Obama's Speech
President Obama gave an astonishing speech on Thursday in Cairo. On many subjects I thought the speech was revolutionary; on others he simply reiterated positions that had been spoken many times by other presidents. The responses in Israel ran the gamut from enthusiastic rejoicing to "We no longer have a friend in the White House."
The Israelis in general were very delighted by two things in particular. Obama stated very clearly that the ties between the United States and Israel were strong and "never would be broken." There is no doubt that the US is Israel's strongest ally and many here believe that the strategic alliance between the US and Israel is her most significant assurance of security. Many believe that this alliance is so important that to defy the US's demands in any area is to threaten Israel's future. So the assurance that Obama gave was welcome indeed. Secondly, Obama was very clear there, in the heart of Cairo before a very large audience of Muslim leaders from many countries, that Holocaust denial is wrong, ignorant, and hateful. As Mahmoud Achmadinejad is notorious in his denial of the Holocaust and Israelis consider Iran their greatest threat at the moment. Obama's statement was welcome indeed.
On those two points there is general agreement, but beyond that I found great divisions of opinion in the press. I read Ha'aretz (the left-wing paper with an English edition), The Jerusalem Post (a right-wing English paper) and Ma'ariv (a kind of middle of the road Hebrew paper). On the issue of the settlements, as you would expect there were comments on all parts of the spectrum. Obama said in very clear terms that the US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. He was referring to the continued expansion of settlements as well as the "illegal" outposts which Israel has never taken down, in spite of prior agreements to do so. The left-wing commentators are thrilled -- in their opinion Israel finally has a true ally in the White House who will speak truth and put teeth into policy. More than 70% of Israelis believe that the settlements are impediments to peace. Previous US presidents have urged Israel to freeze any expansion. Obama is obviously ready to back up his demand with sanctions. Those on the right, on the other hand, are furious. They believe Obama is forcing them to do something which they strongly believe is against Israel's interests. And of course the government -- Netanyahu -- is in a squeeze. If he accedes to Obama's demand he loses his coalition and his government. If he refuses, he faces possible sanctions.
Further, while the left is delighted that Obama is being tough on the settlements, the right is complaining bitterly that Obama did not make similar explicit requests of the Arabs. Their comments are bitter, even accusing Obama of racism. (In this country the term "racism" (גזענות) is not so much about skin color as it is about ethnicity.) Obama did "lay down the law" about terrorism, but of course that is much less specific than a freeze on building.
Obama expressed deep sympathy with Jews about the Holocaust, and in the next paragraph expressed sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Commentators on the right had many negative comments about this, interpreting the juxtaposition of these two situations as an expression of "moral equivalence" in the two situations. Lots of ink was spilled in explaining why this was a horrendous offense against the Jewish people. Frankly, I believe that Obama was expressing sympathy to two peoples who have suffered and the interpretation is another way of whipping up opposition to an American president who would dare to "tell Israel what to do."
Many commentators feel very strongly that Obama was not hard enough on Iran's nuclear ambitions and they are deeply concerned that Obama may support Iran's development of nuclear power for civilian purposes. Iran has developed long-range missile capability which can reach Tel Aviv. They point to North Korea which is supposedly developing nuclear power for energy purposes but now is testing long range missiles. I'm paying attention to this concern; it seems legitimate.
In my opinion, the most important thing that may happen as a result of this speech is hope on the left. We have watched the progressive parties here in Israel decline in the past decade to the point of being almost moribund. People here quote Obama: Yes we can!!! My strong desire is that the left here will catch this optimism and hope and will rouse themselves and say Yes We Can!!! My hope is that Obama will be seen as the strong ally that he is -- the strong friend who will speak the truth even when it is unwelcome. Because I believe, along with a large majority of Israelis, that Israel's security and future depend on secure and legitimate borders and separation from the Palestinian people who require the same. Two states for two peoples. We've known that this will be the solution for well over a decade. Everyone knows this. Obama brings the hope that we might actually see peace come to this region within our own lifetime.
