Obama's Speech in Cairo

[Surlethe]

NPR

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do -– to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -– and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people —Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action — whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations — including my own — this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities — those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort — a sustained effort — to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

I haven't read it through yet, but when I do I'll comment.

[KrauserKrauser]

Well I hit the tldr point after the third issue but I did get a "ZING!" moment with the bitchslapping of Holocaust deniers. I bet Iran won't like that talking point very much.

I see he has still has his asinine "No Nukes Ever!" stance but at least realizes that pursuing it is politically retarded.

Overall not a bad block of text, though I would probably fall asleep halfway through if listening to it live.

[lazerus]

Read the whole thing, you tldr'ed through some excellent speech-giving. Particularly his points on womens rights. Overall, a suberb speech with his usual thoughtful speaking style -- I can only see this doing good things for the way America is viewed in Egypt.

[Rahvin]

I thought it was excellent as well. I really can't understand how someone could say they'd "probably fall asleep halfway through." I couldn't stop reading it.

I particularly liked the way Obama specifically addressed the need to combat intolerance of Muslims in the US. It's important to recognize that "they" aren't the only ones with extremists and hardliners - how many Americans suggest just nuking the Middle East entirely? Granted, I don't believe almost any of them are serious, but it still demonstrates a harmful mindset that isn't going to help calm things down in the future.

[xerex]

that speech had my entire gym riveted. and the Cairo audience seemed to love it to.

[Feil]

Some interesting and surprising highlights amongst the expected platitudes:

Saying what we all were thinking about Netanyahu's pigheadedness with regard to the settlements - I'm sure this won't be received well by the Israel-fellating apocalypse cultist brigade in America.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."


Throwing away one of the pillars of the Bush Doctrine:

"So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."


Opposing the Turkish and French secularism policies:

"Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism."

[Thanas]

This speech was highly idealistic, masterfully written and quintessentially american.

Whether it will be followed up with deeds instead of running into the grim wall of reality depends to be seen.

[Chris OFarrell]

And the Republitards are already coming out screaming "OMG, Obama didn't offer 4000% support to Israeli!!!!"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/ ... political/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama's speech to the Muslim world on Thursday faced mixed reaction abroad -- and a very clear directive at home from Republicans and conservatives: The United States cannot ruin its relationship with Israel.

President Obama delivered a major speech to the Muslim world Thursday in Cairo, Egypt.
Speaking in Cairo, Egypt, the president took on the heated and controversial Palestinian-Israeli conflict by reaffirming that the U.S. favors a two-state solution and urging compromise between "two peoples with legitimate aspirations."

The United States, he said, "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

Those Jewish settlements are spread throughout the Palestinian-controlled West Bank. Israel maintains the settlements are needed, while Palestinians say they are an obstacle to the peace process.

Calling America's "strong bond" with Israel "unbreakable," he said, "It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied." Watch Obama discuss Israel »

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to the Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday, said that a freeze of settlement activity is not reasonable. Read about reaction in the Middle East

In his speech Thursday, Obama noted the aspirations and grievances of both sides and cautioned, "But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth." He exhorted Palestinians that "resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed."

House Minority Leader John Boehner blasted Obama's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian question.

"He seemed to ... place equal blame on the Israelis and the Palestinians. I have concerns about this," the Ohio Republican said. "The Israelis have the right to defend themselves."

Boehner's Republican colleague, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, added that "there was a sense in here of a moral equivalency between those who are driving for a Palestinian state and the state of Israel."

Don't Miss
Transcript of Obama's speech (PDF)
Obama's speech receives mixed reviews in Middle East
Obama draws questions, praise from Muslims
Commentary: Amen, Mr. President
Pence said the president should not be asking Israel to make another concession, but instead, "call on the Palestinians and their supporters across the Arab world to begin to see real concessions within the Palestinian movement. ... a real effort to defang Hamas, to disarm terrorists."

Obama said that the controversial Hamas movement -- which controls Gaza, near Egypt, and has significant support among Palestinians -- must end violence and recognize past agreements.

