Daniel Levy comments on Obama's Muslim outreach tour.
Daniel Levy, an expert in international security issues notes as follows (reprinted with permission)
***
10 Comments on Obama in Cairo –
Still Accumulating, Not Expending Capital
The Obama team’s remarkable wordsmithery and the president’s unparalleled
capacity for delivery were exquisitely on display again today in Cairo. But this
speech should perhaps be remembered as much for what was not said. Gone was the
arrogance and lecturing: there was no lavishing of praise on Egypt’s
undemocratic leader – the word ‘Mubarak’ was not even mentioned once. Out too
was the purple finger version of democratization and even the traditional
American condescension toward the Palestinian narrative. But perhaps most
remarkably of all, the words ‘terror’ or ‘terrorism’ did not pass the
president’s lips. Here was a leader and a team around him smart enough to
acknowledge that certain words have become too tainted, too laden with baggage,
their use has become counter-productive, today the Global War on Terror framing
was truly laid to rest.
Particularly striking was that President Obama almost certainly has emerged from
the Cairo speech having accumulated additional capital rather than expending
it, with greater popularity, traction, and respect among not only his ostensible
target audience, the Muslim world, but also globally, including at home in
America and even in Israel and with the world’s Jewish community. His future
leverage across a range of issues has been enhanced.
It’s true that whenever the speech descended from the lofty heights of 30,000
feet to the 100-feet resolution of policy specifics and details, the magic dust
seemed to dissipate as it emerged from the clouds, and those details were too
often more autopilot than reset. But this was a big picture speech, and there is
room later to make those course corrections on policy detail.
Here then are ten quick thoughts:
1. The Mother of All Resets
The president’s speech literally in one fell swoop will have much of the Muslim
world and certainly elites, opinion leaders, and activists scratching their
heads and recalibrating their stance toward America. Yes, for everyone the proof
of the pudding will be in the eating, what comes next and whether policy changes
on specific issues. The immediate effect though is to buy America space and
time. It gives those who share an affinity with American values a new lease of
life, causes the majority who are not hostile to the US but deeply skeptical of
its intentions to reconsider and suspend judgment, and it will induce in
America’s enemies a splitting headache.
At a most basic level, the president managed to connect. He spoke humbly and
touched on buzz words for this audience, discussing dignity, justice, and the
truths we hold in our hearts. He even uttered the word colonialism and mentioned
denial of rights and cold-ward proxies. Obama evoked Islam’s contribution to the
world and to America, and yes, he quoted t he Quran. Above all, he restored
balance, confining the label of enemy only to those violent extremists who
threaten America’s security, while opening up to the vast majority of practicing
Muslims, including, I would argue, Islamist movements.
2. In Cairo the Conversation with Political Islam Began
By narrowly focusing on al-Qaeda as the enemy and apparently articulating an
understanding of the non-al-Qaeda Islamist narrative, the president seemed to
extend a tentative but visibly unclenched fist to mainstream political Islam. It
is those Islamist movements that we should be most closely watching in the weeks
and months ahead as they begin to work through their own responses to the new
administration.
Obama seemed to implicitly accept20the legitimacy of political Islam and its
role in the democratic process while challenging it to unequivocally reject
violence against civilians. There was a stark contrast, for instance, between
the president’s message to al-Qaeda (we will defeat you if you threaten us) as
compared to his message to Hamas (whom he addressed directly as having a role to
fulfill Palestinian aspirations and unify the Palestinian people).
The president’s historical analogies may not have been the best ones. In
discussing the nonviolent resistance of black America to the “lash of the whip”
in achieving equal rights he obviously made a powerful and reasonable point but
one that may be more relevant to a Palestinian struggle for a one-state
democracy rather than for national liberation and de-occupation. By claiming
that the same story can be told in South Africa and elsewhere, he simply rewrote
history – the ANC did of course use armed resistance in their struggle as did so
many other successful liberation movements.
That said, Obama’s effort to carry the argument in somewhat symp athetic terms
to the Palestinian resistance–“violence…rockets…is not how moral authority is
claimed; that is how it is surrendered”–was a valiant one and should be
encouraged, not least in Israel. I might be reading too much into this but the
speech could be seen as an acknowledgement that a process that engages Hamas is
more likely to produce results than one that does not.
