A great deal has already been said about Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday, the full text of which is here.
Rather than add to the voices I thought it would be interesting to try something never before done on this blog, aggregating. The three major Israeli newspapers the JPost, Ynet and Haaretz have published a great deal on the Israeli reaction to Obama's speech in Cairo and paper by paper, I'll try to capture the message of each, here.
Haaretz's report on the speech itself focused on the venue of the speech, its references to Israel and Palestine as well as some comments on Obama's meeting with the Egyptian president. It did not cover Obama's outline of the reform Obama says is needed in the Muslim world.
It goes on to discuss Israel's official reaction to the speech. Officially, it was a positive optimistic reaction that the speech would usher in a new era in the middle east. The opposition Kadima, however, used the speech as an opportunity to suggest that the current Israeli government was on the wrong side of US policy.
Turning from Israel, Haaretz reports on initial reaction to the speech from the wider Middle East noting Hizbollah called the speech a "sermon" while Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president was more appreciative. Iraq was also more receptive to the speech while Iran said it was basically a hollow gesture.
In his column, Gideon Levy considered the speech a favour to Israel in that it challenged right wing perspectives and was a change from Bush. One that walked a fair, balanced line and would elicit change.
Finally, Haaretz publishes this analysis, elegant in its simplicity, that Netanyahu will have to choose between those firmly on the right in his coalition, a realignment of the coalition with the opposition Kadima or a rejection of Obama's vision of Israel's middle east obligations.
The JPost article about the content of the speech itself focused on issues that concern Israelis--peace and Iran--but also went further and did touch on the other issues raised by Obama, such as the spread of democracy and women's rights.
The JPost also notes that while the Palestinian Authority and Hamas both were pleased with the speech, they doubted that Israel would heed any of it. The article also noted a mixed reaction in the rest of the Arab world.
The JPost also noted the official Israeli reaction to the speech and pointed out that Israelis were briefed on its content before it went ahead, but otherwise, the article does not provide any novel information not in Haaretz.
This analysis published in the JPost by the head of NGO Watch suggests that because Israel is, for a number of reasons, more susceptible to pressure by the US than are Arab governments, the speech was unfair. He suggests that it naively ignored the incitement and hate directed against Israel in official, academic and clerical circles which fuel the conflict in the middle east. The article argues that fundamental Arab change is needed, not just nice speeches.
Caroline Glick, a notable right-leaning columnist in the JPost suggests that it's important to realize "that the White House is deeply hostile toward Israel." She suggests that the US may be indenting to create a political crisis in Israel that would overthrow the current government. She also argues that Obama was long on rhetoric, some of it unacceptable to her, and short on ideas for how to move some of this rhetoric forward.
This article indicates that the Israeli right is deeply "shocked" that Obama drew parallels between the Holocaust and the Nakbah. It lists many of the complaints of this side of the Israeli political spectrum and also points to an interesting survey in which the largest group of respondents (less than 50%) indicated that they believe that Obama favours Arab interests over Israeli ones.
Finally from the JPost, a scorecard of what was said that was good for Israel (that the US stands firmly with Israel and rejection of holocaust denial), what was bad (linking the Holocaust and the Naqba and leniency on Iran) and what not to worry about too much (that the speech was all about appeasement.)
Ynet's article on the speech itself also focused on issues relating to Israel but also touched on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no other aspects of Obama's speech.
Ynet reports on the Israeli reaction to the speech and in addition to official lines from the government it reports on the comments of some key players, like Labour defense minister Barak and Israel Beytanu Foreign Minister Lieberman.
The Ynet article on Muslim reaction to the speech goes beyond Palestinians and the middle east and includes Pakistani reaction to the speech. It also has a great picture of Hamas men, armed, lounging around watching the speech.
This Ynet op-ed suggests that Obama now needs to follow his meaningful words with meaningful action and that Netanyahu needs to get his act together and fall in with the US or be ripped apart by the winds of change from the US.
This Ynet op-ed replicated the elegant analysis of Netanyahu's choices in the wake of Obama's speech that appears in Haaretz. It implies that the clock has really run out for Netanyahu and he has to choose where he stands, in favour of his job, or in favour of what will most benefit his country.
This latter point is continued here in Ynet by suggesting that Netanyahu has no clear policy on moving forward and that this leave Israel in the position of a ship adrift without a captain. It is yet another call for the Israeli Prime Minister to 'just do something!'
Finally, this last column in Ynet suggests that Obama's approach is naive. It focuses on what it sees as obsticals which really are not and suggests that Obama is turning his back on much bigger problems that he should be looking at first, before he turns to Israel.
Finally, on a personal "thought" note, I want to ask and answer a rhetorical, very politically incorrect question. Obama says in his speech "...that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." The overwhelming majority of the world, I would suppose, would agree that Palestinians have a right to a state. My question is, why? There has never been a Palestinian state in all of history. Palestinian nationalism seems only to have really risen in response to Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and prior to the creation of Israel, Palestinians did not clamour for a state of their own from any of the countries that occupied that region, be it the Turks, the British, the Syrians, the Jordanians or the Egyptians. Similarly, many may argue that Palestinians missed multiple opportunities to establish their own state. The first chance would have been alongside Israel in 1948 and most recently to have made a counteroffer rather than flatly reject the attempts at brokering peace by Clinton. Why should a people that have never had a state, and who have passed on chances to have a state, be given the right to a state?
The question is rhetorical. The answer should be fairly clear. Palestinians are and consider themselves to be a culturally distinct people from other Arabs. They are a unique people with their own aspirations and at once reject Israeli sovereignty over them and are not accepted by any other Arab country. Perhaps rightly so, as they consider themselves to be different. People in such a situation should have their state. Something like the one that was available to them in 1948 and that takes into account all the history since then.
I suppose my purpose in raising this rhetorical question is that to my mind, part of what Obama is saying to Palestinians is: if you want a state, you're entitled to one, and I'll try to get you one, but you need to first act like you deserve it. Renounce violence. Build. Govern responsibly. Act like a state, and ye shall have one.
Turkey, Russia, and the US in Syria
1 year ago