Marc Thiessen, a former Bush administration speechwriter, noted that Obama "announced a major shift in U.S. policy in the Holy Land."

"In 2002, President Bush declared in his Rose Garden address that America would only engage 'Palestinian leaders not compromised by terror,' " Thiessen wrote on National Review Online. "In Cairo today, Obama reversed this policy ... This is naïve and dangerous."

Republican strategist and CNN contributor Ed Rollins said Obama may have further soured relations with Israel. Watch more of Obama's speech in Egypt »

"I think the key thing here that he has to worry about is that he clearly drew the line and set some standards that the Israelis may not go along with," he said.

But another concern on the radar came this week from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- an often-talked-about 2012 GOP presidential candidate.

Romney said that Obama needs to stop using foreign soil to apologize for U.S. relations, in what he calls an "tour of apology."

Romney took aim at Obama's plans to trim the missile defense budget a "grave miscalculation" that puts the nation at risk in the face of urgent threats like Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Obama reiterated Thursday his desire to move forward with Iran on many issues, but said when it comes to nuclear weapons, "we have reached a decisive point."

"This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path," he said.

Any nation, including Iran, "should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," the president added.

Other Republican opponents, meanwhile, decry Obama for seemingly apologizing for U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking to a mostly Muslim crowd, Obama said the United States entered Afghanistan by "necessity" and not "choice," he countered the stances of some "who "question or justify the events of 9/11."

He addressed the conflict in Iraq, calling it unlike Afghanistan "a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world."

"Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible," he said.

Thiessen was sharply critical of Obama on that point.

"He made no mention of democracy in discussing Afghanistan. He made no mention of democracy in discussing Iraq. He made no mention of the advance of freedom in the Middle East that has taken place in recent years, or any commitment to continue it," he wrote.

"Indeed, he said Iraq was a "war of choice" but then said a moment later that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. Well, was it a good choice then?" he said.

And then came the contentious issue of closing Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility.

Speaking about prohibiting torture and the closing of Gitmo, Obama talked about working on "concrete actions to change course" and correct abuses in the war on terror.

"Just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals," he said.

But that's one point of contention for Boehner -- along with Republicans and even some Democrats -- who do not want detainees on U.S. soil, and demand a clear plan going forward.

"When it comes to Guantanamo Bay, he again today made it clear he wants to close Guantanamo without having a plan in place for what to do with those detainees that are there," Boehner said.

But not all conservatives are so quick to blast Obama's speech.

Andrew Sullivan, a conservative who supports many of Obama's policies, said the speech touched on spiritual and human differences.

"At its heart, the speech sprang, it seemed to me, a spiritual conviction that human differences, if openly acknowledged, need not remain crippling," he wrote on his Atlantic.com blog. "It was a deeply Christian -- and not Christianist -- address; seeking to lead by example and patience rather than seeking to impose from certainty."


Thiessen, while mostly critical of what Obama had to say in his much-anticipated speech, did offer some reluctant praise.

"He took on the conspiracy theories about 9/11 ... And he pointed out that al Qaeda has 'killed people of different faiths, more than any other, they have killed Muslims.' All these are important points."

[Jim Raynor]

I gotta love Fox News's misleading coverage of this event. Earlier today, their home page had a picture of Obama with the big bold caption "Embracing Islam."

Later, they picked out the all of two sentences in the speech directed at Hamas, which called for Hamas to stop its violent bullshit for the benefit of the Palestinian people, and somehow twisted that into Obama inviting a terrorist group to talk and be friends.

EDIT: They ran that under the headline "Obama's Terrorist Invite"

This is the actual passage in question:

"Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist,"

Not very controversial, is it? But Fox News focused on the words "play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations" and made it out as if Obama wants Hamas to dominate Palestine.

The actual article puts a propagandistic slant on the whole thing, calling this "an apparent policy shift." It later explains things in slightly better and more even-handed detail, but much of the bullshit is in the headline and the first few paragraphs, which is mostly the only part that people read. If you read the retarded user comments attached to the article, Fox's choir played right into its tricks.