Responding immediately on al-Jazeera, Ahmed Yusuf, advisor to Gaza Prime
Minister Haniyeh, lavished praised on Obama’s “Martin Luther King-like speech”
and his rejection of the clash of civilizations discourse while defensively
questioning his call for Hamas to accept the international community’s three
preconditions (end violence, accept past agreements, recognize Israel).The
distinction though was clear and the years of wrong-headedly lumping together
the Salafist jihadis of al-Qaeda with the Muslim Brothers of Hamas or the
Hezbollah movement is over.
3 . Regaining the Moral Clarity of 9/11
Almost eight years on, there it was, an American president explaining to the
world what happened on that day and the war of necessity against al-Qaeda that
was launched in its wake. It was an important moment in resetting and
reconfiguring for international and Muslim public opinion what happened then and
has happened since. It is also perhaps the most damning indictment of all for
the Bush presidency that in 2009 such a reiteration by an American president is
so necessary.
President Obama also reissued a clear statement of America’s interests across a
range of issues from getting out of Iraq and achieving a Palestinian state to
its goals in Afghanistan, and shared values with so much of the Muslim world in
promoting basic freedoms, religious pluralism, women’s rights, and development.
4. Finally a President Who Can Talk to Palestinians
Obama’s words on the Palestinian situation were not remarkable for his advocacy
of a two-state solution, his mentioning of Palestine, or his opposition to the
settlements. All of that we have heard before, and in fact, the speech gave
precious little by way of actually articulating a plan for Palestinian
de-occupation and statehood. But that was also its strength.
The idea of a Palestinian state, even before it exists, has lost much of its
luster and appeal for Palestinians precisely because American and Israeli
leaders talked about statehood as a technical fix for a Palestinian problem, in
exclusively economic, governance, and security terms. In so doing, they ignored
or demeaned and denied the Palestinian narrative and made the whole arrangement
sound rather unappetizing.
Today, President Obama began to redress that. PA capacity and economic
opportunities were something of a footnote. And thankfully, the building of
Palestinian security forces was not even mentioned.
Instead Obama spoke a language that actual Palestinians could relate to,
recalling the 60-year “pain of dislocation,” the “wait in refugee camps”
(without in the same breath emasculating the refugees of any rights). He spoke
of humiliation, occupation, and an intolerable situation – in other words,
Palestinian daily reality. Only after recognizing the Palestinian experience did
he chart the course for achieving “the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for
dignity,” namely, via a Palestinian state. This shift in discourse may be lost
on most American ears, not so for Palestinians and in the Arab and Muslim world,
and it begins to give Obama a moral authority that will allow him to address
this issue in speaking directly to the Palestinian people above the heads of
their divided leadership.
5. Shimon Peres Could Not Have Done a Better Job
In what is becoming classical Obama, he at the same time presented perhaps the
most compelling justification and explanation of Israel’s rights and its
existence ever spoken in an Arab and Muslim capital. No Israeli has ever done a
better job, he is a true friend. In the most unequivocal of terms and in a
speech that so captured Muslim world attention, Obama placed the notions of
threatening Israel’s destruction, stereotypes of Jews, and Holocaust denial, as
being irredeemably beyond the pale and unacceptable. And he reaffirmed America’s
“unbreakable bond with Israel.”
Tellingly, if unsurprisingly, it is these messages that are leading the Israeli
news coverage of the speech. While the government of Benjamin Netanyahu may be
squirming in discomfort at Obama’s reasoned and repeated calls for a settlement
freeze,=2 0for reopening Gaza, and for Palestinian statehood, the Israeli public
will, I think, be both reassured and keen to believe in the hope for change and
a better future for them also.
One imagines too that the day is not so far off for an honest, empathetic, and
home-truths Obama speech to Israel and the Jewish world. Expect that speech to
be not only well-received but also to bring us dramatically closer to finally
ending the Arab-Israeli conflict and achieving that two-state solution. Obama’s
use of the phrase, “align American policies with those who pursue peace,” will
also be noted in Jerusalem. Finally, by referring to “Jewish homeland” rather
than a Jewish state, Obama, I think, studiously avoided giving succor to the
slew of racist laws being presented in the new Israeli Knesset.
