of the population of Jerusalem. strictly speaking Israel did not rise simply out of European persecution and the holocaust as an expression of "Christian guilt" as the Iranian president and apparently Mr. Obama think.
4)Almost half of Israel's Jewish population came there or are from people who came there from Arab countries.
5)From 1947-67 Arabs controlled all of Jerusalem including almost all Islamic, Chiristian, and Jewish holy sites. Jews were denied access and Jewish sites were abused. Arabs also during this period controlled all of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. No Palestinian nation was created by them, and any peace with Israel was 100 percent rejected.
6)I am actually for a freeze on settlements for various reasons but I realize that settlements and the "occupation" are not the real root of the conflict. The root of the conflict is that the Arab and Islamic world with little exception deny the legitimacy of Jewish ties and claims to the land, and seek no matter what the means(and it's mostly violent)the destruction of Israel, including within the 1967 boarders.
7) Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Huzbullah, etc have the guns. "Moderate" Palestinians or Arabs who might wisper sweet nothings in Western ears are not the ones with the guns and the support on the street.Hmmas is really stronger among Palestinians than the Palestinian authority, and PA leader Abas is really not that much more than the Mayor of Ramallah. So just who is Israel to make all the concessions and turn over all the land to, and what will really be the result. . . more rockets or worse. As things stand now the result is highly unlikey to be peace. The US is also weaker than it's been in memory,over stretched,and it's credibility is not at it's high point. So just who is going ensure that Israel doesn't end up with a noose around it's neck.
I'm not going to threadjack here too much. I'll just say that you're arguments are partially propagandistic, and mostly religious. As an agnostic and a realist, I don't really have use for those arguments.
You may be an agnostic and that's fine, but if you don't think religion is involved in this on both sides your in a heck of a fantasy. I think there is a very good case for Israel, and the Jewish people are entitled to the same rights that have been afforded so many others all round the world. I am for a two state solution and always have been, but I see an even narrower opportunity to have it now than 10 years ago for instance. Right now the chance of another war in the region is probably greater than the chance of any real progress toward peace. . . sorry to say. It's unfortunate, but Bush and both the Palestinians and Israelis really screwed things up. I just don't know what the answer is right now. I hope some good comes out of Obama's effort but I'm really deeply sceptical.
This must be the feeling the greatest generation felt after WWII. We are doing the right thing in the world.
Finally, after sixty years of realpolitik, bullying authoritarianism, and generally screwing things up for everybody else, America has a voice that turns outward and asks others what they think. A masterpiece. This President is so consistently impressive.... you'd think I would have learned by now and not been amazed again. But he is just so much better than what we have had. Stunning once more.
It is no wonder that his critics are angry. Fleas fighting against the flowing waters. They have no chance against this intellect and this vision. They know it. We know it. The world is beginning to know it.
I woke up at 6:00 this morning to watch this speech. Finally. A president who understands that both Israel and Palestine have the right to exist as sovereign nations. Well done.
Sometimes I think our presidents think they are preaching to the choir even when they are not.
Words, rhetoric, and advertising are an American rage that does not work exactly the same way in the lands where "may the Americans bring you democracy" is a curse.
Apparently threatening and posturing doesn't and hasn't worked either. How about if we try a new tact and see what happens. If it fails, then we can go back to threatening and posturing.
Agreeing with Brian. Dredd must have been thinking he was watching a rerun of an American Enterprise Institute speech.
Clearly to anyone reading or watching the entire speech, the POTUS was affirming each nation's right to go their own way, while also reaffirming our national belief in individual rights. No where did I read anything remotely close to the Bushian philosophy of forced democracy.
Do you know anything about the cultures you're speaking on?
Islam was literally built on rhetoric (as was, in fact, Christianity!) Before that, the highest-respected form of art for many int he Arabian area was poetry. for centuries after, poets and singers were the most-feted groups of entertainers; indeed, the world for "assembly" in many majority-Islamic countries (majlis) is based on a term used, centuries ago, to describe gatherings of musicians and poets.
