Meh. Bush’s speech arguably had even more pointed digs at Egypt, and moreover Bush made a point during his tenure of not giving Mubarak/Egypt the priority they think they deserve in ME affairs.
I’d reckon Mubarak will put up with all the veiled rebukes Obama wants to dish out on human rights or whatever provided O doesn’t actually do anything to force the issue. That’s not a knock on O, it’s just an acknowledgement that it’s comparitively easy to give a speech that gets all the heads nodding; actions are a different matter entirely.
ETA: agree entirely on the Holocaust talk – it’s very smart for multiple reasons.
Didn’t you ask this same question in another thread recently…and receive an answer already?? The short answer is that it’s an apples to mangoes comparison…the Israeli-Egyptian conflict was nothing like the situation between Israel and the Palestinian’s. Carter was able to help resolve the conflict between Israel and Egypt because they hadn’t been in direct conflict for years before that, and both sides were able to trust the other, at least to the extent that meaningful dialogue was possible. Egyptians hadn’t been launching periodic rocket attacks on Israeli towns at random intervals. They hadn’t been strapping on explosives and visiting local Israeli malls, or blowing up buses or cafes from time to time. On the other side, Israel hadn’t needed to periodically launch air strikes or send troops into Egypt to attack militants there.
Of course, other than those small differences, it’s exactly the same…all we need is another Carter!
The critical difference being that Egypt and Israel wanted peace. Some mediation helped, but that settlement was politically possible for both sides, and it’s quite possible, in fact likely, it would have happened without Carter or with some other intermediary.
Israel and Palestine, such as Palestine exists, do not want peace on terms either can accept. You can see the typical Arab response upthread; "sure, we want peace, providing Israel is no longer really Israel anymore (the effective result of allowing right of return.) The Israelis, meanwhile, can’t seem to stop the creation of “settlements” and propose Palestinian states that are topologically insane, like jigsaw puzzles dropped out of their boxes.
I’m sure he’ll do more.
I’m sure he’ll fail.
In a way - a very small way - I am sympathetic to George W. Bush. He was the worst President of my lifetime and the Iraq War was a horrible fiasco, but if you read up on the thought behind it you can kind of see the kernel of an idea behind their optimistic lunacy; the idea that “Holy shit, the Middle East is an unfixable mess, we need to really do something radical to fix it.” The theory was if those countries were liberal democracies or something approximating it maybe a political solution would suddenly become possible. Maybe by breaking it you could rebuild it in a way that worked. How could things get worse, right? I think, through all his stupidity and the ease with which he was manipulated by Cheney and his bobos, Bush really had the optimistic outlook he claimed to, that he really thought this was the first step towards peace somwhere down a long road.
But it was all insane, of course; they had a plan for breaking it but not so much for the rebuilding and of course it just made things worse. Of course democratic Middle Eastern governments would be much better, for the most part, but you can’t make their politics for them, not even - especially not even - at the end of a gun.
But I actually think it was not easy to give a speech that would get all heads nodding. Obama had a very difficult set of requirements to satisfy: he had to make significant overtures to the Muslim world, while not giving ammo to Stateside conservatives, and while also not letting Arab leaders/states off the hook, while yet not throwing Israel under the bus, etc., etc. Sure Bush talked smack about Mubarak. But Bush was hated by almost every Arab leader, so Bush’s outreach was a failure. Obama had to navigate a minefield, and one thing that made his speech so good was the degree to which he succeeded. I agree that actions need to follow words, but he did a fabulous job of setting the stage.
I think you give Bush far too much credit. Obama is much more pragmatic both in speech and policy and that pragmatism could be the common ground that could lead to some kind of uneasy peace. A US president that sympathetically speaks of Palestine’s plight is one willing to go rounds with an intransigent Israeli Prime Minister
This doesn’t have anything to do with what I wrote about Bush’s approach, so I don’t see how I’m giving Bush credit. I really didn’t give him any credit at all beyond being optimistic, which is the credit you always give to idiots.
Lebanon is holding elections on June 7th, but Hezbollah and its allies may win a Parliamentary majority, so it will be interesting to see the US response. Of course, Lebanon isn’t strictly a Muslim country (and some of Hizbollah’s allies are, strangely, right wing Christians).
The Palestinians are funded by outside interests for the purpose of eliminating Israel. When that paradigm shifts to a desire for statehood it will happen as quickly as the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Nah, that’s just the Taliban showing the locals why they’ve got the moral high ground. It’s right up there with being proud of your service to humanity when you gun down an abortion doctor in church. I’f the Obama-lama keeps talking this kind of talk and keeps our actions clean, then the Taliban only need to blow up a couple hundred more Muslims before our prez can turn focus his gaze on his own lands. The Middle East will clean itself up.
And as it happens the “pro-Western” faction won and larger than expected ( 68 seats to 57 ). This was rather a surprise to at least some observers as, though it was predicted to be close, it was thought the results would more likely edge in the other direction.
It has been argued in some corners that Lebanon is potentially a bit of a bellweather and might indicate that dialogue/alignment with American interests is, in the Obama era, no longer quite as tainting or anathema as it once was. The Cairo speech in particular has been talked up as a significant shift in tone ( far more so than in substance ) that has helped ease tensions at least a tad. Hard to say at this close a remove and if it’s a positive step, it’s certainly a baby one.
But anything is better than nothing and it will be interesting to see how the Iranian elections play out.
You’re infinitely more optimistic than I if you think the Middle East will clean up centuries of inter-faction strife in such a wee amount of time, as is our President.
IMHO, this is going to get much uglier before ever having the chance of getting better. Pakistan, and their nuclear arsenal, is the infinite prize.
