This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
What the Moslem world Thinks
Published on June 6, 2009 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The venue was carefully chosen and the words well crafted as well as only Barack Hussein Obama can. The US President's speech at the University of Cario will go down in history as the speech that marked the end of an era of hostility in the Middle East and is as important for peace in the region as the Fullton speech of Sir Winston Churchill was in staring the Cold War. If peace could be achieved by making pretty speeches there would be no need for statecraft and dipplomacy. Afterall Thucydides was well aware of this when he wrote of hte Corcyrean Affair, the dispute between Corinth and Athens that really started the Peloponesian War.  The University of Cairo was the home of Ibn Khandun, the most famous historian of the Arab world in the thirteenth century and Barack Obama was certainly in the right locale to give a grand speech. If Sir Walter Scott is to be believed even Sir Richard the so called lion heart, admired the minarets of the Great Mosue near the University.

People from across the World weccomed the speech as it is for the first time that a serving US President has stated unequivocally that the Holocaust was a terrible price to pay for freedom and by implication recognised that the Palestenian Uprising of 1948 called Nakba was also a significant event. Popular iconography has enshrined the horrors of the Holocaust in the minds of people across the world by we have been largely ignorant of the horrors of the Nakba, when a whole people were uprooted and sent into oblivion. This particulat recognition of the moral equivalence between the two horrible events will not go down well with the Israeli Right Wing but will find broad acceptance all over the region. The US President has spoken clearly of the need to put an end to the new settlements that are coming up in the West bank. I think the commitment to a viable two state solution to the problem has been strongly stressed by the President. The Jewish intellectual Gideon Levy has stated that Obama  "walked with wisdom and sensitivity between the Holocaust and the Nakba between Israelis and Palestenians, between Americans and Arabs between Christians, Jews and Muslims. Finally we have a President who is using the immense bully pulpit of the American Presidency to walk the peace talk.

Ecven in Iran the reaction has been muted. With the Iranian Presidential elections round the corner, all the candidates keenly followed what the US President had to say.  While the talk of nuclear negotiations did not occupy much space, the President made it clear that he seeks a new relationship.

The US Administration has begun the long overdue task of redefing itself, reinventing the American Identity as it were in the region. There is a new dawn of peace and I wish that it is sustained.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 09, 2009

There is a new dawn of peace and I wish that it is sustained

I agree 100%, for the sake of the world and the generations to come; peace is needed.

on Jun 12, 2009

still think that an African-American President should be the one who actually helps Africans for once. George Bush was fairly good about Africa, but Obama seems to forget the continent again.
He shouldn't even have mentioned Israel. It's the smallest conflict in the region, it deserves the least attention.
The
Then he should have said that the US gets nothing but hatred in return

An intyeresting set of issues are raised here.

It is not true that US does not have a fund of goodwill in the Arab world. The great asset of USA is the "soft ware" of American popular cukture and the entire Arab world raps and jives to music lifted from the USA.

Now when it comes to high politics and diplomacy things are different.

I do not think USA should get involved in Darfur. What is happening in Darfur is tribal warfare and nothing more. The interests of the "civilised world" are not affected by the crisis in Darfur.

Obama will not abandon Africa, but Africans must learn to pull themselves up and not expect the rest of the world to give out doles ans susidise their cruel, despotic tin-pot dictators.

on Jun 12, 2009

I do not think USA should get involved in Darfur. What is happening in Darfur is tribal warfare and nothing more. The interests of the "civilised world" are not affected by the crisis in Darfur.

Not now. Not yet. But if the Arabs are not stopped from killing hundreds of thousands of Africans, what will stop them from trying the same thing with us when they have the chance?

It is true that we are not Africans so when they come after the Africans, why should we speak up?

And then maybe they will come after the Jews next, when Israel falls, and the west will not speak up.

But what happens when they come after the west? Will anybody be left to speak up?

 

Obama will not abandon Africa, but Africans must learn to pull themselves up and not expect the rest of the world to give out doles ans susidise their cruel, despotic tin-pot dictators.

The issue here is that the rest of the world handed over Sudan to Arab rulers. we handed over millions of Africans to their murderers. It is our responsibility.

 

on Jun 12, 2009

Not now. Not yet. But if the Arabs are not stopped from killing hundreds of thousands of Africans, what will stop them from trying the same thing with us when they have the chance?

It is true that we are not Africans so when they come after the Africans, why should we speak up?

And then maybe they will come after the Jews next, when Israel falls, and the west will not speak up.

But what happens when they come after the west? Will anybody be left to speak up?

You know, you really sound like you have a thing against Arabs. Might try having a disclaimer? Otherwise you really come across bigoted.

*shrugs* Just making an observation, so don't take it personally, you know?

on Jun 12, 2009

You know, you really sound like you have a thing against Arabs. Might try having a disclaimer? Otherwise you really come across bigoted.

*shrugs* Just making an observation, so don't take it personally, you know?

You should hear me talk about Germans in the context of World War 2.

 

on Jun 13, 2009

I think Leauki's articles defending Islam the faith vs terrorism really speaks to the contrary. I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with him but I don't see him as a bigot. Arab here is a catch-all term for nation-states, not a statement against anyone with Arabic ancestry.


Or at least that's what I'm getting.

on Jun 13, 2009

Or at least that's what I'm getting.

That's pretty much it.

At some point it gets tiresome to add a disclaimer to every sentence. And I have seen lots of people refer to agents of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany during World War 2 as "Germans" without anyone ever thinking that hatred for Hitler's policies or ideology constitutes some sort of irrational anti-German bigotry.

Similarly "the Japanese" were America's enemy in World War 2, and "the Chinese" were enemies in Korea (despite the fact that the "Republic of China", i.e. Taiwan) was fighting on America's side.

Those who call it an "Arab-Israeli conflict" certainly don't mean to say that every single Israeli and every single citizen of an Arab country are involved in individual spit fights.

For what it's worth, my favourite Israeli politician is an Arab. And his views of "the Arabs" (i.e. the agents of Arab governments and their supporters) and what to do with terrorists (not the same as Arabs) are pretty much the same as mine.

(Incidentally, I am German and my views of what to do with German Nazis are pretty much those as well.)

 

 

 

on Jun 15, 2009

You should hear me talk about Germans in the context of World War 2.

 

Again, like I said, just making an observation. I already stand corrected and all, but not everyone will know about your articles.

on Jun 15, 2009

I already stand corrected and all, but not everyone will know about your articles.

That is a good point.

However, the world will at some point have to get used to the fact that one can speak about the Arabs like almost everyone thinks they ought to speak about Israel. The important difference is that the claims I make about the Arabs (i.e. agents of Arab nationalist regimes) are true.

There really is a genocide going on in Sudan. And there really exists slavery in Arab countries. It is not bigotry to point that out.

Usually, the way it works is that someone makes some claim about Israel and then complains that "criticism of Israel" is called "anti-Semitism", hence giving oneself permission to propagate whatever lie about Israel one happens to like best, since "criticism of Israel" isn't anti-Semitism. And voila, all the old stories about the Jews are back, packaged into a "it's not the Jews, it's Israel" package.

On the other hand, saying bad things about "the Arabs" is bigotry, even if the statements are true.

It is a fact that _the Arabs_, the same Arab League who criticise Israel for its "inhumane treatment" of the "Palestinians", commit and condone the murder of hundreds of thousands of Africans and the enslavement of Christian Africans. I think it is plain racism to ignore that fact when one decides to believe their claims about the evils of Israel.

 

 

on Jun 21, 2009

Charles ain't afraid to point out the anti-semitism & hypocrisy of BO.

2 Pages1 2