Their headlines seemed to change with to change within hours (even for the same article), but they're always big, bold, and exagerated. Perfect for fear mongering.

[SAMAS]

Apparently, two Right-wing pundits have claimed that Obama had deliberately avoided saying the word "democracy". Never mind the fact that he says it four times in the speech.

[Alyeska]

John Stewart had a wonderful comment about Fox news.

"You openly advocated military overthrow of the governments in the middle east, but you stop short of actually talking with them."

[Patrick Degan]

Apparently, two Right-wing pundits have claimed that Obama had deliberately avoided saying the word "democracy". Never mind the fact that he says it four times in the speech.

Isn't it wonderful how easy "news and analysis" is when you're not burdened by those pesky standards of truth and accuracy in reporting?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Apparently, two Right-wing pundits have claimed that Obama had deliberately avoided saying the word "democracy". Never mind the fact that he says it four times in the speech.

It's all about perspective. Anything less than 25 times is considering avoidance. I consider 25 an average number for buzz words used in right wing speeches.

[Prannon]

I got an email from my dad, who lives in Cairo, with an except from an Egyptian blogger. A lot of it has some fairly subjective right wing stuff in it, but I figured I'd post it here for others to analyze. It certainly lays bare the conservative points of view on the speech, as well as Obama's policy to the region. I highlight some interesting points and add some of my own comments in red.

When it was announced that Obama would choose Cairo as the venue for his awaited Speech to the Muslim World, I was filled with rage. Here was another manifestation of Obama’s lack of interest in Democracy promotion and human rights. Appeasement was the word that came to my mind. My problem with his speech however was not limited to the venue alone. The idea of a speech to the Muslim World itself was problematic to begin with. In choosing to address the Muslim World, the Obama administration has signaled out its confirmation of the existence of such an entity in the first place and thus danced to the region’s propaganda tunes.

The ridiculous nature of such a choice can become clear when one imagines a similar address by a President, American or any other, to the Christian World. Such a speech would be greeted with utter disbelief. What is the Christian World anyway would be the question. No sensible politician would ignore differences between nations and categorize them according to religion. The only such example that would come to mind would be Osama Bin Laden’s addresses to the Christian World, since for him the world is such divided, but for an American President to do so!

In choosing to give this speech millions of diverse people were categorized by their religion and the region’s myth was accepted. Regardless of one’s nationality, diverse regional problems, or one’s adherence to the religious doctrine itself, all were united in this speech. Such a notion would include nations as far apart as Mali and Indonesia.

The second disturbing aspect of the speech itself is problem of Islam itself. The issue is simplified by some by the question of who speaks for Islam, but the question is much deeper: What is Islam in the first place? Like any religion Islam is a huge pool of ideas that can work in harmony or in conflict and like any other religion its traditions and in a great sense its set of beliefs has been shaped differently in various countries on the basis of history, geography and culture. In that sense there are many Islams and not just one which one can address. It is not only the extremist’s Islam and the moderate’s Islam, but the Egyptian version of Islam as opposed to that of Saudi Arabia. It is the version of Islam in Mali as opposed to that in Afghanistan. Again like any religion it is ridiculous to categorize it in one form or to address it as one entity. Bin Laden speaks for Islam just as Sheikh Tantawey speaks for it and both can find the supporting text for their ideas just as both the Crusaders and John Paul II could do the same. Perhaps Ali Ibn Abi Talib was the earliest to see this when he said referring to the Koran: “The Book has many Faces”.