America, as well, was built on rhetoric. We've lost some of that, and believe that only anger, rage, fury, badgering, the bully pulpit as a hammer -- only these tools work, and if they don't then PUNISH. Standing in contrast is the very beginnings of this country, where we called for blood to be shed in words that clearly echo to today. Where men compromised, and spoke with passion, but also with poetry, to forge a compromise. If you read, for one example, the Federalist Papers, you read the thinking of Founders who knew the power of words, and put a subtle poetry into the most critical of writers, advertising for the very Constitution of this country.
No, Dredd, he who's ideas echo the grim Judge of the infamous comic series, we need MORE, not less, rhetoric. In comparison to the idea that all the rest of the word needs is to "fall into line", I'm pleased to see America, once again, take the first place in promoting understanding and dignity as the cornerstone towards the hard work for forging peace. This is only one step in a long, long road, but it's far more important, to far more people, than you seem to conceive of.
Thank you. I am sick and tired of people on all sides acting like words never accomplished anything. Like dialogue never increased understanding and peace. Like a well-written speech doesn't actually make action easier. Talk without action is cheap, but action without talk is inadequate when you're dealing with human beings.
Nicely put. We need the rhetoric and the action.
It was as brilliant a speech as one would expect fom this brilliant man. Imagine W quoting from the Koran...
I think the fact that Al Queda and the far right are on the same page is very telling, indeed...
"Imagine W quoting from the Koran..."
"As the Prophet said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a step to Mecca."
I'm seeing faultlines open up on my Facebook page, of all places. Conservatives despairing over "weakness" and kowtowing to Islamism, moderates passively noting that it sounded kinda reasonable to them, and far-leftists insisting that there's nothing to see here, America's still an evil empire, pay no attention to the man trying to say something decent to the Muslim world for a change.
I feel like my homepage could substitute for any and all televised "political debate" shows.
Another great speech from President Obama. I have no doubt his speeches will live long past his Presidency and life. So in that sense, I believe his words (the pen being, in the long run, mightier than the sword) will have beneficial effects.
In the immediate political noise machinery: first, an hour long address in our nanosecond era will not be as widely listened to as it ought to be; thus, it will fall victim to out of context sound byte edition for the purpose of spin, and cynically. How could that be a surprise?
Secondly, many of these issues Obama raises are invested with blood and poisoned by ruthless exploitation for more than a generation in recent (not ancient) history, that is, in ways that have traumatized memory. Thus, as with all things Obama, even he is subject to the past in real ways that will inevitably diminish his vision.
Finally, one thing in this speech bothered me. While I am a pacifist and a strong believer in non-violence, it should be noted that while Ghandi's first successes occurred in South Africa, the overthrow of apartheid was not a victory of non-violence, but that of armed resistance, and there have been non-violent movements that have suffered defeat all over the world (Guatemala in the fifties comes to mind). I do believe the Palestinian cause if fought in a non-violent manner would win over the world and be successful in ways that the current violence will never effect. But I believe President Obama mispoke, given our own nation was born from violence, when he spoke to its lack of efficacy.
Good point. However, I think that Obama's message is primarily about the way forward for peace in the Mideast with emphasis on both 21st century interdependence and the failure of war and terrorism to resolve US/Israel/Arab issues.
I just hope that most people appreciate how brave it is for a newly elected Democratic US president to confront Israeli hardliners, challenge what they believe is their right to continue settling land needed for a Palestinian state, and say it to the entire world from a stage in Cairo.
Of course, Obama could not extend the hand of diplomacy to Muslim nations without addressing Israel/Palestine in a meaningful way. What I find hopeful about this is that Obama recognizes that diplomacy will not be possible until the Palestinians are recognized as having a right to live in a sovereign state. Without that, Muslim nations will reject his speeches as empty rhetoric and it will be business as usual - occupation, war, terrorism, no diplomacy, and no Palestinian state. If Obama does not make progress in this area, his Mideast foreign policy will be a continuation of George Bush because the one and only way to initiate change in that region is for the US to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. Obama gets it as he had this as the number two issue on his list just behind "violent extremism in all of its forms" and ahead of "nuclear weapons." He gets it.
