I wish I had read this before I blogged about the Cairo speech. On Friday the Glenn Kessler and Jacqueline L. Salmon reported Using New Language, President Shows Understanding for Both Sides in Middle East in the Washington Post. But if you read the article, it doesn’t match the headline. It shows that the President showed understanding of the Arab/Muslim side in the Middle East. And it seems, at least from the sources interviewed, that it was deliberate.
In the report we read:
Yet he also seemed to draw an equivalence between Jewish and Palestinian suffering, noting “the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation.”
He said they were “two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive.”
For some hawkish Israelis, the comparison was too much. Aryeh Eldad, a member of parliament with the National Union party, decried what he called “a shocking parallel between the destruction of European Jewry and the suffering that the Arabs of Israel brought upon themselves when they declared war on Israel.”
“[S]eemed to draw?” The President didn’t seem to draw a parallel; he did it rather explicitly. He juxtaposed the discussion of the Holocaust and of the lack of the Palestinian homeland. One need not be a “hawkish Israeli” to find this objectionable. But apparently the juxtaposition is too subtle for reporters from the Washington Post. (Despite the President’s later denial of any comparison, given the amount of time and effort he put into writing it, I can’t believe that he didn’t intend it in his speech.)
Of course, this is the only Israeli voice quoted in the whole article. It’s the one view that the one the reporters dismiss. The rest of the voices (outside the administration) are those of Muslims.
The first, quoted by Obama as “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth,” is from Chapter 33, Verse 70, titled “Ahzab,” or “The Confederates,” and addresses the issue of those who are hypocritical in their faith and maintaining one’s faith in hard times. It was quoted by Muhammad in his final sermon before he died, and imams worldwide use it frequently in Friday sermons, said Jonathan Brown, a Muslim who is a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Washington.
When Obama used that verse, said Brown, “he wasn’t just quoting from the Koran, but he was doing what any Muslim preacher would do when speaking to an audience.”
Most striking to many Muslims was Obama’s use of the phrase “May peace be upon them” when referring to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It is a term of respect and reverence that Muslims use when referring, in speech or in writing, to such figures, and rarely is used by non-Muslims.
Well Jews do use the term “Alav ha-shalom” or “zichrono l’vracha,” though, admittedly we wouldn’t use those terms for Muhammad or Jesus. But again it shows that President Obama didn’t seek both sides, but only the Islamic side of the Middle East. Further we read:
Tariq Malhance, the president of the largest Muslim community center in Chicago, was invited to participate in one of the calls, and later he sent an e-mail to the White House urging Obama to “be mindful” that most Muslims around the world are not Arabs.
Almost two weeks ago, senior Obama advisers met with an even broader group of Muslim leaders at the White House, including activists and academics from across the political spectrum, according to participants. One of those at the meeting, University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, said the result was a speech that provided a far more specific description of Obama’s goals on a series of issues related to Muslims, Middle East peace and the Arab world.
“Now the pressure mounts, though, because expectations rise,” Telhami said. “Once you designate specific issues, people start looking for actions. This speech raises the stakes, and the pressure is going to mount to deliver something more than just a dialogue.”
Where was “both sides” in all these consultations as indicated by the title of the article? This was outreach to the Muslim world. But it was an exclusive outreach. It was a declaration of acceptance of the Arab narrative to the exclusion of the Israeli one.
So has the outreach borne fruit so far? Well Barry Rubin observes:
What is most surprising–at least for U.S. policymakers–comes from the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) official newspaper, Al-Hayad al-Jadida, written by its veteran editor, Hafez al-Barghouti. Presumably, he would not write something like this if the PA wanted a different response. According to the MEMRI translation he said:
“We do not expect the new American president to express hostility towards Israel or to demand that it dismantle settlements… He will remain hostage to the American imperialist interests, which are in tandem with [those of] the Israeli occupation….”
This is pretty hostile coming right after the most pro-Palestinian speech ever made by a U.S. president and the visit of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to Washington, not to mention the fact that the PA is the largest beneficiary per capita of U.S. funds in history and faces no U.S. pressure to live up to its obligations.
Meryl notes that it hasn’t gotten any more cooperation from Saudi Arabia either.
Or as Jennifer Rubin neatly sums it up:
Did Hamas amend its charter when I wasn’t looking? Did the Saudis recognize the Jewish state? Oh, no. What exactly has the U.S. government done other than antagonize Israel and give Iran the green light to pursue its weapons program?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