Moving away from the idea of the address itself, one has to wonder what the goal is in the first place. Like any political action a certain goal is set and thus measured upon. I must say it utterly escapes me what the goal of such a speech is. Is the goal to inform the audience that America is not at war with Islam? Well who believes that such a war exists in the first place except the conspiracy theorists in the “Arab/ Mulsim World” and should one acknowledge their theories? (Are you serious?) It is of course besides the point to argue that such an audience would not be convinced. The minds that live on the conspiracy theory will not change their minds suddenly because of a few words by the ONE. (BUT, their rhetoric will be discredited if Obama and the US doesn't reinforce it like W did. Plus for those who aren't violent, it'll be easier to like the US if the US says things they like.) The “Hate America crowd” will continue with their hatred for in reality their hatred is not based on substance but on ignorance, intolerance and a set of fascism that has overtaken a region since the 30’s. The speech thus is only a song for the choir, the internal and the external ones. The leftist audience in the US and their lunatic fellows in Europe will rejoice at the speech as a break from their imagined Bush policies and the external audience in the “Muslim World” will explode in joy at the ONE’s gesture towards them. Outside of that no clear goal was evident to my unintelligent eyes.(Glad you're honest. [/sarcasm])

The venue itself is of course personally disturbing. As an Egyptian it is utterly disgusting to see the American President ignoring all American and universal values and appeasing an authoritarian regime. Mubarak’s regime which has been the cornerstone of the maintenance of the region’s continued state of repression was being given a gift of the first class. It is only ironic that Obama would choose to speak from a capital that embodies all the values that America stands against. Appeasement to such a regime is not only wrong but absolutely dangerous as 9/11 has taught us. It would be stupid of the American administration to think that such a speech is addressed to the Egyptian people who were besieged in their houses for his visit and who’s daily lives he disturbed.(I'd really like to ask my parents what their Egyptian friends thought of the speech, or of the fact that Obama spoke in Egypt.) Those people who have been under a military dictatorship for the past 56 years whether in its totalitarian form under Nasser or in its authoritarian form under Sadat and Mubarak, were obviously the least suitable for his speech. If such a speech was to be delivered in the first place a better venue should have been chosen. A democratic country, where personal and religious freedoms were established would have been much more suited for his speech if he had intended to talk to the region’s people and not their authoritarian leaders and hate filled elites. Baghdad would of course had been perfect, but so would many others. The idea that the Muslim World consists only of dictatorships is naïve. There is no Islamic problem with democracy or a vacuum of freedom within it. Such a vacuum exists only in the so called “Arab World”. Many Muslim countries if countries can be categorized by religion are available from Albania to Indonesia and from Turkey to the Maldives. To ignore all these options and choose Egypt can only be viewed as a slap on the face to all the democracy activists in the region and to the values that Obama supposedly stands for.(Obama went to the root of current US foreign policy dilemmas, which happens to be in the Middle East and the cradle of the Islamic World. The impact would have been far less had he spoken in Istanbul or Jakarta.)

With this anticipation or more precisely the lack thereof I awaited his speech and the impact it would have. Obama’s speech seemed to be generating a lot of results even before it began. The Egyptian regime whishing to look in its best form before the eyes of the ONE and the rest of the world embarked on a huge program of renovation and cleaning. Cairo University was cleaned as it had never been before and its dome shined as it had never shined. Every street that Obama would pass through was cleaned and decorated. The intense renovation program by the government led to Egyptians joking that they wanted Obama to visit every street and district in Cairo so that the whole city can be cleaned.

The speech itself of course held no surprises. Obama as a great speaker was the most suitable for his skeptical audience. This should not be however interpreted as a huge success. Obama received the numerous claps, but only when he played to the audiences previously held ideas or as the Sandmonkey once put it “when he gave them a hand job”. Their masturbation session was complete and the audience reached its orgasm with every line about Palestine or appeasement to their world view, but Obama received an utter silence when he discussed other issues. The parts on the Holocaust and 9/11 were met with a complete lack of reaction.

Obama’s speech was however disturbing to me in what he did say and what he chose to ignore. Let us begin by what he said.