6. Policy Details – More Auto-Pilot Than Reset.
In a speech that I genuinely think carries game-changing potential for so many
issues that America and the Muslim world are caught up in, there was virtually
nothing new in detailed policy terms. That is very probably due to the nature of
the speech, and the detailed policy changes might follow in the coming months.
But if they don’t, Cairo will go down as a moment of unrequited promise and
opportunity.
On Israel-Palestine, we dusted off the Road Map (yet again), a Bush relic that
should have long ago been filed in the trash can, and the Afghanistan and Iraq
plans still do not sound too convincing. It’s unclear how even Obama’s more
sophisticated version of democratization will be advanced with America’s
staunchest and most democracy-resistant allies, and the way forward with Iran
remains opaque. Noteworthy, too, was that in a speech stating that America has
no designs on maintaining military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued
American military footprint elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world was not
touched upon.
7. Hosni Mubarak and the Perils of Playing Host
Egypt’s rulers would no doubt have been mortified had this speech taken place
anywhere else in the Arab or Muslim world. There is an understandable Egyptian
sense of pride in their history and sense of longing to still be considered the
region’s leading power. Having landed those hosting rights, Mubarak’s regime
today had to live with the consequences. Obama spoke to his audience and to the
Egyptian people, and in an interesting break from past practice, his
presidential host Mr. Mubarak was not even mentioned let alone lavished with
praise. It will not go unnoticed.
Obama did mention Egypt’s Christian Coptic minority and of course spoke to human
rights and people choosing their own governments to loud applause. So much for
all the neocon bleating before the speech about Obama being a valueless realist
ready to sell freedom-spirited Egyp tians down the river. I was not there, but a
sense of being empowered almost seemed to echo around the room at Cairo
University and well beyond, and it might have major implications for Egypt and
the region that will be played out in the coming years.
And finally, we have an American president who avoided the Pavlovian repetition
of how American support for the Egyptian regime is so linked to Egypt’s historic
peace with Israel. The way that linkage has played out – that America goes soft
of non-democratic tendencies in the Arab world as long as they are pro-Israel –
has done a great disservice to the public perception of not only peace but also
of America and even Israel.
8. More Hand Less Fist on Iran
There was even some encouragement for Obama’s Iran policy in today’s speech. It
was beginning to look disturbingly like the Obama administration would be
brandishing the stick of sanctions in one hand and the stopwatch of deadlines in
the other, thereby leaving no hand free to shake any prospective Iranian
unclenched fist. Obama moved beyond that. Many will point to his
acknowledgement of history: “The United States played a role in the overthrow of
a democratically elected Iranian government,” as being the money line. It’s
true that is a big deal and goes further than what was said in his Norouz
message. However, I think this was more important, if not entirely new: “any
nation- including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power
if it complies with its responsibilities under the NPT.”
The president also had this intriguing chestnut to share on nuclear
nonproliferation: “I understand those who protest that some countries have
weapons that others do not.” Now I may be a bit Israelocentric in how I look at
the world but this sounds like a not too subtle hint to me. Might this be a kind
of “yes – we acknowledge there is a double standard here regarding the Israeli
nuclear issue, and eventuall y we will get to that too.” It won’t be a headline,
Israel will officially ignore it, and when asked Obama’s spokespeople will
obfuscate but in more than a few capitals, including Jerusalem, a parsing
industry will grow up around those few words.
9. Giving a Finger to the Purple Finger Theory of Democratization
Obama did it. He reclaimed the democratization agenda by placing it in a broader
context as a set of rights and freedoms, and by going on to address religious
pluralism, women’s rights, and the challenge of adapting economic development
and modernity to traditional values. To be honest, it’s not a particularly
difficult one to pull off, but to give him his fair dues, Barack Obama does do
it better than anyone else. And there’s something of a new policy here, timely
with the Lebanese election elections next week: “…we will welcome all elected,
peaceful governments20- provided they govern with respect for all their people.”
The genius was in the pivot. Obama respected Islamic tradition and religious
piety, and for instance, a woman’s right to wear the hijab, and he then pivoted
that into a broader discussion of the values of female education and women’s
rights, placing those things in seamless harmony rather than in contradiction.