I'm just afraid of the a lack of support in the US, not because reasonable people won't understand Obama's long view of this, but because they won't even know about it. Mainstream media will not be supportive.
This is just another example of how the Bush Administration screwed us and the world. Previously, every administration worked to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the Israelis with its Arabic neighbors. The eight year long vacation just taken created an atmosphere of even more violent polarization than previously existing (and given the Oslo accords by a long shot) there and here at home. At home, even a Jew such as myself who contends that Israel must change its policies toward the Palestians can be subject to being considered antisemitic, can be shouted down in the name of Islamophobia.
At the same time, many under the legitimate guise of supporting the Palestinian cause overlook how they would respond (my god, look at Iraq) to terrorist violence if it were to occur in New York city or LA, and worse they do fall prey to one of the oldest and most virulent forms of prejudice in history, anti-semitism.
In Israel and Palestine, the discussion is in the hands not of those who would take a wiser more conciliatory position but extremists on each side. And right now, this family feud is holding the world hostage.
I think the Israeli-Palestinian issue is of greater urgency than that of the post-colonial, oil jonesed west and extremist, fundamentalist Islam. Break the gordian knot of this first problem, and the latter begins to unravel as well.
Instead of invading Iraq, the Israel Arab conflict should have been addressed. Israel should have withdrawen from almost all of the occupied territory and it turned over to a US led coalition that would have insured security in a no nosense fashion and would have dearmed radical factions. No nonsense would have been tolerated from om Israel either. The Palestinians would have been "guided"toward elections and independence by a us Coalition of US, Europeans, and "moderate" Arabs. Elections would have happened only after massive aide to improve conditions and armed groups opposed to peace neutralized. 3-5 year timeline for Palestinian Indepedence in 95-97 percent of territories. Status quo on holy sites in Jerusalem. Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem under Palestinian authority. Palestinians allowed to have Political presence and offices in East Jerusalem. No right of return for Palestinians to Israel but a lot is put into development in Palestinian lands and nothing is stopping Palestinians from elsewhere to relocate there. Palestinian State is largely demilitarized and does not control it's own airspace. Arab states begin normalization of relations with Israel during 3/5 year period of guided indepedence.
This is what should have happened but now it is too late.
Every once in a while a reporter will get some official of Hamas or a group like them to speak candidly or off the record, and they'll admit that they know the suicide bombings don't work, haven't worked, and aren't going to work in the future. But they can't figure out how to stop them, maybe because they haven't tried hard enough, because of internal disagreement or maybe just because they haven't had good reason to.
For myself, I figure that if your opponent can beat you (easily) in warfare then non-violent resistance is the only sane way to go.
It's not just Hamas that carried out suicide bombings, but also factions within Arafat's Fatah. It was a competition between homicidal thugs. One can see how much it gained for the Palestinian people.
"It's something to see a president greet the world with, "As-Salamu Alaykum." Amazing."
It's worth remembering that when there was still smoke rising from the ruins of Ground Zero, George Bush invited a Muslim cleric to give a prayer at the National Cathedral. Reaching out to Muslims (while bombing some of them) is an area where Obama is continuing, not deviating from, Bush Administration policy.
One of the very few things I can give credit to "W" for is his behavior towards Muslims in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He certainly did more in terms of speaking out against violence directed towards Muslim-Americans than FDR did in terms of speaking out against violence directed to Japanese-Americans following Pearl Harbor. And he became only the second US President to visit a mosque, W doing so only six days after 9/11.*
Of course, after a few months, everything went to hell. What with the talk of "crusades", the bombings that you so rightly mentioned....particularly during the start of a war against a country that never attacked us, the torture of hundreds of innocent people,...yeah, that kind of thing.
And of course, you want to know who was the first US President to visit a mosque? Ike! Eisenhower and his wife Mamie visited the Islamic Center of Washington in 1957, upon the buildings dedication. The Eisenhowers were unaware that one is not supposed to wear shows inside the mosque itself and they were offered shoe coverings as to avoid the sight of the US President without his shoes on. They refused, with the President walking around in his socks quite willingly and Mamie doing the same in her nylon stockings.
So President Obama makes 3.