Obama framed the tension between the West and Muslims as a tension rooted in history from religious wars to colonialism. Here Obama fell prey to the “Muslim World’s” interpretation of the conflict and not to the conflict as it is. (What better way to communicate with someone than to start where they see things? That's usually what I do whenever I have a problem with a friend. I start the dialogue there, not end it.) To argue that the Crusades or the imperialist era is the root of the current conflict, Obama chose the Bin Laden vision of the world. The current conflict is not rooted in religious wars by any side nor is it rooted in occupation. The current conflict is rooted in modernity and the clash between a modern world and a pre modern fascist movement that is the child of Hitler and Mussolini.(Bullshit. From what I understand of history, Arabs tend to hold a resentment against the West for not helping them create a state pf their own after helping them during World War I. How many times have we heard the Crusades used to incite anger among Muslims? And how about the long Islamic decline into oblivion since their heyday back in the European Middle Ages, and watching the unbelieving Europeans overtake them and dominate them? It's like saying that the Iranian Revolution, the terrorist actions of the 80s and 90s, and 9/11 had no effect on how Americans view Muslims. There has long been a historical antipathy between Westerners and Islam, and this was not rooted in any way with Hitler or Mussolini.) The Crusades are not part of the story here neither is the Islamic invasion of the region in the 6th century. Colonialism is also not related and was not in any term a religious conflict. As to the Cold War’s treatment of Muslim-majority countries as proxies without regard to their own aspirations, one has to wonder whether the same could not be said on his own actions ignoring those who aspire to be free in the region.

Obama’s second framework for his speech is that of a suspicion towards Islam that was built after 9/11. Here again Obama fell prey to such lunacy held ideas as the existence of Islamophobia.(It does exist though. We've seen it in attacks against Muslims here in the states and the broad, sweeping statements given by some people who say that region should be nuked. Hell, I'd say we even see it when people say that there's no chance for Democracy to ever take root in a Muslim country. Prejudice doesn't have to be outright to exist you know.) Such a notion only serves to crush any serious debate of actions undertaken by people and where they originate from. Such a term has been the easiest way out for oppressive regimes and fascist elites not interested in self examination and not capable of standing in front of a serious examination.(Excuses exist, but so does denial.)

The third dominant idea throughout his speech is that of a new beginning. This new beginning would be based on respect and that America and Islam are not in competition. While the notion of a conflict between a Democratic State and a world wide religion is laughable in the first place as no such conflict can exist, Obama’s insistence on framing it as such only plays once again to the region’s conspiracy theories defining the Bush years as against Islam or as part of the Crusades.(To be fair to the blogger, personally, I don't think Bush intended for his wars to be anti-Islamic. It's just that his policies were simple minded to the point that that's what it became.)

Moving through the speech Obama chose to ignore facts and to invent ones when necessary. While Islamic centers of learning were indeed beacons of light in the Middle Ages, Al Azhar was certainly not. The Mosque and the School were both built after the decline of intellectual freedom and innovation in the Muslim world. Al Azhar did not play the role that Cordoba, Baghdad or Cyprus played in the exchange of culture and innovation. Al Azhar stood for the exact opposite. It stood for the repression of free thought and innovation.

In choosing the Tripoli Treaty of 1796 as his example, Obama also played freely with the facts. The Tripoli Treaty was a bribe paid by the young nation to pirates after their Ambassador in London informed Thomas Jefferson that “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.” Having no Navy capable of fighting those pirates the US paid them $1 million a year. The Treaty was broken after the US decided not to pay the bribe anymore and in reality the first relationship between America and that part of the world was war and not peace. The first war America fought after its independence was against Berber Pirates in Tripoli and was followed by the second Barbary War in 1815.

Obama also sited a number of American Muslims that is outside any factual estimate. The City University of New York has put the number at 1.1 milion, the Glenmary Research Center at 1.6 million, the World Factbook at 1.8 million, and the Pew Research Center as 2.4 million. The number of 7 million is only used by such organizations as CAIR.

Moving on to the 7 issues Obama discussed, one has to applaud his courageous words on 9/11. Obama words could not have been sharper when he said; “These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with”, but Obama has failed to give the intellectual moral framework for the conflict. Being no George Bush, Obama chose not to call it evil and to frame the conflict as Bush did as that of Islamofascism against the world. He thus failed to put the conflict in perspective of the world’s fight against its likes before from Nazism to Communism. Being also no Bush and lacking his clear perspective(This makes me laugh inside. This is what I mean when conservatives laud Bush for being "determined," and "holding true to his beliefs" regardless of their actual consequences.) he choose to define the Iraq War as a war of choice and not as a fight against Fascism just as Afghanistan is. He also fell prey to the region’s fantasies regarding torture and double standards by America. The War on Islamofascism is not contrary to American ideals, it is the embodiment of those ideals.