After an American president who was perceived as doing so much to sow division
in the Muslim world, one of Obama’s most powerful lines was undoubtedly,
“fault-lines must be closed among Muslims… the divisions between Sunni and Shia
have led to tragic violence,” and all this couched in a constant appeal to young
people.
10. And He Was Also Speaking to the American Public
After years of fear-mongering, Islamofascist awareness weeks on campuses, and
tens of millio ns of copies of the vile “Obsession” DVD appearing in newspapers
and mailboxes, yet another, no less important, reset button was pressed today.
The president will no doubt be accused of apologetics and moral relativism, but
he decided to face this head-on, to go to Cairo, speak with respect and honesty
to the Muslim world, and to do what was best for America’s national security
interests.
In so doing, he was also broadcasting a message back home. Most American Muslims
will no doubt be feeling a great sense of pride and inspiration from this
speech. The rest of America was given a timely and even touching reminder of the
contributions that American Muslims have made to this country and that Muslims
have given the world in general. Oh, and there might have even been a little
message in there upping the ante, for Congress and even for his own party–“I
have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”
Daniel Levy, an expert in international security issues notes as follows (reprinted with permission)
***
10 Comments on Obama in Cairo –
Still Accumulating, Not Expending Capital
The Obama team’s remarkable wordsmithery and the president’s unparalleled
capacity for delivery were exquisitely on display again today in Cairo. But this
speech should perhaps be remembered as much for what was not said. Gone was the
arrogance and lecturing: there was no lavishing of praise on Egypt’s
undemocratic leader – the word ‘Mubarak’ was not even mentioned once. Out too
was the purple finger version of democratization and even the traditional
American condescension toward the Palestinian narrative. But perhaps most
remarkably of all, the words ‘terror’ or ‘terrorism’ did not pass the
president’s lips. Here was a leader and a team around him smart enough to
acknowledge that certain words have become too tainted, too laden with baggage,
their use has become counter-productive, today the Global War on Terror framing
was truly laid to rest.
Particularly striking was that President Obama almost certainly has emerged from
the Cairo speech having accumulated additional capital rather than expending
it, with greater popularity, traction, and respect among not only his ostensible
target audience, the Muslim world, but also globally, including at home in
America and even in Israel and with the world’s Jewish community. His future
leverage across a range of issues has been enhanced.
It’s true that whenever the speech descended from the lofty heights of 30,000
feet to the 100-feet resolution of policy specifics and details, the magic dust
seemed to dissipate as it emerged from the clouds, and those details were too
often more autopilot than reset. But this was a big picture speech, and there is
room later to make those course corrections on policy detail.
Here then are ten quick thoughts:
1. The Mother of All Resets
The president’s speech literally in one fell swoop will have much of the Muslim
world and certainly elites, opinion leaders, and activists scratching their
heads and recalibrating their stance toward America. Yes, for everyone the proof
of the pudding will be in the eating, what comes next and whether policy changes
on specific issues. The immediate effect though is to buy America space and
time. It gives those who share an affinity with American values a new lease of
life, causes the majority who are not hostile to the US but deeply skeptical of
its intentions to reconsider and suspend judgment, and it will induce in
America’s enemies a splitting headache.
At a most basic level, the president managed to connect. He spoke humbly and
touched on buzz words for this audience, discussing dignity, justice, and the
truths we hold in our hearts. He even uttered the word colonialism and mentioned
denial of rights and cold-ward proxies. Obama evoked Islam’s contribution to the
world and to America, and yes, he quoted t he Quran. Above all, he restored
balance, confining the label of enemy only to those violent extremists who
threaten America’s security, while opening up to the vast majority of practicing
Muslims, including, I would argue, Islamist movements.
2. In Cairo the Conversation with Political Islam Began
By narrowly focusing on al-Qaeda as the enemy and apparently articulating an
understanding of the non-al-Qaeda Islamist narrative, the president seemed to
extend a tentative but visibly unclenched fist to mainstream political Islam. It
is those Islamist movements that we should be most closely watching in the weeks
and months ahead as they begin to work through their own responses to the new
administration.