B'shalom,
Pat
The Israelis in general were very delighted by two things in particular. Obama stated very clearly that the ties between the United States and Israel were strong and "never would be broken." There is no doubt that the US is Israel's strongest ally and many here believe that the strategic alliance between the US and Israel is her most significant assurance of security. Many believe that this alliance is so important that to defy the US's demands in any area is to threaten Israel's future. So the assurance that Obama gave was welcome indeed. Secondly, Obama was very clear there, in the heart of Cairo before a very large audience of Muslim leaders from many countries, that Holocaust denial is wrong, ignorant, and hateful. As Mahmoud Achmadinejad is notorious in his denial of the Holocaust and Israelis consider Iran their greatest threat at the moment. Obama's statement was welcome indeed.
On those two points there is general agreement, but beyond that I found great divisions of opinion in the press. I read Ha'aretz (the left-wing paper with an English edition), The Jerusalem Post (a right-wing English paper) and Ma'ariv (a kind of middle of the road Hebrew paper). On the issue of the settlements, as you would expect there were comments on all parts of the spectrum. Obama said in very clear terms that the US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. He was referring to the continued expansion of settlements as well as the "illegal" outposts which Israel has never taken down, in spite of prior agreements to do so. The left-wing commentators are thrilled -- in their opinion Israel finally has a true ally in the White House who will speak truth and put teeth into policy. More than 70% of Israelis believe that the settlements are impediments to peace. Previous US presidents have urged Israel to freeze any expansion. Obama is obviously ready to back up his demand with sanctions. Those on the right, on the other hand, are furious. They believe Obama is forcing them to do something which they strongly believe is against Israel's interests. And of course the government -- Netanyahu -- is in a squeeze. If he accedes to Obama's demand he loses his coalition and his government. If he refuses, he faces possible sanctions.
Further, while the left is delighted that Obama is being tough on the settlements, the right is complaining bitterly that Obama did not make similar explicit requests of the Arabs. Their comments are bitter, even accusing Obama of racism. (In this country the term "racism" (גזענות) is not so much about skin color as it is about ethnicity.) Obama did "lay down the law" about terrorism, but of course that is much less specific than a freeze on building.
Obama expressed deep sympathy with Jews about the Holocaust, and in the next paragraph expressed sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Commentators on the right had many negative comments about this, interpreting the juxtaposition of these two situations as an expression of "moral equivalence" in the two situations. Lots of ink was spilled in explaining why this was a horrendous offense against the Jewish people. Frankly, I believe that Obama was expressing sympathy to two peoples who have suffered and the interpretation is another way of whipping up opposition to an American president who would dare to "tell Israel what to do."
Many commentators feel very strongly that Obama was not hard enough on Iran's nuclear ambitions and they are deeply concerned that Obama may support Iran's development of nuclear power for civilian purposes. Iran has developed long-range missile capability which can reach Tel Aviv. They point to North Korea which is supposedly developing nuclear power for energy purposes but now is testing long range missiles. I'm paying attention to this concern; it seems legitimate.
In my opinion, the most important thing that may happen as a result of this speech is hope on the left. We have watched the progressive parties here in Israel decline in the past decade to the point of being almost moribund. People here quote Obama: Yes we can!!! My strong desire is that the left here will catch this optimism and hope and will rouse themselves and say Yes We Can!!! My hope is that Obama will be seen as the strong ally that he is -- the strong friend who will speak the truth even when it is unwelcome. Because I believe, along with a large majority of Israelis, that Israel's security and future depend on secure and legitimate borders and separation from the Palestinian people who require the same. Two states for two peoples. We've known that this will be the solution for well over a decade. Everyone knows this. Obama brings the hope that we might actually see peace come to this region within our own lifetime.
B'shalom,
Pat
posted by Frank and Pat Fischer at
9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home