On the question of Israel and Palestine, Obama was courageous enough in his first words on the unbreakable bond between America and Israel. Such words while true take a lot of courage to state in front of such an audience. Also courageous and clear was his statement on the Holocaust and his condemnation of its denial. What lacked however was the conclusion. Why did the Holocaust take place and how can we make sure it never happens again? How can we stop Anti Semitism from rising and how can we stop a nuclear Iran from repeating history?(The author speaks from a purely pro-Israel stance, which there would be nothing wrong with so long as there weren't actual, real Palestinian grievances.) These are the questions Obama left unanswered. Also left unanswered is the major question of why the Palestinian people have suffered so much and the region’s role in that suffering? It is utterly hilarious to discuss the Palestinian intolerable situation in Gaza or the West Bank while ignoring their equally intolerable situation in Lebanon.(If I recall correctly, Obama criticized Arab states for ignoring Palestinians and only using them as a distraction issue for their populations. Plus, is a Palestinian state gonna be carved out of Southern Lebanon or Western Jordan? No? Why not focus on Gaza and the West Bank then?) Such set of thinking is all too common in the region, but that does not make it acceptable for Obama to follow suit. In a real discussion of the issue one has to question the region’s real interest in solving the conflict or helping the Palestinians. His statements on the two-state solution were clear enough although they ignored all the evidence proving such a solution unattainable currently. For a Palestinian State to be established Obama discussed institution building but was completely silent on democracy and combating extremism not in deeds alone but on the textbooks that ensure the continued cycle of violence.(Hamas was elected in a democratic election. What? Just sayin'...) In using the term “Arab Israeli Conflict”, Obama again fell prey to the region’s version of history. While a Palestinian Israeli conflict exists and needs to be addressed, an Arab Israeli one is only an invented mechanism of the region’s authoritarian regimes to continue to ignore their people’s real needs and aspirations in pursuit of an invented conflict.

On the Iranian question Obama talked as little as possible, but his talk was troubling. The conflict between America and Iran is not one of decades of mistrust, it is between two ideas, two sets of values and two world views. Iran is not a case of a misunderstanding that leads to lack of trust. (Sure it is. From what I know of history, Iranians were quite resentful against the US for helping to overthrow the Prime Minister in the 50s and install the Shah. It follows that religious figures would use that to their advantage. History does play a role, and there is mistrust between two sides. The author also ignores the fact that nations will often bluster openly, but still talk to each other quietly and with some pragmatism.)Iran has been very clear in where it stands and no illusions exist on that matter. The real question is what to do about it.

Perhaps shorter than his discussion of Iran was his mention of democracy. While it is true that no system of government can or should be imposed on one nation by another, it is also true that no system of government can or should be imposed on a nation by one man, one party or one ideology. While Obama was clear that ideas of democracy, the rule of law and a transparent government are not an American idea, but a human right, he fell silent on how he would support them.(He said it, didn't he? Does he have to continue to send money to Iranian dissident groups that might prove counterproductive in the future? We already know that Iran has a functioning democracy of some sorts. It's better in the long run to let it evolve on its own. Personally, given that even Ahmadenijad is criticized in his own country for needlessly antagonizing the West, there is a sane element to their society.)