Obama seemed to implicitly accept20the legitimacy of political Islam and its
role in the democratic process while challenging it to unequivocally reject
violence against civilians. There was a stark contrast, for instance, between
the president’s message to al-Qaeda (we will defeat you if you threaten us) as
compared to his message to Hamas (whom he addressed directly as having a role to
fulfill Palestinian aspirations and unify the Palestinian people).
The president’s historical analogies may not have been the best ones. In
discussing the nonviolent resistance of black America to the “lash of the whip”
in achieving equal rights he obviously made a powerful and reasonable point but
one that may be more relevant to a Palestinian struggle for a one-state
democracy rather than for national liberation and de-occupation. By claiming
that the same story can be told in South Africa and elsewhere, he simply rewrote
history – the ANC did of course use armed resistance in their struggle as did so
many other successful liberation movements.
That said, Obama’s effort to carry the argument in somewhat symp athetic terms
to the Palestinian resistance–“violence…rockets…is not how moral authority is
claimed; that is how it is surrendered”–was a valiant one and should be
encouraged, not least in Israel. I might be reading too much into this but the
speech could be seen as an acknowledgement that a process that engages Hamas is
more likely to produce results than one that does not.
Responding immediately on al-Jazeera, Ahmed Yusuf, advisor to Gaza Prime
Minister Haniyeh, lavished praised on Obama’s “Martin Luther King-like speech”
and his rejection of the clash of civilizations discourse while defensively
questioning his call for Hamas to accept the international community’s three
preconditions (end violence, accept past agreements, recognize Israel).The
distinction though was clear and the years of wrong-headedly lumping together
the Salafist jihadis of al-Qaeda with the Muslim Brothers of Hamas or the
Hezbollah movement is over.
3 . Regaining the Moral Clarity of 9/11
Almost eight years on, there it was, an American president explaining to the
world what happened on that day and the war of necessity against al-Qaeda that
was launched in its wake. It was an important moment in resetting and
reconfiguring for international and Muslim public opinion what happened then and
has happened since. It is also perhaps the most damning indictment of all for
the Bush presidency that in 2009 such a reiteration by an American president is
so necessary.
President Obama also reissued a clear statement of America’s interests across a
range of issues from getting out of Iraq and achieving a Palestinian state to
its goals in Afghanistan, and shared values with so much of the Muslim world in
promoting basic freedoms, religious pluralism, women’s rights, and development.
4. Finally a President Who Can Talk to Palestinians
Obama’s words on the Palestinian situation were not remarkable for his advocacy
of a two-state solution, his mentioning of Palestine, or his opposition to the
settlements. All of that we have heard before, and in fact, the speech gave
precious little by way of actually articulating a plan for Palestinian
de-occupation and statehood. But that was also its strength.
The idea of a Palestinian state, even before it exists, has lost much of its
luster and appeal for Palestinians precisely because American and Israeli
leaders talked about statehood as a technical fix for a Palestinian problem, in
exclusively economic, governance, and security terms. In so doing, they ignored
or demeaned and denied the Palestinian narrative and made the whole arrangement
sound rather unappetizing.
Today, President Obama began to redress that. PA capacity and economic
opportunities were something of a footnote. And thankfully, the building of
Palestinian security forces was not even mentioned.
Instead Obama spoke a language that actual Palestinians could relate to,
recalling the 60-year “pain of dislocation,” the “wait in refugee camps”
(without in the same breath emasculating the refugees of any rights). He spoke
of humiliation, occupation, and an intolerable situation – in other words,
Palestinian daily reality. Only after recognizing the Palestinian experience did
he chart the course for achieving “the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for
dignity,” namely, via a Palestinian state. This shift in discourse may be lost
on most American ears, not so for Palestinians and in the Arab and Muslim world,
and it begins to give Obama a moral authority that will allow him to address
this issue in speaking directly to the Palestinian people above the heads of
their divided leadership.
5. Shimon Peres Could Not Have Done a Better Job
In what is becoming classical Obama, he at the same time presented perhaps the
most compelling justification and explanation of Israel’s rights and its
existence ever spoken in an Arab and Muslim capital. No Israeli has ever done a
better job, he is a true friend. In the most unequivocal of terms and in a
speech that so captured Muslim world attention, Obama placed the notions of
threatening Israel’s destruction, stereotypes of Jews, and Holocaust denial, as
being irredeemably beyond the pale and unacceptable. And he reaffirmed America’s
“unbreakable bond with Israel.”
Tellingly, if unsurprisingly, it is these messages that are leading the Israeli
news coverage of the speech. While the government of Benjamin Netanyahu may be
squirming in discomfort at Obama’s reasoned and repeated calls for a settlement
freeze,=2 0for reopening Gaza, and for Palestinian statehood, the Israeli public
will, I think, be both reassured and keen to believe in the hope for change and
a better future for them also.
One imagines too that the day is not so far off for an honest, empathetic, and
home-truths Obama speech to Israel and the Jewish world. Expect that speech to
be not only well-received but also to bring us dramatically closer to finally
ending the Arab-Israeli conflict and achieving that two-state solution. Obama’s
use of the phrase, “align American policies with those who pursue peace,” will
also be noted in Jerusalem. Finally, by referring to “Jewish homeland” rather
than a Jewish state, Obama, I think, studiously avoided giving succor to the
slew of racist laws being presented in the new Israeli Knesset.
6. Policy Details – More Auto-Pilot Than Reset.
In a speech that I genuinely think carries game-changing potential for so many
issues that America and the Muslim world are caught up in, there was virtually
nothing new in detailed policy terms. That is very probably due to the nature of
the speech, and the detailed policy changes might follow in the coming months.
But if they don’t, Cairo will go down as a moment of unrequited promise and
opportunity.
On Israel-Palestine, we dusted off the Road Map (yet again), a Bush relic that
should have long ago been filed in the trash can, and the Afghanistan and Iraq
plans still do not sound too convincing. It’s unclear how even Obama’s more
sophisticated version of democratization will be advanced with America’s
staunchest and most democracy-resistant allies, and the way forward with Iran
remains opaque. Noteworthy, too, was that in a speech stating that America has
no designs on maintaining military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued
American military footprint elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world was not
touched upon.
7. Hosni Mubarak and the Perils of Playing Host
Egypt’s rulers would no doubt have been mortified had this speech taken place
anywhere else in the Arab or Muslim world. There is an understandable Egyptian
sense of pride in their history and sense of longing to still be considered the
region’s leading power. Having landed those hosting rights, Mubarak’s regime
today had to live with the consequences. Obama spoke to his audience and to the
Egyptian people, and in an interesting break from past practice, his
presidential host Mr. Mubarak was not even mentioned let alone lavished with
praise. It will not go unnoticed.
Obama did mention Egypt’s Christian Coptic minority and of course spoke to human
rights and people choosing their own governments to loud applause. So much for
all the neocon bleating before the speech about Obama being a valueless realist
ready to sell freedom-spirited Egyp tians down the river. I was not there, but a
sense of being empowered almost seemed to echo around the room at Cairo
University and well beyond, and it might have major implications for Egypt and
the region that will be played out in the coming years.
And finally, we have an American president who avoided the Pavlovian repetition
of how American support for the Egyptian regime is so linked to Egypt’s historic
peace with Israel. The way that linkage has played out – that America goes soft
of non-democratic tendencies in the Arab world as long as they are pro-Israel –
has done a great disservice to the public perception of not only peace but also
of America and even Israel.
8. More Hand Less Fist on Iran
There was even some encouragement for Obama’s Iran policy in today’s speech. It
was beginning to look disturbingly like the Obama administration would be
brandishing the stick of sanctions in one hand and the stopwatch of deadlines in
the other, thereby leaving no hand free to shake any prospective Iranian
unclenched fist. Obama moved beyond that. Many will point to his
acknowledgement of history: “The United States played a role in the overthrow of
a democratically elected Iranian government,” as being the money line. It’s
true that is a big deal and goes further than what was said in his Norouz
message. However, I think this was more important, if not entirely new: “any
nation- including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power
if it complies with its responsibilities under the NPT.”