In his Religious freedom paragraphs, Obama chose again to play with facts. While it is true that Andalusia had a proud history of tolerance such words can not be said on the whole Islamic history. Those centuries were filled with peaceful coexistence as they were also filled with religious intolerance, Dzimmi Status and persecutions. Indonesia, which Obama mentions is a current example of that with its religious conflicts between Christians and Muslims. To try to pass modern notions born out of modernity such as human rights, religious freedom and democracy on a pre modern religion is naïve. The idea that a modern ideal such as tolerance is part of Islam is as laughable as an argument that Jesus Christ’s answer on giving the coin to Caesar is a deeply rooted secularism in Christianity. Pre modern religions, ideologies and values are not related to modernity. As to his comments regarding charitable giving rules on America, one is left wondering what exactly he means. Should rules on one religion’s charitable organizations be different from the others? Also ambiguous is his comments on Muslims being barred from practicing religion in Western countries. While Turkey’s practices and laws against Hijab are disgusting and illiberal, one is left wondering on the lack of comment on forcing Hijab on girls that are 6 or 8 years old.

This brings us to women’s rights. While anyone viewing a veiled women as less equal is disgusting, one wonders where those people exist? Whom in the West has promoted such notions? While it is also true that Muslim countries have elected a Women President while the United States has not, such a measurement of women’s rights is extremely simplistic and naïve. Obama failed to address real issues that women face in the region from family killings, arranged marriages to violence and humiliation against women.Did he have to? The author was right! He didn't see that the purpose of the speech wasn't to preach to Muslims about how they need to fix everything, but instead to say "hey, we're not all bad, and we don't want to be at war with your religion!" The former certainly creates resentment more than it fixes the problem.)

What Obama did not mention however is as important as what he did. He only touched on issues of democracy, human rights and religious freedom. He chose to ignore the plights of the people in the region whom can not choose their own lives and fortunes. He made no reference to the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that rule the region and whose policies and ideologies destroyed not only its present people but generations to come. What he most ignored was a challenge to Muslims for self examination and thus an opportunity to reach a real understanding of one’s self and the world around him. In this Obama fell silent and in this he failed. Having no clear strategy in my view for his address(Lies. The strategy isn't what you wanted it to be. Obama wanted to speak to Muslims in general and Arabs in particular as equals and as friends. He would rather Obama speak as a guiding, but stern mentor, professor, and priest of all Democracy as he understands it!), the address will fade away as soon as the realities on the ground become clear. Those who are living in the alternative universe of the conspiracy theories will not change their minds and those of us who seek a better world have gained little. One lesson however is absolutely clear. For those Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese who fight for their freedoms in their countries, who believe in the values of democracy and the rule of law have lost a Friend in the White House and have gained an ENEMY. (I can turn your logic around on you. You obviously feel as George W. Bush does when it comes to Democracy promotion at all costs. You never wanted Obama to be your friend. This speech would never change your mind otherwise, since you felt that way before it was given much as the Muslim lunatics will always hate America and the West.) For someone who fights for his freedom there is only two options: You are either with me or against me. (Forgive me if I'm not inspired by the words of Darth Vader and W, whose views on things were too simple for their own comprehension.)

[Guardsman Bass]

That red text is hard to read, Prannon.

In any case, reading the speech, it seems pretty good. He made a direct attack on the settlements (all versions of them) in Israel, among other things. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if he can hold it up - Bush I tried something similar when he held up loans for Israel back in the late eighties/early nineties to re-settle Russian Jews in Israel, and he ended up having to go around and make serious political apologies and the like to pro-Israel groups in the 1992 election.

[Chris OFarrell]

The difference being that Obama, unlike more recent Presidents, is not beholden to anything LIKE the kind of web of special interest groups that stop them from criticizing and taking action. His base is the general population of the US far moreso then anyone else recently in the office.

And its not as if he would be going against all of the Israelis or anything, about half of them from what I can see agree with what he has said, its just that the other half scream much louder and use every single dirty trick they can to push their agenda. This speech I think was far more about reaching out to the common guy in the Middle East then their leadership, and its something he actually has a chance of making work.

Obama is the first US President in a long time with both the ability AND will to stand up to the 'Jewish Lobby'...and that has the right wingers in both the US and Israel VERY worried (ten bucks says that the first Republicans who stood up screamed about Obama daring to equate in any way Israel with Hamas as obstacles to peace were 'prompted' by certian 'people' to do so) that he might actually crack that whip if they keep ignoring him.

[Prannon]

ACK! Redundant post deleted...