The president also had this intriguing chestnut to share on nuclear
nonproliferation: “I understand those who protest that some countries have
weapons that others do not.” Now I may be a bit Israelocentric in how I look at
the world but this sounds like a not too subtle hint to me. Might this be a kind
of “yes – we acknowledge there is a double standard here regarding the Israeli
nuclear issue, and eventuall y we will get to that too.” It won’t be a headline,
Israel will officially ignore it, and when asked Obama’s spokespeople will
obfuscate but in more than a few capitals, including Jerusalem, a parsing
industry will grow up around those few words.
9. Giving a Finger to the Purple Finger Theory of Democratization
Obama did it. He reclaimed the democratization agenda by placing it in a broader
context as a set of rights and freedoms, and by going on to address religious
pluralism, women’s rights, and the challenge of adapting economic development
and modernity to traditional values. To be honest, it’s not a particularly
difficult one to pull off, but to give him his fair dues, Barack Obama does do
it better than anyone else. And there’s something of a new policy here, timely
with the Lebanese election elections next week: “…we will welcome all elected,
peaceful governments20- provided they govern with respect for all their people.”
The genius was in the pivot. Obama respected Islamic tradition and religious
piety, and for instance, a woman’s right to wear the hijab, and he then pivoted
that into a broader discussion of the values of female education and women’s
rights, placing those things in seamless harmony rather than in contradiction.
After an American president who was perceived as doing so much to sow division
in the Muslim world, one of Obama’s most powerful lines was undoubtedly,
“fault-lines must be closed among Muslims… the divisions between Sunni and Shia
have led to tragic violence,” and all this couched in a constant appeal to young
people.
10. And He Was Also Speaking to the American Public
After years of fear-mongering, Islamofascist awareness weeks on campuses, and
tens of millio ns of copies of the vile “Obsession” DVD appearing in newspapers
and mailboxes, yet another, no less important, reset button was pressed today.
The president will no doubt be accused of apologetics and moral relativism, but
he decided to face this head-on, to go to Cairo, speak with respect and honesty
to the Muslim world, and to do what was best for America’s national security
interests.
In so doing, he was also broadcasting a message back home. Most American Muslims
will no doubt be feeling a great sense of pride and inspiration from this
speech. The rest of America was given a timely and even touching reminder of the
contributions that American Muslims have made to this country and that Muslims
have given the world in general. Oh, and there might have even been a little
message in there upping the ante, for Congress and even for his own party–“I
have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”
Daniel Levy is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation and a Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation.
During the Barak Government, he worked in the Prime Minister's Office as special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit under Minister Haim Ramon. He also worked as senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin. He was a member of the official Israeli delegation to the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians in January 2001, and previously served on the negotiating team to the “Oslo B” Agreement from May to September 1995, under Prime Minister Rabin. In 2003, he worked as an analyst for the International Crisis Group Middle East Program. Daniel was the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative and prior to joining The Century Foundation and New America Foundation was directing policy planning and international relations at the Geneva Campaign Headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Levy received a Bachelors and Masters with Honors from King’s College, Cambridge; he was awarded prizes in Social and Political Science and was Scholar of the College. He served as World Chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students in Jerusalem from 1991 to 1994 and as Projects Director for the Economic Co-operation Foundation, a policy planning think-tank in Tel Aviv. He has published extensively in a broad range of publications including Ha’aretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Boston Globe, United Press International, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The International Herald Tribune, and more.
During the Barak Government, he worked in the Prime Minister's Office as special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit under Minister Haim Ramon. He also worked as senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin. He was a member of the official Israeli delegation to the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians in January 2001, and previously served on the negotiating team to the “Oslo B” Agreement from May to September 1995, under Prime Minister Rabin. In 2003, he worked as an analyst for the International Crisis Group Middle East Program. Daniel was the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative and prior to joining The Century Foundation and New America Foundation was directing policy planning and international relations at the Geneva Campaign Headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Levy received a Bachelors and Masters with Honors from King’s College, Cambridge; he was awarded prizes in Social and Political Science and was Scholar of the College. He served as World Chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students in Jerusalem from 1991 to 1994 and as Projects Director for the Economic Co-operation Foundation, a policy planning think-tank in Tel Aviv. He has published extensively in a broad range of publications including Ha’aretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Boston Globe, United Press International, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The International Herald Tribune, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment