June 30, 2009
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and MARC LACEY
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday strongly condemned the ouster of
Honduras’s president as an illegal coup that set a “terrible precedent” for the
region, as the country’s new government defied international calls to return the
toppled president to power and clashed with thousands of protesters.
“We do not want to go back to a dark past,” Mr. Obama said, in which military
coups override elections. “We always want to stand with democracy,” he added.
The crisis in Honduras, where members of the country’s military abruptly
awakened President Manuel Zelaya on Sunday and forced him out of the country in
his bedclothes, is pitting Mr. Obama against the ghosts of past American foreign
policy in Latin America.
The United States has a history of backing rival political factions and
instigating coups in the region, and administration officials have found
themselves on the defensive in recent days, dismissing repeated allegations by
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela that the C.I.A. may have had a hand in the
president’s removal.
Obama administration officials said that they were surprised by the coup on
Sunday. But they also said that they had been working for several weeks to try
to head off a political crisis in Honduras as the confrontation between Mr.
Zelaya and the military over his efforts to lift presidential term limits
escalated.
The United States has long had strong ties to the Honduras military and helps
train Honduran military forces. Those close ties have put the Obama
administration in a difficult position, opening it up to accusations that it may
have turned a blind eye to the pending coup. Administration officials strongly
deny the charges, and Mr. Obama’s quick response to the Honduran president’s
removal has differed sharply from the actions of the Bush administration, which
in 2002 offered a rapid, tacit endorsement of a short-lived coup against Mr.
Chávez.
On June 2, Obama administration officials got a firsthand look at the brewing
political battle when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to
Honduras for an Organization of American States conference. Mrs. Clinton met
with Mr. Zelaya, and he reportedly annoyed her when he summoned her to a private
room late in the night after her arrival and had her shake hands with his
extended family.
During a more formal meeting afterward, they discussed Mr. Zelaya’s plans for a
referendum that would have laid the groundwork for an assembly to remake the
Constitution, a senior administration official said.
But American officials did not believe that Mr. Zelaya’s plans for the
referendum were in line with the Constitution, and were worried that it would
further inflame tensions with the military and other political factions,
administration officials said.
Even so, one administration official said that while the United States thought
the referendum was a bad idea, it did not justify a coup.
“On the one instance, we’re talking about conducting a survey, a nonbinding
survey; in the other instance, we’re talking about the forcible removal of a
president from a country,” the official said, speaking on the condition of
anonymity during a teleconference call with reporters.
As the situation in Honduras worsened, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A.
Shannon Jr., along with Hugo Llorens, the American ambassador to Honduras, spoke
with Mr. Zelaya, military officials and opposition leaders, administration
officials said. Then things reached a boil last Wednesday and Thursday, when Mr.
Zelaya fired the leader of the armed forces and the Supreme Court followed up
with a declaration that Mr. Zelaya’s planned referendum was illegal.
The White House and the State Department had Mr. Llorens “talk with the parties
involved, to tell them, ‘You have to talk your way through this,’ ” a senior
administration official said Monday. “ ‘You can’t do anything outside the bounds
of your constitution.’ ”
Still, administration officials said that they did not expect that the military
would go so far as to carry out a coup. “There was talk of how they might remove
the president from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they
could do that,” the administration official said. But the official said that the
speculation had focused on legal maneuvers to remove the president, not a coup.
Whether Mr. Zelaya merited removal remains a strong point of debate in Honduras.
Fierce clashes erupted Monday between thousands of soldiers and thousands of Mr.
Zelaya’s backers. The protesters blocked streets, set fires and hurled stones at
the soldiers, who fired tear gas in response. But opponents of Mr. Zelaya said
they intended to rally Tuesday in support of his ouster.
On the diplomatic front, three of the country’s neighbors — Guatemala, El
Salvador and Nicaragua — said they would halt commerce along their borders for
48 hours. Beyond that, Venezuela and some of its allies, including Ecuador,
Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba, said they were withdrawing their ambassadors from
Honduras in an effort to isolate the new government. Brazil also said it had
ordered its ambassador to Honduras, who was out of the country at the time of
the coup, not to return until further notice.
In the face of criticism from across the hemisphere, the new government hunkered
down in Mr. Zelaya’s old office, ringed by soldiers and defending its actions as
a bid to save the country’s democracy, not undermine it.
Roberto Micheletti, the veteran congressional leader who was sworn in by his
fellow lawmakers on Sunday to replace Mr. Zelaya, seemed to plead with the world
to understand that Mr. Zelaya’s arrest by the army had been under an official
arrest warrant based on his flouting of the Constitution.
“We respect the whole world, and we only ask that they respect us and leave us
in peace,” Mr. Micheletti said in a radio interview, noting that previously
scheduled elections called for November would go on as planned.
Mr. Zelaya said from Nicaragua late Monday that he would return to Honduras on
Thursday with the secretary general of the Organization of American States, José
Miguel Insulza, Reuters reported.
“He’s the former president of Honduras now,” said Ramón Abad Custodio, the
president of the National Commission of Human Rights, who defends the
replacement of Mr. Zelaya as constitutional. “He may feel like he’s still
president, but he’s a common citizen now.”
Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Marc Lacey from Tegucigalpa,
Honduras. Simon Romero contributed reporting from Bogotá, Colombia, Elisabeth
Malkin from Mexico City, and Blake Schmidt from Managua, Nicaragua.
WASHINGTON — President Obama, whose campaign for the White House included a
pledge to open talks with Iran, said Friday that the prospects for such a
dialogue had been dampened by the brutal crackdown in the wake of the nation’s
disputed presidential election.
At a White House news conference with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Mr.
Obama intensified his reproach of Iran’s government and called for an end to
deadly attacks against its people. He also engaged in an unusual exchange with
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, brushing aside a suggestion that he apologize for
criticizing Iran.
“I would suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he
owes to his own people,” Mr. Obama said. “And he might want to consider looking
at the families of those who’ve been beaten or shot or detained.”
With Ms. Merkel at his side, Mr. Obama delivered some of his most pointed
remarks against Iran since the violent protests began two weeks ago. Ms. Merkel
said Germany and other nations shared his view, saying, “Iran cannot count on
the world turning a blind eye.”
Since the two leaders last met, in Dresden on June 5, demonstrations over Iran’s
disputed elections have escalated into violent clashes, heightening concerns
about instability in Iran and how to deal with its nuclear program.
“There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to
be affected by the events of the last several weeks,” Mr. Obama said. “We don’t
yet know how any potential dialogue will have been affected until we see what
has happened inside of Iran.”
But he added, “the clock is ticking,” with Iran pursuing its nuclear program “at
a fairly rapid clip.”
For the first time, Mr. Obama also directly criticized Iran’s leaders and
outlined distinctions between Mr. Ahmadinejad and his chief rival, Mir Hussein
Moussavi. He said last week that few differences separated them on security
issues, particularly the nuclear program.
He stressed Friday that the Iranian people should choose their leaders, but said
Mr. Moussavi had “captured the imagination or the spirit” of people pushing for
freedom in Iran.
Mr. Obama and Ms. Merkel also discussed Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change and
the global recession in a series of private meetings and a lunch at the White
House. The visit comes in advance of meetings next month in Italy of the Group
of 8 industrialized nations.
Foreign ministers of the group, who were already meeting in Trieste, Italy,
issued a statement on Friday condemning the violence and urging Iran to resolve
its crisis “through democratic dialogue and peaceful means,” according to Agence
France-Presse.
The statement called on the Iranian government to “guarantee that the will of
the Iranian people is reflected in the electoral process,” but refrained from
questioning Mr. Ahmadinejad’s victory, the agency reported.
On Iraq, where a deadline is approaching for American combat troops to leave all
cities by Tuesday, Mr. Obama said an uptick in violence would not push back the
withdrawal. Despite high-profile bombings this week, he said, security in Iraq
has “continued to dramatically improve.”
But it was the violence in Iran that dominated the two leaders’ discussions on
Friday. Ms. Merkel went a bit further than Mr. Obama in calling for a remedy to
the disputed election, saying that votes should be recounted.
“We will not forget this,” Ms. Merkel said, expressing horror at images coming
from Iran.
In Tehran on Thursday, government television quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad as telling
Mr. Obama to “show your repentance” for criticizing Iran’s response to the
protests. He also said Mr. Obama was following “the same path that Bush did.”
Mr. Obama did not acquiesce, saying, “I don’t take Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statements
seriously about apologies, particularly given the fact that the United States
has gone out of its way not to interfere with the election process in Iran.”
Of more urgent concern, Mr. Obama and Ms. Merkel said, is Iran’s nuclear
program. Talks among the United States, Europe, China and Russia, they said,
must continue despite Iran’s disputed election.
The session at the White House on Friday was the third time Mr. Obama and Ms.
Merkel have met this year. Both leaders seemed intent on wiping away suggestions
of a tense relationship between their countries.
Ahmadinejad Assails Obama as Opposition Urges Defiance
June 26, 2009
The New York Times
By NAZILA FATHI and ALAN COWELL
TEHRAN — As Iran’s embattled opposition leader said he would “not back down
for a second” in challenging the disputed elections, President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad told President Obama on Thursday to avoid interfering in Iran’s
affairs and demanded an apology from the American leader for purportedly
striking the same critical tones as his predecessor, George W. Bush.
The sharp words offered no prospect of eased tensions between Washington and
Tehran at a time of profound differences over issues such as Iran’s nuclear
program and its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which the
United States calls terrorist organizations.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments, quoted on the semi-official Fars news agency, came
as at least three Iranian newspapers reported that only 105 of 290 members of
the Iranian Parliament invited to a victory party for him Wednesday night
actually attended the event, suggesting a deep divide within the political elite
over the election and its aftermath.
Opposition figures said Thursday that 70 academics had been arrested after
meeting with the main opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, on Wednesday,
adding to a wave of detentions that has been depicted as the most sweeping since
the Iranian revolution in 1979. But Mr. Moussavi said Thursday in a Web posting:
“’I will not back down even for a second, even for personal threats or
interests.”
In his first public comments for several days, Mr. Moussavi said he was coming
under pressure to withdraw his challenge to the election, which he says was
stolen. Another opposition candidate, the third-placed Mohsen Rezai, who won far
fewer votes than Mr. Moussavi and was regarded as the most hard-line of the
opposition candidates, formally withdrew complaints about electoral
irregularities on Wednesday.
Mr. Moussavi, who has not been seen in public for a week, said on his Web site,
Kalemeh, that there were “recent pressures on me aimed at withdrawing” his
challenge to the vote. He did not go into detail but he complained that his
“access to people is completely restricted,” the Web site said.
He also rejected the government’s insistence that protest is unlawful and
promoted by outsiders.
“I insist on the nation’s constitutional right to protest against the election
result and its aftermath,” Mr. Moussavi said, criticizing the closure in recent
days of an opposition newspaper and the arrest of those who worked here. “The
illegal confrontation with the media opens the way for foreign interference,” he
added.
Compared with the mass protests last week against the election results by
hundreds of thousands of Iranians, the numbers have dwindled in the face of
punishing reprisals by security forces. Mr. Moussavi urged followers on Thursday
to assemble at the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the
Islamic revolution, on the outskirts of Tehran.
But the likely response to the call was initially unclear after security forces
overwhelmed a small group of protesters on Wednesday with brutal beatings, tear
gas and shots fired in the air. Another protest called for Thursday by the
second-placed opposition candidate, former Parliament Speaker Mehdi Karroubi, to
mourn protesters killed in the demonstrations was called off, Mr. Karroubi said
on his Web site.
One of those who died was Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old woman whose death last
Saturday, recorded on an amateur video clip, went around the world on Web sites
as an emblem of official brutality. Seeking to turn that image around, Web sites
supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad began reporting Thursday that she had been killed by
“hooligans” commissioned by a BBC reporter who has been expelled from Iran.
As the authorities have moved against Mr. Moussavi’s followers, there have been
mounting fears that the opposition leader is himself in danger of being
detained.
On Wednesday, the official Iranian news agency reported that intelligence and
security agents in Tehran concluded that a Moussavi campaign office was used for
“illegal gatherings, the promotion of unrest and efforts to undermine the
country’s security,” leading to speculation that Mr. Moussavi could be arrested.
The news agency reported that “the plotters have been arrested” and said the
opposition office was a “headquarters for a psychological war.”
Some analysts raised questions about Mr. Moussavi’s leadership of the
opposition. As a former prime minister who is essentially an insider thrust into
the role of opposition, it has been difficult to gauge how far he would go to
defy the system. But the latest posting seemed to suggest continued defiance.
As Iranian officials seek to crush the remaining resistance, American attitudes
to their campaign have hardened.
After the official presidential results were announced, giving Mr. Ahmadinejad
an 11 million-vote margin, President Obama was initially cautious in his
response. But he has gradually adopted a much tougher stance, saying Tuesday he
was “appalled and outraged” by events in Iran.
“Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said Thursday at
a ceremony to open a petrochemical plant.
The election had brought a chance for a “new start in international relations”
in which Iran would “speak from a different position based on dialogue and
justice,” he said, according to the semi-official Fars news agency,
While Iran believed Britain and other European countries had a “bad record” in
their relationship with Iran, he said, “we were not expecting Mr. Obama” to
“fall into the same trap and continue the same path that Bush did.
“I hope you avoid the interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a
way that the Iranian people find out about it,” he said.
But as he assailed the American leader, Mr. Ahmadinejad also faced a new
challenge at home.
Analysts suggested that the unyielding response from lawmakers to his victory
celebration showed that Iran’s leaders, backed by the supreme leader, Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, had lost patience and that Iran was now, more than ever, a state
guided not by clerics of the revolution but by a powerful military and security
apparatus.
Security agents have continued to fan out across the country, detaining former
government officials, journalists, activists, young people and old, anyone seen
as siding with those who reject the conclusion that Mr. Ahmadinejad won a
landslide against Mr. Moussavi.
The government also stepped up its efforts to block independent news coverage of
events all across the country. The government has banned foreign news media
members from leaving their offices, suspended all press credentials for foreign
correspondents, arrested a freelance writer for The Washington Times, continued
to hold a reporter for Newsweek and forced other foreign journalists to leave
the country.
That made it difficult to ascertain exactly what happened when several hundred
protesters tried to gather outside the Parliament building Wednesday afternoon.
Witnesses said they were met by a huge force of riot police officers and Basij
vigilantes, some on motorcycles and some in pickup trucks, armed with sticks and
chains. Witnesses said people were trapped and beaten as they tried to flee down
side streets.
“It was not possible to wait and see what happened,” said one witness who asked
for anonymity out of fear of arrest. “At one point we saw several riot police in
black clothes walk towards a group of people who looked like passers-by.
Suddenly they pulled out their batons and began hitting them without warning.”
The authorities said they were moving to impose order and secure the rule of
law. “I was insisting and will insist on implementation of the law,” Ayatollah
Khamenei said on national television. “That means we will not go one step beyond
the law. Neither the system nor the people will yield to pressure at any price.”
Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran, and Alan Cowell from Paris. Michael
Slackman and Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo, and Sharon
Otterman from New York.
Arab States Aligned With U.S. Savor Turmoil in Iran
June 25, 2009
The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
CAIRO — The rancorous dispute over Iran’s presidential election could turn
into a win-win for Arab leaders aligned with Washington who in the past have
complained bitterly that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was destabilizing the
region and meddling in Arab affairs, political analysts and former officials
around the region said.
The good-news thinking goes like this: With Mr. Ahmadinejad remaining in office,
there is less chance of substantially improved relations between Tehran and
Washington, something America’s Arab allies feared would undermine their
interests. At the same time, the electoral conflict may have weakened Iran’s
leadership at home and abroad, forcing it to focus more on domestic stability,
political analysts and former officials said.
“When Iran is strong and defiant they don’t like her and when Iran is closer to
the West they don’t like her,” said Adnan Abu Odeh, a former adviser to King
Hussein of Jordan.
Of course, such an outcome could also prove to be wishful thinking, political
analysts cautioned. Other power centers in Iran, from the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to the military, can have more influence over regional
policy than the president. It is also possible that a deeply divided leadership
could aim to exacerbate regional tensions to distract attention from its
domestic problems.
The Iranian standoff may also serve as a cautionary tale for Arab leaders who
have watched as modern technology, like the Internet, social networking sites
and cellphones, has yet again undermined the ability of authoritarian states to
control access to and distribution of information.
But the cultural and social differences between Iran and Arab states are so
great, there was no sense that leaders feared their citizens would be inspired
to rise up. Iran is an important and influential nation in the Middle East, but
it is also distant from the Sunni Arab street as a majority Persian country with
a majority Shiite population.
“A lot of young people in the Arab world would love to see something like that,
but the kind of civil society they have makes it much more natural for this to
happen in Iran than in a place like Egypt or Saudi Arabia,” said Ahmed al-Omran,
a college student in Saudi Arabia and author of the popular blog saudijeans.org.
Moreover, the dramatic video of Iranians being beaten or shot by Basijis has
done incalculable damage to Iran’s image as the region’s most religiously pure
and populist state. Iran’s allies in the region, including Syria, as well as
Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas movement in the Palestinian territories, also
seem likely to suffer a blow to their credibility, and perhaps to their
financing, if the election crisis is resolved with heavy suppression or an
extended standoff with the opposition, analysts said.
One gauge of how Arab leaders are reacting to the Iran crisis is their silence.
Officials seem eager to avoid even the appearance that they are trying to
influence the outcome, political analysts said. The state-controlled media
outlets around the region have also been relatively low key in their coverage.
“When you are waiting so much for something that makes you happy, you hold your
breath, you make less noise in order not to affect the outcome,” said Randa
Habib, a political analyst and columnist in Amman, Jordan.
Iran’s allies, on the other hand, are restive. Emad Gad, an Egyptian expert in
international affairs, said that he saw evidence of Iran’s allies, especially in
Syria, trying to hedge their bet on Tehran. He said that Syria had in recent
days been more willing to help Egypt press for reconciliation between
Palestinian factions.
“I think Ahmadinejad will concentrate in the economic field to improve living
conditions for his population after this crisis,” Mr. Gad said. “That means less
giving money, less meddling, less penetration in the Arab world, less
involvement.”
When the Iranian government first announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won a
landslide victory, there was a collective sigh of regret among Arab leaders
aligned with Washington. They had hoped that the reform candidate, Mir Hussein
Moussavi, would win, but they instead ended up — it appeared — with an
emboldened incumbent. So it is with a bit of surprise, indeed disbelief and no
shortage of cheer, that events may yet turn out even better than if Mr. Moussavi
had won, political analysts said.
“The Arab leaders are watching and they are very pleased,” Mr. Gad said. “The
Ahmadinejad after this election will be very different than the Ahmadinejad
before this election. He will be weaker.”
There is, analysts acknowledged, a potentially darker sequence of events that
could emerge — one where Mr. Ahmadinejad comes out of this crisis even less
concerned about domestic opinion than before and more aggressive. Analysts said
that could prove difficult for him, though, because of deep splits that the
conflict has already caused among the political elite.
The Arab governments aligned with Washington are part of a camp that has
promoted an Arab peace initiative with Israel. Iran, they have charged, has
worked to undermine the peace process by financing Hamas and Hezbollah and by
attacking those in the peace camp. Before the elections, Iran was increasingly
flexing its geopolitical muscles, often in disputes with its much smaller Arab
neighbors in the Persian Gulf region. A former Iranian speaker of Parliament,
for example, said that Bahrain was historically part of Iran.
Now, Arab leaders are looking to regain the momentum and slow Iran’s spreading
power and influence, analysts said. They are also looking to use the crisis in
Iran to undermine political Islam in general. The Arab world is ruled by
authoritarian leaders, kings and emirs — and its greatest challenge to
legitimacy and control is political Islamic movements like the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan.
“Opponents of the Islamist movement go far in anticipating the collapse of the
Islamic revolution and the end of the Islamist movements and their political
project,” said Mohammad Abu Rumman, research editor at the newspaper Al Ghad in
Amman. “Anticipating the failure of the revolution is an anticipation of the
failure of political Islam in general.”
The Obama administration lodged a formal protest on Wednesday with the
Chinese government over its plan to force all computers sold in China to come
with software that blocks access to certain Web sites.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Ron Kirk, the trade representative, sent a
letter to officials in two Chinese ministries asking them to rescind a rule
about the software that is set to take effect on July 1.
Chinese officials have said that the filtering software, known as Green
Dam-Youth Escort, is meant to block pornography and other “unhealthy
information.”
In part, the American officials’ complaint framed this as a trade issue,
objecting to the burden put on computer makers to install the software with
little notice. But it also raised broader questions about whether the software
would lead to more censorship of the Internet in China and restrict freedom of
expression.
“China is putting companies in an untenable position by requiring them, with
virtually no public notice, to pre-install software that appears to have
broad-based censorship implications and network security issues,” Mr. Locke said
in a news release. The government did not release the text of the letter.
The letter, by two cabinet-rank officials, represents an escalation of the
concern over the software plan. Last week United States officials met with their
Chinese counterparts in Beijing to raise objections to the new policy.
Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, one
of several trade groups that have objected to the Chinese plan, said the letter
represented a significant change in American policy.
“The issue of Internet freedom and openness was something that should have been
at the top of the U.S. international agenda and hasn’t been,” Mr. Black said.
“This administration is far more in tune with and ready to support Internet
openness.”
China already has an elaborate system that blocks access to sites that discuss
delicate topics like the Dalai Lama and Falun Gong, the banned spiritual
movement.
In their statement, the American officials rejected the argument that the
software was simply a way to block pornography.
"Protecting children from inappropriate content is a legitimate objective, but
this is an inappropriate means and is likely to have a broader scope,” Mr. Kirk
said in the statement. “Mandating technically flawed Green Dam software and
denying manufacturers and consumers freedom to select filtering software is an
unnecessary and unjustified means to achieve that objective.”
Security experts have expressed concerns that once installed, the software might
also be used to block other sorts of content or even to monitor the online
activities of citizens.
The letter suggested that China’s move might violate World Trade Organization
rules because American companies were given only six weeks’ notice to comply.
While formal complaints to the trade organization are difficult and cumbersome,
pointing to the regulations is another signal that the United States will
continue to pursue the issue.
With only one week before the new rules are to go into effect, it is unclear if
American computer companies will comply.
Pamela Bonney, a spokeswoman for Hewlett-Packard, said the company was still
studying the rules and seeking clarification. A spokesman for Dell did not
return calls seeking comment.
Separately, access to Google’s main search engine at Google.com and other
services like Gmail was temporarily blocked in China on Wednesday. It was
restored a few hours later.
Access to foreign Web sites in China can be erratic, and determining whether the
government is responsible can be difficult.
It is not clear whether the blocking of Google’s sites is related to a dispute
that erupted last week between Google and Chinese authorities. The Chinese
government disabled some search functions of Google’s Chinese-language search
engine, Google.cn, saying the site offered too many links to pornographic
material.
Google’s license to operate in China requires that it not show pornographic
sites.
“Fictions on the Ground,” by Tony Judt (Op-Ed, June 22), is the real work of
fiction, past, present and future.
Israelis settled in the West Bank because it was deemed part of the historic
home of the Jewish people and because the Arabs and the Palestinians rejected
opportunities for peace with Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967. The territory
in legal terms was undecided because the Palestinians from 1947 rejected the
United Nations resolution dividing the land into Arab and Jewish states.
Saying — as Mr. Judt does — that Israel will never give up the settlements
ignores the fact that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle 80
percent of the settlements at Camp David; that his successor, Ariel Sharon,
dismantled all of the settlements in Gaza; and that Israeli leaders have
repeatedly indicated that most of the settlements will go if there is peace, and
those held will be part of a swap for Israeli territory.
Settlements are not an obstacle to peace if there is serious peacemaking,
peace-teaching and compromise from the other side. As for fictions — as Mr. Judt
has made clear in his writings, his problem is not with Israeli settlements, but
with Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state.
Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
New York, June 22, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Tony Judt does a wonderful job of clarifying why all the “settlements” are
illegal and stand in the way of peace in the Middle East, and of explaining how
the small but significant political constituency in Israel prevents meaningful
change from taking place.
He rightly calls on the United States to change its stance but neglects to point
out how a small but significant constituency in this country plays a similar
role. Some of us, presumed to be part of that very constituency, certainly hope
that President Obama will disregard the wrongful wishes of that constituency and
put the United States on the right side of this issue once and for all.
For the sake of Israel and the wider world, expansion of settlements must stop,
and all of them must be dismantled.
Howard Rubinstein
Brooklyn, June 22, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Tony Judt casts the road map for peace in the Middle East exclusively in terms
of his lament for the disappearance of the idealistic kibbutzim of his youth and
his fury with the policies of the right-wing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet oddly, in the article, the outside world, including the Palestinians,
doesn’t seem to exist.
In these difficult times the United States will have enough difficulty brokering
a peace between Israel and the Palestinians — it can’t referee internal Israeli
politics. That there are both idealistic and corrupt Israelis and Palestinians
is a given. The real issue is how do we pragmatically get to a two-state
solution.
Barbara Probst Solomon
New York, June 22, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Tony Judt misleads in many ways, among them by implying that the West Bank was
captured by Israel in 1967 from some Palestinian country and not Jordan (which
does not seek its return), and contending that Yigal Amir was inspired to
assassinate Yitzhak Rabin by “rabbinical” influence at Bar-Ilan University (Mr.
Amir has stated clearly otherwise).
Most egregious, though, is Mr. Judt’s amazing objection to demilitarizing any
Palestinian state established in the West Bank, because it would “have no means
of defending itself against aggression.” Considering how the Palestinians in a
militarized Gaza responded to Israel’s withdrawal from that territory, raining
thousands of rockets onto Israeli cities, for Israel to help establish a
weaponized Arab country in its very heart, within range of Jerusalem and Tel
Aviv, would be to commit national suicide.
(Rabbi) Avi Shafran
Director of Public Affairs
Agudath Israel of America
New York, June 22, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Tony Judt didn’t answer my most basic question: Why does a future Palestinian
state have to be free of Jews? If Arabs can live in Israel, why can’t Jews live
in Palestine?
By refusing to answer this question, he and all the proponents of a settlement
freeze turn the settlement argument into a facade. Because if the settlements
don’t have to be removed, then why waste time arguing about what is a
settlement, where are the boundaries, what is natural growth?
Making Jews, and only Jews, leave their homes is ethnic cleansing. Isn’t this
exactly what Israel’s critics accuse it of?
Jonathan D. Reich
Lakeland, Fla., June 23, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Tony Judt provides a realistic assessment of both the illegality of settlements
in international law as well as the collusion of Israeli governments of all
tendencies to support them.
As he points out, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu government’s sudden support
of a Palestinian state is meaningless because the settlements would remain,
something no Palestinian leader could accept. This will enable Mr. Netanyahu and
his supporters in this country to claim once again that there is no partner for
peace.
While not all Palestinian factions openly accept Israel’s existence, Fatah does.
But Mahmoud Abbas could never accept Mr. Netanyahu’s supposedly sincere offer
because the bypass roads for Jews only and the carefully placed settlements
would ensure that no viable Palestinian state could be created — precisely what
Israeli rightists and their American lobbies intend.
After all, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assured President George W. Bush of
his support for a Palestinian state in April 2004, he referred to Palestinians
in the West Bank having what he called “transportation contiguity,” meaning
tunnels beneath Israeli bypass roads to settlements that only Israelis could
use. That constitutes a viable state?
Charles D. Smith
San Diego, June 22, 2009
The writer is a professor of Middle East history at the University of Arizona.
•
To the Editor:
Among the many fictions in Tony Judt’s article was his portrayal of Bar-Ilan
University. In his remark about the university, Mr. Judt ignored the tremendous
diversity of political opinion and religious observance at Bar-Ilan, Israel’s
fastest-growing and largest university, with an academic community of 33,000
students.
Bar-Ilan is a leading force in unifying Israel’s religious and secular
communities. More than 60 percent of its students identify as primarily secular.
They are attracted by the university’s commitment to a first-class education in
the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business and the arts — all within a
learning environment that fosters Jewish values and promotes dialogue among
Israelis from different backgrounds.
Bar-Ilan University stresses the Jewish people’s ties to Israel for more than
3,000 years — a point that was emphasized in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
speech. He wanted to speak at a university that is grounded in the Zionist
enterprise.
It is the respect that Israelis have for Bar-Ilan University and its efforts to
unify Israeli society that led to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to give
his recent address at the university’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
Mark D. Medin
New York, June 22, 2009
The writer is executive vice president and chief executive, American Friends of
Bar-Ilan University.
•
To the Editor:
If the Israelis and the Palestinians are ever to come to an agreement — in three
years or 30 years — becoming much clearer and more honest about what the issues
really are will need to come first.
In this regard, the article by Tony Judt is a difficult but important step
forward. The truth hurts. The “settlements” are indeed the key issue. If
“settlements” can be solved, then “security” will come quite naturally.
I am old enough to remember when Israeli kibbutzim looked like settlements
(“a small village or collection of houses” or “the act of peopling or colonizing
a new country,” Oxford English Dictionary).
In the early 1960s, I spent time on Kibbutz Hakuk, a small community founded by
the Palmah unit of the Haganah, the pre-state Jewish militia. Begun in 1945,
Hakuk was just 18 years old when I first saw it, and was still raw at the edges.
The few dozen families living there had built themselves a dining hall, farm
sheds, homes and a “baby house” where the children were cared for during the
workday. But where the residential buildings ended there were nothing but
rock-covered hillsides and half-cleared fields.
The community’s members still dressed in blue work shirts, khaki shorts and
triangular hats, consciously cultivating a pioneering image and ethos already at
odds with the hectic urban atmosphere of Tel Aviv. Ours, they seemed to say to
bright-eyed visitors and volunteers, is the real Israel; come and help us clear
the boulders and grow bananas — and tell your friends in Europe and America to
do likewise.
Hakuk is still there. But today it relies on a plastics factory and the tourists
who flock to the nearby Sea of Galilee. The original farm, built around a fort,
has been turned into a tourist attraction. To speak of this kibbutz as a
settlement would be bizarre.
However, Israel needs “settlements.” They are intrinsic to the image it has long
sought to convey to overseas admirers and fund-raisers: a struggling little
country securing its rightful place in a hostile environment by the hard moral
work of land clearance, irrigation, agrarian self-sufficiency, industrious
productivity, legitimate self-defense and the building of Jewish communities.
But this neo-collectivist frontier narrative rings false in modern, high-tech
Israel. And so the settler myth has been transposed somewhere else — to the
Palestinian lands seized in war in 1967 and occupied illegally ever since.
It is thus not by chance that the international press is encouraged to speak and
write of Jewish “settlers” and “settlements” in the West Bank. But this image is
profoundly misleading. The largest of these controversial communities in
geographic terms is Maale Adumim. It has a population in excess of 35,000,
demographically comparable to Montclair, N.J., or Winchester, England. What is
most striking, however, about Maale Adumim is its territorial extent. This
“settlement” comprises more than 30 square miles — making it one and a half
times the size of Manhattan and nearly half as big as the borough and city of
Manchester, England. Some “settlement.”
There are about 120 official Israeli settlements in the occupied territories of
the West Bank. In addition, there are “unofficial” settlements whose number is
estimated variously from 80 to 100. Under international law, there is no
difference between these two categories; both are contraventions of Article 47
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which explicitly prohibits the annexation of
land consequent to the use of force, a principle re-stated in Article 2(4) of
the United Nations Charter.
Thus the distinction so often made in Israeli pronouncements between
“authorized” and “unauthorized” settlements is specious — all are illegal,
whether or not they have been officially approved and whether or not their
expansion has been “frozen” or continues apace. (It is a matter of note that
Israel’s new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, belongs to the West Bank
settlement of Nokdim, established in 1982 and illegally expanded since.)
The blatant cynicism of the present Israeli government should not blind us to
the responsibility of its more respectable-looking predecessors. The settler
population has grown consistently at a rate of 5 percent annually over the past
two decades, three times the rate of increase of the Israeli population as a
whole. Together with the Jewish population of East Jerusalem (itself illegally
annexed to Israel), the settlers today number more than half a million people:
just over 10 percent of the Jewish population of so-called Greater Israel. This
is one reason why settlers count for so much in Israeli elections, where
proportional representation gives undue political leverage to even the smallest
constituency.
But the settlers are no mere marginal interest group. To appreciate their
significance, spread as they are over a dispersed archipelago of urban
installations protected from Arab intrusion by 600 checkpoints and barriers,
consider the following: taken together, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the
Golan Heights constitute a homogenous demographic bloc nearly the size of the
District of Columbia. It exceeds the population of Tel Aviv itself by almost one
third. Some “settlement.”
If Israel is drunk on settlements, the United States has long been its enabler.
Were Israel not the leading beneficiary of American foreign aid — averaging $2.8
billion a year from 2003 to 2007, and scheduled to reach $3.1 billion by 2013 —
houses in West Bank settlements would not be so cheap: often less than half the
price of equivalent homes in Israel proper.
Many of the people who move to these houses don’t even think of themselves as
settlers. Newly arrived from Russia and elsewhere, they simply take up the offer
of subsidized accommodation, move into the occupied areas and become — like
peasants in southern Italy freshly supplied with roads and electricity — the
grateful clients of their political patrons. Like American settlers heading
west, Israeli colonists in the West Bank are the beneficiaries of their very own
Homestead Act, and they will be equally difficult to uproot.
Despite all the diplomatic talk of disbanding the settlements as a condition for
peace, no one seriously believes that these communities — with their half a
million residents, their urban installations, their privileged access to fertile
land and water — will ever be removed. The Israeli authorities, whether left,
right or center, have no intention of removing them, and neither Palestinians
nor informed Americans harbor illusions on this score.
To be sure, it suits almost everyone to pretend otherwise — to point to the 2003
“road map” and speak of a final accord based on the 1967 frontiers. But such
feigned obliviousness is the small change of political hypocrisy, the lubricant
of diplomatic exchange that facilitates communication and compromise.
There are occasions, however, when political hypocrisy is its own nemesis, and
this is one of them. Because the settlements will never go, and yet almost
everyone likes to pretend otherwise, we have resolutely ignored the implications
of what Israelis have long been proud to call “the facts on the ground.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, knows this better than most. On
June 14 he gave a much-anticipated speech in which he artfully blew smoke in the
eyes of his American interlocutors. While offering to acknowledge the
hypothetical existence of an eventual Palestinian state — on the explicit
understanding that it exercise no control over its airspace and have no means of
defending itself against aggression — he reiterated the only Israeli position
that really matters: we won’t build illegal settlements but we reserve the right
to expand “legal” ones according to their natural rate of growth. (It is not by
chance that he chose to deliver this speech at Bar-Ilan University, the
heartland of rabbinical intransigence where Yigal Amir learned to hate Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin before heading off to assassinate him in 1995.)
THE reassurances Mr. Netanyahu offered the settlers and their political
constituency were as well received as ever, despite being couched in honeyed
clichés directed at nervous American listeners. And the American news media,
predictably, took the bait — uniformly emphasizing Mr. Netanyahu’s “support” for
a Palestinian state and playing down everything else.
However, the real question now is whether President Obama will respond in a
similar vein. He surely wants to. Nothing could better please the American
president and his advisors than to be able to assert that, in the wake of his
Cairo speech, even Mr. Netanyahu had shifted ground and was open to compromise.
Thus Washington avoids a confrontation, for now, with its closest ally. But the
uncomfortable reality is that the prime minister restated the unvarnished truth:
His government has no intention of recognizing international law or opinion with
respect to Israel’s land-grab in “Judea and Samaria.”
Thus President Obama faces a choice. He can play along with the Israelis,
pretending to believe their promises of good intentions and the significance of
the distinctions they offer him. Such a pretense would buy him time and favor
with Congress. But the Israelis would be playing him for a fool, and he would be
seen as one in the Mideast and beyond.
Alternatively, the president could break with two decades of American
compliance, acknowledge publicly that the emperor is indeed naked, dismiss Mr.
Netanyahu for the cynic he is and remind Israelis that all their settlements are
hostage to American goodwill. He could also remind Israelis that the illegal
communities have nothing to do with Israel’s defense, much less its founding
ideals of agrarian self-sufficiency and Jewish autonomy. They are nothing but a
colonial takeover that the United States has no business subsidizing.
But if I am right, and there is no realistic prospect of removing Israel’s
settlements, then for the American government to agree that the mere
nonexpansion of “authorized” settlements is a genuine step toward peace would be
the worst possible outcome of the present diplomatic dance. No one else in the
world believes this fairy tale; why should we? Israel’s political elite would
breathe an unmerited sigh of relief, having once again pulled the wool over the
eyes of its paymaster. The United States would be humiliated in the eyes of its
friends, not to speak of its foes. If America cannot stand up for its own
interests in the region, at least let it not be played yet again for a patsy.
Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York University and
the author of “Postwar” and “Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten
Twentieth Century.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: June 22, 2009
An earlier version of this op-ed incorrectly stated that Yitzhak Rabin was
assassinated in 2005. He was assassinated in 1995.
Obama Assails Iran for Violent Response to Protests
June 24, 2009
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON — President Obama harshly condemned the Iranian crackdown against
demonstrations on Tuesday, declaring the rest of the world “appalled and
outraged” and dismissing what he called “patently false and absurd” accusations
that the United States instigated the protests.
In his sharpest and most expansive comments on the crisis in Tehran since the
June 12 elections that the opposition called rigged, Mr. Obama deplored the
violence that has killed some protesters, including a young woman whose death
was captured on a video that has been played around the world.
“While this loss is raw and painful,” the president said, “we also know this:
those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.”
The president’s forceful comments, delivered during prepared remarks opening a
midday news conference at the White House, came after 10 days of more restrained
response by Mr. Obama, who expressed concern that a more prominent role would
play into the Iranian government’s hands. Even as he employed tougher language
on Tuesday, he emphasized repeatedly that the protests in Tehran have nothing to
do with the United States and rejected Iranian allegations of American
involvement.
“They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place
within Iran’s borders,” he said. “This tired strategy of using tensions to
scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the
United States and the West. This is about the people of Iran, and the future
that they, and only they, will choose.”
Asked by reporters if in toughening his response he had been influenced by the
criticism of Republicans like Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Obama flashed
a wide smile and said, “What do you think?”
He went on to say that other politicians have the freedom to speak as they
choose, but he had to be more careful because he speaks for the country. “Only
I’m the president,” he said.
Mr. Obama also used the news conference to promote two domestic priorities, an
energy bill intended to reduce the emissions that create climate change and an
overhaul of the health care system. He argued that the two plans, which each
would introduce dramatic changes to wide swaths of the American economy, would
transform the nation for the future and be paid for without adding to the
deficit.
His endorsement of the energy bill set for a vote in the House on Friday
represented his most explicit and full-throated pitch for the approach, which
was crafted by influential Democratic lawmakers and intended to help push it
past opposition. On health care, Mr. Obama continued arguing that reform “is not
a luxury” but “a necessity” without laying down non-negotiable positions on how
the legislation should be crafted.
A day after signing major legislation regulating tobacco, Mr. Obama acknowledged
that he still smokes cigarettes from time to time, something his aides refused
to discuss on Monday.
“As a former smoker, have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes,” he said in
response to a question. “Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No. I don’t do
it in front of my kids. I don’t do it in front of my family. I would say I am 95
percent cured. But there are times where I mess up.”
The president was speaking in his fourth White House news conference since
taking office five months ago. It was intended to be Mr. Obama’s first formal
Rose Garden news conference, but aides moved the event inside into the briefing
room because temperatures outdoors were approaching 90 degrees.
It was a crowded scene inside the White House briefing room, a space notably
smaller than the formal setting of the East Room where prime-time news
conferences take place. Dozens of reporters and photographers lined the sides of
the room and spilled outside the doorway.
The midday appearance was the latest in the president’s aggressive media push,
which has included a series of interviews with broadcast and cable television
networks as he attempts to persuade Americans that his economic plan will create
jobs and bring an end to the recession. Yet as unemployment creeps toward 10
percent, several recent public opinion polls have found Americans are not
convinced that Mr. Obama’s pricy economic plans have kicked in.
June 23, 2009
The New York Times
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
HONOLULU – Hawaii has long lived with the threat of wipe out – whether by
tsunami, volcano, or foreign invader.
Now comes word that North Korea has reportedly threatened to launch a ballistic
missile in this general direction around Independence Day, prompting the United
States military to beef up defenses here.
Anti-missile interceptors are in place, the Defense Department said, and
Hawaiians watched the other day as a giant, towering radar commonly known as the
golf ball set out to sea from the base where it is normally moored.
But if the likes of Gerald Aikau, a lifelong resident, are on any state of
alert, it would be the one telling him his octopus, caught in the waters here
with his own spear and bare hands, is overcooked.
“What are you going to do?” Mr. Aikau, 34, a commercial painter, said as he
proudly grilled his catch at a beachfront park. “You are going to go sometime,
whether it’s on a wave, or a missile, or your buddy knocking you down and you
hit your head.”
Vulnerability, and a certain fatalism about it, are part of the fabric of life
in this archipelago, 2,500 miles from the mainland and, as many residents seem
to have memorized, 4,500 miles from North Korea.
People at once took comfort in the heavy, year-round military presence provided
by several bases but also wondered if it made the state more of a target.
In an interview to be broadcast Monday on CBS’ “The Early Show,” President
Obama, who was born and spent much of his youth here, said “our military is
fully prepared for any contingencies” regarding North Korea.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates had announced Thursday that the military had
deployed ground-based interceptors and sea-based radar to help deflect any
long-range missile from North Korea. Japanese news media last week reported that
North Korea appeared to be readying a rocket for testing some time around July
4.
Calls to Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, were answered by Major General Robert
G. F. Lee, the state’s defense department director, who suggested the threat was
more saber-rattling from North Korea. He questioned whether its missiles had the
technological capacity to get very far, but just the same, he said, the state is
ready for hostile action.
“Our military assets should be able to protect us,” said Major General Lee,
whose duties include civil defense. “We, like all states, are prepared for
natural disasters down to terrorism.”
He said the state’s disaster sirens are working and residents, as always, are
advised to keep a three-day stock of food, water, medicine and other essentials.
“Out here by ourselves, we have to be a little more prepared just in case help
does not get here quickly from the mainland,” he said.
Of course, the specter of Pearl Harbor still figures prominently here, as well
as the cat-and-mouse of Cold War maneuverings off the coast, including the
mysterious loss of a Soviet ballistic missile submarine 750 miles northwest of
Oahu in 1968.
“We are first strike from Asia,” said state Representative Joseph M. Souki, 76,
a Democrat, who still remembers the wave of anxiety that swept his neighborhood
on Maui as Pearl Harbor was bombed. “It’s not like we are in Iowa.”
Still, he said, “more than likely nothing is going to happen. Hawaii is like a
pawn in a chess game.”
The state could ill afford anything approximating a calamity.
The recession has been blamed for a nearly 11 percent drop in the number of
visitors here last year compared to the year before. The seasonally adjusted
unemployment in May reached 7.4 percent, up from 6.9 percent in the previous
month and the highest in the past three decades.
The tourists that did come carried on as usual, taking surf lessons, strolling
Waikiki Beach and reflecting at the USS Arizona memorial, whose park includes a
display of old Polaris submarine-launched missiles.
“Send one of these babies up,” suggested Clifton Wannaker, 45, an accountant
visiting from South Dakota, when told of the threat. He knocked on the missile’s
skin for good measure.
Standing at the shoreline in view of the iconic Arizona memorial, Steve
Brecheen, a 54-year-old pharmacist from Oklahoma City, seemed a bit more
unnerved.
“North Korea seems the most unstable government as far as a threat to the U.S.
is concerned,” Mr. Brecheen said.
He motioned to the memorial, which sits over the remains of the battleship sunk
by the Japanese in the Pearl Harbor attack.
“In 1941 some of these people didn’t think the Japanese were an extreme threat
and they got their minds changed pretty quickly,” he said.
But among Hawaiians skepticism mixed with annoyance and even anger that their
state, hypothetically at least, could be a testing ground.
“I think they would be stupid to do that test,” said Misioki Tauiliili, 39, a
delivery truck driver, taking in the placid scene at a city beach near Waikiki.
“The U.S. should go out there and shake them.”
By that he meant perhaps firing its own rockets in North Korea’s direction, “to
test them.”
Mark N. Brown, 49, an artist painting nearby, was less bellicose. He said he
took comfort in the steps the military has taken and remained concern that an
act of aggression by North Korea would lead to war.
But, with a wry smile, he added that a neighboring island, far less populated
but a bit closer to North Korea, would probably take the hit.
“It would hit Kuaia,” he said. “We are on Oahu.”
Mele Connor, 55, a lifelong Hawaiian shopping with visitors from the mainland at
a clothing store on Waikiki, laughed off the threat.
“After North Korea it will be somebody else,” she said. “They know Obama is from
here, so they want something. Everybody wants something from our pretty little
islands.”
Gauging Whether Obama Is Creating Openings in Iran
June 21, 2009
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER
“We don’t want this regime to fall. We want our votes to be counted, because
we want reforms, we want kindness, we want friendship with the world.” — Ali
Reza, an Iranian actor, on the sidelines of protests in Tehran.
WASHINGTON — Could there be something to all the talk of an Obama effect,
after all? A stealth effect, perhaps?
As the silent protests in Tehran dominated television screens around the world
last week, a peculiar debate in Washington erupted. On one side, a handful of
supporters of President Bush said Iranian protesters had taken to the streets
because they were emboldened by President Bush’s pro-democracy stance, and the
example of Shiite democracy he set up in Iraq. On the other side, some of
President Obama’s backers countered that the mere election of Barack Obama in
the United States had galvanized reformers in Iran to demand change.
Both of those arguments gave the United States an outsize role at the epicenter
of an unfolding story that most experts, and a great many Iranians who talked to
pollsters, said was actually not about America at all; it was about Iran and its
own problems, notably a highly disputable vote count and the performance of its
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“We have to be a little humble about our understanding about what’s going on in
Iran,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who was a State Department under secretary for
President Bush. “There’s been massive disappointment in Ahmadinejad’s
stewardship over the years.”
Even so, something else was also at play: the wistful comments of many Iranian
protesters who dreamed of better relations with the world. That strand of
thought, however slender among the other huge issues, was evident at the protest
demonstrations on behalf of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s principal challenger, Mir Hussein
Moussavi. Sign after sign at his rallies was emblazoned: “A new greeting to the
world.”
“Behind closed doors, most Iranian officials have long recognized that the
‘death to America’ culture of 1979 is bankrupt, and that Iran will never achieve
its enormous potential as long as relations with the United States remain
adversarial,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. He and others argue that many Iranian pragmatists and
moderates believe that their country in 2009 is facing a now-or-never moment.
“If Tehran’s hardliners are incapable of making nice with an American president
named Barack Hussein Obama who preaches mutual respect and wishes them a happy
Nowruz, it’s pretty obvious the problem is in Tehran, not Washington,” Mr.
Sadjadpour said.
During the Bush years, Iran’s regime was able to coalesce support by uniting the
country against a common enemy: President Bush, who called Iran a pillar of the
“axis of evil” in a speech that alienated many of the very reformers whom the
United States was trying to woo. For much of his administration, even as he
strengthened Iran by toppling Iran’s nemesis Saddam Hussein, Mr. Bush struck a
confrontational public line against the Iranian regime.
The result, according to many experts here and in Iran, was that Iranians,
including reformers, swallowed their criticism of the hard-line regime and
united against the common enemy. Iranians with reformist sympathies even began
advising Americans to stop openly supporting them, lest that open them to attack
as pawns of America.
Mr. Obama seemed to be taking that kind of advice to heart last week — to a
fault, perhaps, as even some Democratic allies said. He kept his remarks about
the Iranian election so cool and detached that Republicans quickly attacked him
as showing weakness in the defense of democracy.
On the other hand, he had already put in play a tool that the reformists could
use in their internal debate — the notion that this could be the best time in
many years in which to seek better relations with America.
Even before he was elected, Mr. Obama struck a conciliatory note towards Iran,
saying that the idea of not talking to adversaries was “ridiculous.” And while
the substance of his Iran policy does not vary that much from Mr. Bush’s — the
United States still seeks to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, still
criticizes Iran’s support for militant Islamist organizations, still allies
itself staunchly with Israel — he has taken pains to flavor that policy with
different atmospherics.
He has offered direct talks between his administration and the Iranian regime,
without preconditions. He has videotaped a message directly for the Iranian
people, on the celebration of Nowruz, the 12-day holiday that marks the new year
in Iran. In the video, with subtitles in Persian, he directed his comments not
just to the Iranian people but to Iran’s leaders, and referred to Iran as “the
Islamic Republic,” further flagging a willingness to deal with the clerical
government. He even went so far as to quote from the vaunted Persian poet Saadi,
dead for 700 years now.
Mr. Obama has also removed the ban against American diplomats around the world
consorting with their Iranian counterparts. And in his Cairo address June 4, he
accepted responsibility for America’s part in the enmity between the United
States and Iran.
“In the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow
of a democratically elected Iranian government,” Mr. Obama said — a reference to
the 1953 coup in which an Iranian prime minister, under whom Iran had
nationalized its oil industry, was overthrown and the now-despised Shah was
restored to power.
The response to Mr. Obama’s overtures from the Iranian alliance of Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad has been, largely, silence.
But Afshin Molavi, an Iran expert at the New America Foundation, said that the
vast majority of Iranians today want better relations with the United States,
and middle-class Iranians in particular, he said, were hoping that the Iranian
regime would capitalize on Mr. Obama’s much talked about unclenched fist.
Even though Mr. Moussavi shared the leadership’s commitment to Iran’s nuclear
program, many middle-class Iranians believed that he would be better able than
Mr. Ahmadinejad to strike a warmer relationship with Mr. Obama, said Mr. Molavi,
author of “Persian Pilgrimages: Journeys Across Iran” (Norton). “When the
election results were announced, for the Iranian middle class, it was not only
an insult and an injustice, but it dashed their hopes for a U.S.-Iran
rapprochement and told them that they would continue to be isolated in the
world.”
In his campaign, Mr. Moussavi used many tactics that echoed Mr. Obama’s. He
pledged to re-engage politically with the United States; he used posters of
himself and his wife side by side, and he hired a young chief strategist who
said he looked to the Obama campaign for ideas. Mr. Moussavi, like Mr. Obama,
even used social networks on the Internet to campaign. And once the count was
in, his supporters found new uses for the networks in their uniquely Iranian
fight.
June 21, 2009
The New York Times
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
TEHRAN — Police officers used sticks and tear gas to force back thousands of
demonstrators under plumes of black smoke in the capital on Saturday, a day
after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said there would be
“bloodshed” if street protests continued over the disputed presidential
election.
Separately, state-run media reported that three people were wounded when a
suicide bomber attacked at the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the
southern part of the city, several miles from the scheduled protests. The report
of the blast could not be independently confirmed.
The violence unfolded on a day of extraordinary tension across Iran. The
opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, appeared at a demonstration in southern
Tehran and called for a general strike if he were to be arrested. “I am ready
for martyrdom,” he told supporters.
Mr. Moussavi again called for nullifying the election’s results, and opposition
protesters swore to continue pressing their claims of a stolen election against
Iran’s embattled and increasingly impatient clerical leadership in Iran’s worst
crisis since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
In Washington, President Obama called the government’s reaction “violent and
unjust,” and, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., warned again that the world was
watching what happened in Tehran.
Iran’s divisions played out on the streets. Regular security forces stood back
and urged protesters to go home to avoid bloodshed, while the feared
pro-government militia, the Basij, beat protesters with clubs and, witnesses
said, electric prods.
In some places, the protesters pushed back, rushing the militia in teams of
hundreds: At least three Basijis were pitched from their motorcycles, which were
then set on fire. The protesters included many women, some of whom berated as
“cowards” men who fled the Basijis. There appeared to be tens of thousands of
protesters in Tehran, far fewer than the mass demonstrations early last week,
most likely because of intimidation.
The street violence appeared to grow more intense as night fell, and there were
unconfirmed reports of multiple deaths. A BBC journalist at Enghelab
(Revolution) Square reported seeing one person shot by the security forces. An
amateur video posted on YouTube showed a woman bleeding to death after being
shot by a Basiji, the text posted with the video said.
“If they open fire on people and if there is bloodshed, people will get
angrier,” said a protester, Ali, 40. “They are out of their minds if they think
with bloodshed they can crush the movement.”
Mr. Obama’s statement was his strongest to date on the post-election turmoil in
Iran. Saying that “each and every innocent life” lost would be mourned, he
added: “Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian
people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian
government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the
dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
“Martin Luther King once said, ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it
bends toward justice.’ I believe that. The international community believes
that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian people’s belief in
that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.”
There had been varying reports in the hours leading up to the opposition rally
about whether it would be called off in the face of the government’s threatened
crackdown. State television reported that Mr. Moussavi had called it off, but
some of his supporters, posting on social networking sites, urged demonstrators
to gather.
Journalists were banned from leaving their offices to report on the protests. A
reporter from an American news organization said she had been called by a member
of the Basij militia warning her not to go to the venue for the Saturday rally
because the situation would be dangerous and there could be fatalities.
The authorities were also reported on Saturday to have renewed an offer of a
partial recount of the ballots in the disputed election — an offer that the
opposition has previously rejected. A letter from Mr. Moussavi published on one
of his Web sites late Saturday repeated his demand for the election to be
annulled.
“The Iranian nation will not believe this unjust and illegal” act, he said in
the letter, which was addressed to the powerful Guardian Council, a panel of
clerics which oversees and certifies election results. Making his case for
electoral fraud, he charged that thousands of his representatives had been
expelled from polling stations and some mobile polling stations had ballot boxes
filled with fake ballots.
In a long and hard-line sermon on Friday, Ayatollah Khamenei declared the June
12 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad valid and warned that demonstration
leaders “would be responsible for bloodshed and chaos” if demonstrations
continued.
Regional analysts said that, by calling for an end to the rallies, Ayatollah
Khamenei had inserted himself directly into the confrontation, invoking his own
prestige and that of Iran’s clerical leaders. But his speech also laid the
groundwork to suppress the opposition movement with a harder hand,
characterizing any further protests as being against the Islamic republic
itself.
Iran’s National Security Council reinforced Ayatollah Khamenei’s warning on
Saturday, state media reported, telling Mr. Moussavi to “refrain from provoking
illegal rallies.”
The demand came in a letter from the head of the council after a formal
complaint by Mr. Moussavi that law enforcement agencies had failed to protect
protesters.
“It is your duty not to incite and invite the public to illegal gatherings;
otherwise, you will be responsible for its consequences,” the letter said,
according to state media.
On Saturday morning, security forces — regular and riot police officers, and the
Basij — were deployed in huge numbers around Tehran and, unconfirmed reports
said, other major Iranian cities. The reports of confrontations came not only
from northern Tehran, a hotbed for the opposition, but in the south, generally
considered more supportive of Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Amateur video posted to the Web showed scenes of chaos and gunfire, some of it
as vividly violent as in the clashes on Monday that left at least seven people
dead. One video posted on the BBC Farsi service showed streets on fire and a
large crowd fleeing amid several rounds of semiautomatic gunfire. A photo showed
the riot police repelling demonstrators with a hand-held water cannon.
The Basij militia completely blocked off Enghelab Square, one major gathering
ground for the protesters. They are less accountable than regular security
forces and, many witnesses said, were far more violent on Saturday.
“Please go home,” one regular officer told protesters. “We are scared of the
Basijis, too.”
One woman who lives off Vali Asr Square, near where the protests took place,
said Basijis beat and kicked anyone outside, shouting at them to return to their
houses.
“The streets near our house were full of Basijis wearing helmets and holding
batons,” she said.
The government warned that it would step up the pressure on the opposition from
its regular security forces if it continued to stage demonstrations.
“We acted with leniency, but I think from today on, we should resume law and
confront more seriously,” Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi Moghadam said on state television.
“The events have become exhausting, bothersome and intolerable. I want them to
take the police cautions seriously because we will definitely show a serious
confrontation against those who violate rules.”
In a measure of the scale of the opposition’s complaints, one losing candidate
in the June 12 election, Mohsen Rezai, a conservative former commander of the
Revolutionary Guards, claimed to have won between 3.5 million and 7 million
votes compared with the 680,000 accorded to him in the first announcement of
results a week ago, state-run Press TV reported Saturday.
Witnesses said that Mohammad Ghoochani, a prominent journalist and editor in
chief of several reformist publications that had been shut down, was arrested
Saturday by the authorities. There were no further details of his condition or
location.
The authorities had also invited the three opposition candidates to attend a
meeting on Saturday with the 12-member Guardian Council, the panel of clerics
which oversees and certifies election results. But only one candidate — Mr.
Rezai — attended, Press TV said.
The panel has been presented with 646 complaints of electoral irregularities,
the authorities have said.
Mr. Moussavi has expressed mistrust of the panel, accusing some of its members
of campaigning before the election for Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Press TV quoted Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the council’s spokesman, as saying the
body was investigating complaints including shortages and delays in the supply
of ballot papers, the denial of access to polling stations by candidates’
representatives and intimidation and bribery of voters.
“Although the Guardian Council is not legally obliged,” Mr. Kadkhodaei was
quoted as saying, “we are ready to recount 10 percent of the ballot boxes
randomly in the presence of representatives of the candidates.”
This article was written by Robert F. Worth in Beirut, Sharon Otterman in New
York and Alan Cowell in Paris based on first-hand accounts from Tehran.
June 20, 2009
Filed at 2:44 p.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is challenging Iran's government to
halt ''all violent and unjust actions against its own people.''
His comments Saturday came as a postelection crackdown against protesters in
Tehran grew more violent.
Police in the Iranian capital beat protesters and fired tear gas and water
cannons at thousands who rallied in open defiance of Iran's clerical government.
At least seven people have died since the unrest began days ago.
Obama said in a statement that the universal rights to assembly and free speech
must be respected. He said the U.S. ''stands with all who seek to exercise those
rights.''
WASHINGTON — With Iran on a razor’s edge after a week of swelling protests,
the Obama administration has fended off pressure from both parties to respond
more forcefully to the disputed election there. But if Iranian authorities carry
out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown, the White House would
reconsider its carefully calibrated tone, officials said Friday.
Administration officials said events this weekend in Tehran — when demonstrators
plan to rally in defiance of the authorities — would be a telling indicator of
whether President Obama would join European leaders and lawmakers on Capitol
Hill in more harshly condemning the tactics of the Iranian government.
Congressional Republicans and conservative foreign-policy experts stepped up
their pressure on the White House to take a firmer stand in support of the
demonstrators, even as Mr. Obama worked to keep Democrats from breaking openly
with him on Iran.
For now, administration officials said they had not been swayed by criticism
that Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak out more had broken faith with democracy
advocates in Tehran, or by the fact that European leaders and even members of
his own party in Congress had responded more assertively than he had.
In an interview with CBS News on Friday, Mr. Obama spoke cautiously about
warnings by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of bloodshed if the
protests go on. “I’m very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the
statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the
world is watching,” Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Obama, officials said, was determined to react to events as they unfold,
rather than make statements that might play well politically but hinder his
longer-term foreign-policy goals. The administration still hopes to pursue
diplomatic engagement with Iran on its nuclear program.
Still, one senior official acknowledged that a bloody crackdown would scramble
the administration’s calculations. The shadow of Tiananmen Square — in which
Chinese tanks and troops crushed a flowering democracy movement in Beijing — has
hung over the White House this week.
Mr. Obama continued to face pressure at home not to miss an opportunity to align
the United States with a potentially historic shift in Iran. On Friday, both
houses of Congress threw full support behind the rights of protesters to
challenge the election results. In the House, lawmakers voted 405 to 1 to adopt
a nonbinding resolution condemning the violence against demonstrators. The
Senate passed a similar resolution later in the day.
“This resolution is not about American interests,” said Representative Howard L.
Berman, a California Democrat who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. “It’s about American values, which I believe are universal values:
the values of the rule of law; of participatory democracy; about individual
liberty and about justice.”
The resolution, though firm, was softened after negotiations between Mr. Berman
and the chairman of the House Republican Conference, Representative Mike Pence
of Indiana, who was pushing for a tougher rebuke of the Iranian government.
Democrats were aware of White House concerns about statements that could open
the United States to charges of interference, and administration officials said
the resolution largely echoed Mr. Obama’s public comments. “My guiding principle
on this resolution was, Do no harm,” Mr. Berman said in a telephone interview.
While he said the United States was not taking sides, other lawmakers were.
Representative Bob Inglis, Republican of South Carolina, said the election had
clearly been fraudulent. “Rigged elections don’t produce outcomes that people
can believe in,” he said. “We the people of the United States should stand
boldly with the people in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran who are saying, ‘We yearn
to breathe free,’ who want to govern themselves; this is their moment.”
The European Union also took a markedly tougher line than Mr. Obama, issuing a
statement condemning the violence that resulted in loss of life. The union’s 27
national leaders also “condemned the crackdown against journalists, media
outlets, communications and protesters,” which they said were “in contrast to
the relatively open and encouraging period in the run-up to the election.”
Speaking afterward, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said: “It is for Iran
now to show the world that the elections are fair. It is also the wish of the
world that the repression and the brutality that we have seen in the last few
days is not something that is going to be repeated.”
The Obama administration has resisted such language, worrying that full-throated
American backing for the protesters would harm their cause by making them more
susceptible to being labeled by Iranian officials as tools of Washington.
Administration officials note that their muted response has not prevented the
turnout at protests from growing by the day.
Mr. Obama has won support from across party lines. Henry A. Kissinger, the
former secretary of state, said on Fox News: “I think the president has handled
this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one
of the contenders, behind Moussavi, would be a handicap for that person,” he
said. Mir Hussein Moussavi is the main challenger to the declared victor,
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Some experts on Iran say a stronger United States response could provoke a
violent backlash.
“If we overtly take sides, the regime could well react with a massive and bloody
crackdown on the demonstrators using the pretext that they are acting against an
American-led coup,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian expert at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace.
The United States, he said, should quietly lobby other countries, from Turkey
and India to France and Japan, to press Tehran about human rights abuses and the
fairness of the election. It is not clear if the United States has done that,
but a senior official said the White House understood if “our allies choose to
lean in a different direction.”
Mr. Obama’s cautious approach, officials said, was also driven by a belief that
Iran is unlikely to loosen its commitment to its nuclear program, regardless of
who ends up in the president’s office. The ultimate authority over that, they
note, resides with Ayatollah Khamenei.
Yet some Iran experts argue that the administration may soon have to re-evaluate
its view of the supreme leader, who they say has been tarnished by his erratic
response to the tumult in Tehran.
“If Ahmadinejad survives, it will be on the back of a Tiananmen-style
crackdown,” said Abbas Milani, the director of Iranian studies at Stanford
University. “If Moussavi prevails, it will be on a wave of reformist sentiment.”
David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting from Washington, and Stephen
Castle from Brussels.
June 17, 2009
The new York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will order the Navy to hail and request
permission to inspect North Korean ships at sea suspected of carrying arms or
nuclear technology, but will not board them by force, senior administration
officials said Monday.
The new effort to intercept North Korean ships, and track them to their next
port, where Washington will press for the inspections they refused at sea, is
part of what the officials described as “vigorous enforcement” of the United
Nations Security Council resolution approved Friday.
The planned American action stops just short of the forced inspections that
North Korea has said that it would regard as an act of war. Still, the
administration’s plans, if fully executed, would amount to the most
confrontational approach taken by the United States in dealing with North Korea
in years, and carries a risk of escalating tensions at a time when North Korea
has been carrying out missile and nuclear tests.
In discussing President Obama’s strategy on Monday, administration officials
said that the United States would report any ship that refused inspection to the
Security Council. While the Navy and American intelligence agencies continued to
track the ship, the administration would mount a vigorous diplomatic effort to
insist that the inspections be carried out by any country that allowed the
vessel into port.
The officials said that they believed that China, once a close cold war ally,
would also enforce the new sanctions, which also require countries to refuse to
refuel or resupply ships suspected of carrying out arms and nuclear technology.
“China will implement the resolution earnestly,” said Qin Gang, a spokesman for
the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said.
One official in Washington said the administration was told by their Chinese
counterparts that China “would not have signed on to this resolution unless they
intended to enforce it.”
The strategy of ordering ships to stop but not provoking military action by
boarding them was negotiated among Washington, Beijing and Moscow. It is unclear
to what degree South Korea or Japan, at various times bitter adversaries of
North Korea, would order their naval forces to join in the effort to intercept
suspected shipments at sea, largely because of fears about what would happen if
North Korean ships opened fire.
A senior administration official said Monday evening that the United States
believed that it already had sufficient intelligence and naval assets in the Sea
of Japan to track North Korean ships and flights. The country’s cargo fleet is
relatively small, and the North is wary, officials say, of entrusting shipments
banned by the United Nations to Panamanian-flagged freighters or those from
other countries.
Until now, American interceptions of North Korean ships have been rare. Early in
the Bush administration, a shipment of missiles to Yemen was discovered, but the
United States permitted the shipment to go through after the Yemenis said they
had paid for the missiles and expected delivery. Under the new United Nations
resolution, American officials said they now had the authority to seize such
shipments.
The senior administration officials outlined Mr. Obama’s approach a day before
the president was to meet for the first time on Tuesday with South Korea’s
president, Lee Myung-bak, a conservative who has been far more confrontational
in his dealings with North Korea than most of his predecessors.
The resolution authorizes nations to seek to stop suspect North Korean shipments
on the high seas, but they do not authorize forcible boarding or inspections.
“The captains will be confronted,” one official said, speaking on the condition
of anonymity because he was discussing a security operation that America’s key
allies had only been partially briefed on.
Even if they refused to allow inspections, the official said, “These guys aren’t
going to get very far.”
While the captain of a ship may refuse inspection, as the North Koreans almost
certainly would, the Obama administration officials noted that most North Korean
vessels have limited range and would have to seek out ports in search of fuel
and supplies.
American officials believe that previous North Korean shipments of nuclear
technology and missiles have gone undetected. The North Koreans were deeply
involved in the construction of a reactor in Syria until September 2007, when
the reactor was destroyed in an Israeli air raid. But no ships or aircraft
carrying parts for that reactor were ever found.
Mr. Obama’s decisions about North Korea stem from a fundamentally different
assessment of the North’s intentions than that of previous administrations.
Nearly 16 years of on-and-off negotiations — punctuated by major crises in 1994
and 2003 — were based on an assumption that ultimately, the North was willing to
give up its nuclear capability.
A review, carried out by the Obama administration during its first month in
office, concluded that North Korea had no intention of trading away what it
calls its “nuclear deterrent” in return for food, fuel and security guarantees.
Mr. Obama’s aides have said that while the new president is willing to re-engage
in either the talks with North Korea and its neighbors, or in direct bilateral
discussions, he will not agree to an incremental dismantlement of the North’s
nuclear facilities.
“There are ways to do this that are truly irreversible,” said one of Mr. Obama’s
aides, declining to be specific.
North Korea is already working to reverse the dismantlement of some of its
facilities negotiated in Mr. Bush’s last days in office.
In the weeks ahead of and after its second nuclear test, conducted May 25, North
Korea has disavowed its past commitments to give up those weapons, and said it
would never bow to the demands of the United States, its allies, or the United
Nations. On Saturday the North said that it would reprocess its remaining
stockpile of spent nuclear fuel into plutonium, adding to an existing stockpile
believed sufficient to make six or eight weapons.
Such announcements have heightened fears that North Korea’s next step could be
to sell more of its nuclear or missile technology, one of the few profitable
exports of a broken, starving country. The result is that Mr. Obama, in his
first year in office, is putting into effect many of the harshest steps against
North Korea that were advocated by conservatives in the Bush White House,
including Vice President Dick Cheney.
The new approach, officials said, will also exploit elements of the Security
Council resolution to try to close down the subsidiaries of North Korean missile
makers in China, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, where the North has its
biggest customers.
June 16, 2009
Filed at 8:51 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama says the world is inspired by the
outpouring of Iranian political dissent, but Sen. John McCain said Obama isn't
speaking out strongly enough.
Obama said Monday an inquiry into the disputed presidential election should go
ahead without violence and said he didn't know who rightfully won the Iranian
balloting, but that Iranians have a right to feel their votes mattered. McCain,
who lost to Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election, called on the
president to turn up his rhetoric.
''He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and
that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights,'' the Arizona
Republican said Tuesday on a network news show.
But the leading Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee thinks the
Obama administration's arms-length stance is just right.
''I think for the moment our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their
situation,'' said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. ''When popular revolutions
occur, they come right from the people.'' He said he did not think it would be
wise for the United States ''to become heavily involved in the election at this
point.''
A spokesman for Iran's Guardian Council had said earlier Tuesday that it was
ready to recount specific ballot boxes. The 12-member Guardian Council include
clerics and experts in Islamic law.
Obama's remarks marked the most extensive U.S. response to Friday's voting, and
appeared calculated to acknowledge the outpouring of dissent in Iran without
claiming any credit.
''It would be wrong for me to be silent on what we've seen on the television the
last few days,'' Obama told reporters at the White House. He added, however,
that ''sometimes, the United States can be a handy political football.''
The new American president is personally hugely popular in Iran, and all
candidates in this year's surprisingly lively presidential election backed off
on criticism of the United States. But the larger idea of the United States --
and its world influence, backed by massive military power -- remains highly
divisive. Any candidate or popular movement seen to have the express backing of
the United States would probably be doomed.
''What I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism
into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and
inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the
election was,'' Obama said. ''And they should know that the world is watching.''
Lugar said if the U.S. tried to play a more aggressive role there, it's likely
the clerics would use pent up resentment of the United States there to
consolidate their own power. ''The clerics are in charge. They are the
government. The election is interesting, but not decisive,'' he said.
McCain said the Iranian people ''should not be subjected to four more years of
(President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and the radical Muslim clerics.''
Iran's state radio said seven people died in shooting that erupted after people
at an ''unauthorized gathering'' Monday night in western Tehran ''tried to
attack a military location.''
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians streamed through the capital streets, and the
fist-waving protesters denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim to a
landslide re-election. Standing on rooftops, pro-government gunmen opened fire
on a group of protesters who had tried to storm the militia's compound.
Obama campaigned on a promise to extend a hand to the United States' main rival
for influence in the Middle East, and the prospect of a different relationship
with the United States was a constant, if largely unspoken, theme in the
hardline Ahmadinejad's contest with a pro-reform challenger.
Obama was asked whether the violence had changed his outlook on the value of
outreach to the clerical regime. While denouncing violence against
demonstrators, Obama said he remains committed to what he called ''tough,
hardheaded diplomacy'' with a nation that could soon possess nuclear weapons.
The United States has a broader interest in stopping Iran from developing those
weapons or exporting terrorism, Obama said.
''We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries,
and we'll see where it takes us,'' he said.
The United States urged Iran on Monday to agree to a meeting with the six key
nations trying to ensure that its nuclear program is peaceful.
U.S. deputy ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo told the U.N. Security Council that Iran
has not responded to the request from the five permanent council members -- the
U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France -- and Germany for new talks, which
would be the first international discussion on Iran's nuclear program since
Obama took office in January.
''The United States remains committed to direct diplomacy with Iran to resolve
issues of concern to the international community and will engage on the basis of
mutual respect,'' DiCarlo said. ''The United States will be a full participant
in these discussions and we continue to urge Iran to accept this invitation.''
DiCarlo's comments came hours after Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, urged Iran to ''respond to the U.S. initiative with an
equal gesture of goodwill and trust-building.''
In remarks alongside Italy's premier on Monday, Obama called some of
Ahmadinejad's past statements ''odious,'' and did not mention the challenger,
Mir Hossein Mousavi, by name. Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be ''wiped from
the map'' and questioned the extent of Jewish extermination in the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad's challenger claims he was robbed of the presidency and has called
for the results to be canceled.
Obama did not go that far.
He said peaceful dissent should never be subject to violence, but that he had no
way of knowing whether the results were valid. Obama noted that the United
States had no election monitors in the country.
He appealed to young Iranians, largely seen as determinative of Iran's political
future over the coming five to 10 years. A quarter of the population of some 70
million is 15 years old or younger.
''I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any
decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their
voices should be heard and respected,'' Obama said.
McCain was interviewed on NBC's ''Today'' show and Lugar appeared on CBS's ''The
Early Show.''
------
Associated Press writers Philip Elliott and Edith M. Lederer contributed to this
report.
Mr. Aciman hits the nail on the head. President Obama, in his comprehensive
speech in Cairo, did not say anything about the estimated 800,000 Jews who were
forced to leave Arab countries for refuge in Israel and other lands that would
welcome them.
I, too, find it strange that our president mentioned Arab refugees without
acknowledging the fact that Jews throughout the Arab world have been victims of
anti-Semitism since long before Israel became a state in 1948.
The president and his advisers need to understand that to be an honest broker in
forging peace between Israel and the Palestinians, one has to be honest in
reminding everyone of historical fact.
(Rabbi) Reuven H. Taff
Sacramento, June 9, 2009
•
To the Editor:
André Aciman’s reminder of how Jews were persecuted and then written out of
history in Egypt is familiar to Mizrahi Jews, those from Lebanon, Iraq, Iran,
Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, many of whose families lived in these areas before
the advent of Islam. It’s a familiar story for those Ashkenazi Jews whose
families lived in Europe for centuries before Hitler.
It’s high time that the fate of the Jews displaced from Arab countries over the
last six decades was factored into the Middle East peace negotiations.
Helen Epstein
Lexington, Mass., June 9, 2009
The writer is a journalist and author of the memoirs “Children of the Holocaust”
and “Where She Came From.”
•
To the Editor:
It is tragic that Jews were forced out of Egypt so many years ago. André Aciman,
however, does not mention that the Palestinians were forced out of what had been
their lands and homes in Palestine.
It is interesting that Mr. Aciman says Jews had lived peacefully and were
integrated into Egyptian society until they were forced out about 50 years ago.
It is obvious that there was a direct connection to what was happening in
Palestine/Israel, with the great catastrophe being endured by the Palestinians
who had been forced from their homes.
This is not to say that the treatment of the Jews in Egypt was justified; two
wrongs do not make a right. But in the interest of accurate reporting and to
better understand the whole situation, it is essential to include all of the
relevant facts.
Sarah Fike
Berkeley, Calif., June 9, 2009
•
To the Editor:
André Aciman’s article reminded us of what happened in Libya, where we were
born. Most of the Jews of Libya fled after post-World War II Arab pogroms; those
who remained were forced to leave in 1967.
Personal property was left behind and expropriated, but so, too, was communal
property. One of the telling statements we heard when conducting oral histories
was, “I would never go back ... Qaddafi destroyed the cemeteries.”
Most of these Jews found refuge in Israel, where they arrived penniless. Our
grandfather, a successful merchant in Libya, struggled in 1949 to find work
delivering milk. The children of the Jews of Libya have become functioning
members of Israeli society and long ago discarded the role of “refugee.” One
cannot forget that nearly half the population of Israel is made up of refugees
from Arab countries and their descendants.
Vivienne Roumani-Denn
Maurice Roumani
New York, June 9, 2009
The writers are, respectively, director of the film “The Last Jews of Libya” and
author of “The Jews of Libya.”
•
To the Editor:
Thank you for this moving article about the Jews in Egypt. There are two factors
that should also be considered. Israel always welcomed Jewish refugees into its
society. In stark contrast, Palestinians have been kept in refugee camps
throughout the Arab world, pawns in the long battle with Israel.
Second, the fleeing and expulsion of Jews from Arab lands after 1948, and the
destruction of what had been vibrant Jewish communities, are a cultural loss in
much of the Arab world that will never be rectified, even in my mother’s native
Morocco, which had always had good relations between Jews and Muslims.
Edwin Andrews
Malden, Mass., June 9, 2009
•
To the Editor:
As an Armenian-American whose parents were born in Egypt, I was intrigued by
this commentary on President Obama’s oversight on the plight of Jews forced from
Arab lands because of widespread nationalism. However, Jews were not the only
victims. Vibrant Christian communities, including Armenians and Greeks, also
suffered from discrimination in Arab countries, leading many to flee.
A paucity of cultural diversity has arguably contributed to the Arab radicalism
seen today and is a stark reminder of what happens to society when divergent
voices are silenced and opinions ignored.
Stephan Pechdimaldji
San Ramon, Calif., June 9, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S speech to the Islamic world was a groundbreaking event.
Never before has a young, dynamic American president, beloved both by his
countrymen and the nations of the world, extended so timely and eager a hand to
a part of the globe that, recently, had seen fewer and fewer reasons to trust us
or to wish us well.
As important, Mr. Obama did not mince words. Never before has a president gone
over to the Arab world and broadcast its flaws so loudly and clearly: extremism,
nuclear weapons programs and a faltering record in human rights, education and
economic development — the Arab world gets no passing grades in any of these
domains. Mr. Obama even found a moment to mention the plight of Egypt’s harassed
Coptic community and to criticize the new wave of Holocaust deniers. And to show
he was not playing favorites, he put the Israelis on notice: no more settlements
in the occupied territories. He spoke about the suffering of Palestinians. This
was no wilting olive branch.
And yet, for all the president’s talk of “a new beginning between the United
States and Muslims around the world” and shared “principles of justice and
progress,” neither he nor anyone around him, and certainly no one in the
audience, bothered to notice one small detail missing from the speech: he forgot
me.
The president never said a word about me. Or, for that matter, about any of the
other 800,000 or so Jews born in the Middle East who fled the Arab and Muslim
world or who were summarily expelled for being Jewish in the 20th century. With
all his references to the history of Islam and to its (questionable) “proud
tradition of tolerance” of other faiths, Mr. Obama never said anything about
those Jews whose ancestors had been living in Arab lands long before the advent
of Islam but were its first victims once rampant nationalism swept over the Arab
world.
Nor did he bother to mention that with this flight and expulsion, Jewish assets
were — let’s call it by its proper name — looted. Mr. Obama never mentioned the
belongings I still own in Egypt and will never recover. My mother’s house, my
father’s factory, our life in Egypt, our friends, our books, our cars, my
bicycle. We are, each one of us, not just defined by the arrangement of protein
molecules in our cells, but also by the things we call our own. Take away our
things and something in us dies. Losing his wealth, his home, the life he had
built, killed my father. He didn’t die right away; it took four decades of exile
to finish him off.
Mr. Obama had harsh things to say to the Arab world about its treatment of
women. And he said much about America’s debt to Islam. But he failed to remind
the Egyptians in his audience that until 50 years ago a strong and vibrant
Jewish community thrived in their midst. Or that many of Egypt’s finest
hospitals and other institutions were founded and financed by Jews. It is a
shame that he did not remind the Egyptians in the audience of this, because, in
most cases — and especially among those younger than 50 — their memory banks
have been conveniently expunged of deadweight and guilt. They have no
recollections of Jews.
In Alexandria, my birthplace and my home, all streets bearing Jewish names have
been renamed. A few years ago, the Library of Alexandria put on display an
Arabic translation of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” perhaps the most
anti-Semitic piece of prose ever written. Today, for the record, there are
perhaps four Jews left in Alexandria.
When the last Jew dies, the temples and religious artifacts and books that were
the property of what was once probably the wealthiest Jewish community on the
Mediterranean will go to the Egyptian government — not to me, or to my children,
or to any of the numberless descendants of Egyptian Jews.
It is strange that our president, a man so versed in history and so committed to
the truth, should have omitted mentioning the Jews of Egypt. He either forgot,
or just didn’t know, or just thought it wasn’t expedient or appropriate for this
venue. But for him to speak in Cairo of a shared effort “to find common ground
... and to respect the dignity of all human beings” without mentioning people in
my position would be like his speaking to the residents of Berlin about the
future of Germany and forgetting to mention a small detail called World War II.
André Aciman, a professor of comparative literature at the City University of
New York Graduate Center, is the author of the memoir “Out of Egypt.”
June 7, 2009
Filed at 5:34 a.m. ET
By REUTERS
The New York Times
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on
Sunday he would strive for "maximum understanding" with Washington on peace
issues but gave no sign he intends to bow to its demand to halt settlement
expansion.
Under pressure from U.S. President Barack Obama over settlements in the occupied
West Bank and Palestinian statehood, which Netanyahu has not endorsed, the
Israeli leader said he would set out his policies in a major speech later this
month.
"I want to make clear, it is our intention to achieve peace with the
Palestinians and with the countries of the Arab world while attempting to reach
maximum understanding with the United States and our friends in the world,"
Netanyahu said.
"I aspire to a stable peace based on the solid foundations of the security of
the state of Israel and its citizens," he told his right-wing cabinet at its
weekly meeting.
His comments, which stopped short of a pledge to end all differences with the
United States on peacemaking, left open the possibility of an ongoing rift
between Israel and its main ally over issues central to an Israeli-Palestinian
accord.
Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is to begin a visit to Israel and
the West Bank on Monday. Western and Israeli officials said the White House was
formulating a blueprint for a renewed peace process that could be presented
early next month.
Without citing a precise date, Netanyahu said: "Next week, I will make a major
diplomatic speech in which I will present to the citizens of Israel our
principles for achieving peace and security."
A spokesman said Netanyahu was referring to the Israeli work week starting on
Sunday, June 14.
SECURITY
By mentioning security, Netanyahu again highlighted an issue he has called
paramount to Israel's approach to peace with the Palestinians, whom he has said
should have self-government but only limited powers of sovereignty.
In a speech on Thursday to Muslims, Obama said Washington "does not accept the
legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" and said their expansion undermines
efforts to achieve peace.
Israeli officials said Netanyahu has no intention of freezing all settlement
activity which would risk the collapse of his coalition.
They said he would try to ease friction with the United States by removing West
Bank roadblocks that hinder Palestinians and small Jewish outposts that are not
authorized by the government.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, head of the center-left Labour Party in Netanyahu's
government, held out the possibility of a softening in Israel's position on
Palestinian statehood in return for an easing of U.S. pressure over settlements.
Referring to a 2003, U.S.-endorsed peace plan, Barak told reporters the
government should declare it is "committed to all previous agreements signed by
previous governments, including the 'road map', whose goal is two states for two
peoples."
"I believe such a position will bring the differences over settlements back to
normal proportions," he said.
Obama Calls North Korea ‘Extraordinarily Provocative’
June 7, 2009
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY, STEVEN ERLANGER and ALAN COWELL
COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France — President Obama signaled a stronger approach
toward North Korea on Saturday, saying that Pyongyang had been “extraordinarily
provocative” with its latest nuclear and missile tests and had shown no
readiness to engage in “serious diplomacy.”
He was speaking at a joint news conference with President Nicolas Sarkozy of
France hours before the two men joined leaders of Britain and Canada to mark the
65th anniversary of the D-Day landings on June 6, 1944, that hastened the fall
of Nazism.
After a journey marked through the Middle East and Europe marked by pleas for
peace and harsh words for those who would deny the Holocaust, President Obama
emphasized common ground with President Sarkozy on such key issues as the Middle
East and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. The two men met in the
Normandy city of Caen before the D-Day commemoration.
Labeling North Korea’s behavior “extraordinarily provocative,” Mr. Obama said:
“Diplomacy has to involve the other side engaging in a serious way in trying to
solve problems, and we have not seen that kind of reaction from North Korea,”
Mr. Obama said. “We are going to take a very hard look on how we move forward on
these issues,” Mr. Obama said. “I don’t think there should be an assumption that
we will simply continue down a path in which North Korea is constantly
destabilizing the region and we just react in the same ways.”
He added: “We are not intending to continue a policy of rewarding provocation.”
From discussions in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, through a keynote address in
Cairo on Thursday and a visit to the former concentration camp at Buchenwald in
Germany on Friday, Mr. Obama has woven together assertive demands for a halt to
the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a call for a “new
beginning” between the United States and the Muslim world and an insistence that
America’s bond with Israel is unbreakable.
Referring again to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on Saturday, Mr. Obama said
he did “not expect that a 60-year-old problem will be solved overnight.”
During his trip much attention has focused on his call for Israel to halt the
expansion of settlements in the West Bank. He repeated that demand Saturday and
urged Palestinians to “renounce violence and incitement” and improve governance.
He also said that, given their political and economic importance, “Arab states
have to be part of the process.”
Mr. Sarkozy, who met last Wednesday with visiting Iranian officials in Paris
said he had tried to persuade them to respond to Mr. Obama’s overtures to
Tehran. Many in the west are alarmed by Iran’s nuclear enrichment program,
saying it is designed to build a nuclear weapon. But Tehran says the program is
for civilian purposes only.
Referring to Iran, Mr. Sarkozy continued: “We want peace. We want dialogue. We
want to help them develop. But we do not want military nuclear weapons to spread
and we are clear on that,” Sarkozy said of Iran, adding that he worries about
“insane statements” by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Obama said there must be “tough diplomacy” with Tehran.
The two leaders shared a light-hearted moment for the TV cameras when President
Obama said Mr. Sarkozy spoke quickly and Mr. Sarkozy quipped that Mr. Obama was
also quick to understand.
The visit to Normandy on Saturday revolved around the commemoration of the vast
military operation code-named Overlord 65 years ago.
On that day, 156,000 troops — 73,000 of them Americans — took part in history’s
biggest amphibious landing along a 50-mile stretch of beaches supported by 6,900
vessels ships and 11,590 airplanes, according to British figures. At the same
time American airborne troops dropped by parachute in Nazi-occupied France as
the allies began a campaign across Europe that ended with Germany’s surrender 11
months later.
More than 3,000 allied troops died in the first two days of the campaign to turn
the tide of World War II. But just as many French civilians, caught up in the
conflict, perished in the same period, according to a new study by British
historian Anthony Beevor.
And today, at the American military cemetery in this seaside village above the
sands where the landing began, and which President Obama planned to visit on
Saturday, 9,387 headstones mark the resting places of American soldiers who died
in the invasion and its aftermath.
In brilliant sunshine on Saturday, as waves crashed against Omaha Beach below,
hundreds of people arrived at the cemetery. The age of the gathering crowd was
striking, with far fewer World War II veterans on hand than children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who landed here 65 years ago.
“Many of the veterans of World War II are in the sunset of their years,” Mr.
Obama said as he made his way toward Normandy, where his great uncle, a World
War II veteran, was set to join him. “So having an opportunity to acknowledge
them once again, and the sacrifices they made, was very important to me.”
Hyrum Smith Shumway, an 87-year-old Army veteran from Eldersburg, Md., made his
fourth trip to Normandy on Saturday. His son, grandson and great-grandson
accompanied him and stood by as Mr. Shumway reprised his role 65 years ago.
“We climbed up the hill. We crossed here, where the cemeteries are now,” said
Mr. Shumway, who was a 2nd lieutenant in the First Army Division, 18th Regiment,
Company B. “We were the second ones to land.”
He was 22. Six weeks after D-Day, a mine exploded and blinded him for life. Mr.
Shumway said he loved combat, but now longs for peace. He is hopeful that Mr.
Obama will help achieve that goal for the United States.
“I think it’s wonderful that he has come over here to try to make peace in
Israel and with the Muslims,” said Mr. Shumway, whose jacket was adorned with a
Bronze Star and a Legion of Honor medal. “He’s sure a good speaker, I hope he’s
able to bring peace to the world, but I don’t know that he will.”
Before Mr. Obama’s arrival in Normandy, the commemoration had been clouded by a
diplomatic brouhaha when Britain’s Royal Family let it be known that Queen
Elizabeth II — the only living head of state who served in uniform during World
War II the Second World War — had not been invited.
As a face-saving device for Britain’s royal family, which the White house helped
to mediate, Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, was set to attend along with
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, fresh from a bruising battle over his political
future.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy were accompanied by their wives, Michelle Obama and
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, who hugged when they met in Caen.
The visit to France crowned a journey during which President Obama intensified
his pledge to unlock the Middle East stalemate, and announced that he would send
an envoy next week to pursue his call for a two-state solution. And, as he
toured the former concentration camp at Buchenwald on Friday, he said the camp
served as a lesson to “be ever-vigilant about the spread of evil in our own
time.”
Also on Friday, the president met with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany on
the contentious issues of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, the nuclear program in
Iran and the global financial crisis. But he quickly moved to the next stop of a
trip built on his biography, visiting the site of Buchenwald, not far from where
his great-uncle helped liberate prisoners in World War II.
“To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened — a
denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful,” Mr. Obama
said. “This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts, a reminder of our
duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history.”
As he walked by the crematory ovens, barbed-wire fences and guard towers at
Buchenwald, Mr. Obama paid tribute to those who died at the camp and others,
saying, “They could not have known how the nation of Israel would rise out of
the destruction of the Holocaust and the strong, enduring bonds between that
great nation and my own.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Colleville-Sur-Mer, France, and Steven Erlanger and
Alan Cowell from Paris. Nicholas Kulish contributed reporting from Weimar,
Germany.
Sat Jun 6, 2009
10:20am EDT
Reuters
By Ross Colvin
COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama paid
homage to the heroes of D-Day on Saturday, saying their assault on Normandy's
beaches exactly 65 years ago had helped save the world from evil and tyranny.
Addressing stooped, white-haired veterans, Obama said the Second World War
represented a special moment in history when nations fought together to battle a
murderous ideology.
"We live in a world of competing beliefs and claims about what is true," Obama
said. "In such a world, it is rare for a struggle to emerge that speaks to
something universal about humanity. The Second World War did that."
His visit to Normandy came at the end of a rapid tour through Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Germany and France, where Obama has tried to reach out to the Muslim
world and press for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Speaking in a giant U.S. military cemetery at Colleville, where 9,387 American
soldiers lie, Obama said the war against Nazi Germany laid the way for years of
peace and prosperity.
"It was unknowable then, but so much of the progress that would define the
twentieth century, on both sides of the Atlantic, came down to the battle for a
slice of beach only six miles long and two miles wide," he said.
The Colleville cemetery, with its rows of white crosses and stars of David,
overlooks the Omaha Beach landing where U.S. forces on June 6, 1944, suffered
their greatest casualties in the assault against heavily fortified German
defenses.
HUMAN DESTINY
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined Obama at Saturday's ceremony held
under bright skies -- a stark contrast to the winds and rain that marked D-Day.
Obama has been seeking to repair ties with France and other European states who
were alienated by his predecessor George W. Bush's go-it-alone diplomacy, the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and his policies on climate change.
Earlier on Saturday he held talks with Sarkozy, where the two said they were
determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Obama also promised
an uncompromising stance against North Korea, which tested a nuclear bomb last
month.
In his speech, Obama said D-Day showed that human destiny was not determined by
forces beyond its control but by individual choices and joint action.
On a more personal note, he also saluted his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who
arrived in Normandy a month after D-Day, and also his great uncle, Charles
Payne, who was in the first American division during the war and was present on
Saturday.
"No man who shed blood or lost a brother would say that war is good. But all
know that this war was essential," he said.
It has become a tradition for American presidents to visit Normandy. Ronald
Reagan went to the D-Day beaches the 40th anniversary in 1984, Bill Clinton was
there 10 years later and George W. Bush was there in both 2002 and in 2004.
"I am not the first American president to come and mark this anniversary, and I
likely will not be the last," he said.
June 6, 2009
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and NICHOLAS KULISH
DRESDEN, Germany — President Obama on Friday intensified his pledge to unlock
the Middle East stalemate, sending an envoy next week to pursue his call for a
two-state solution, as he toured a former concentration camp that he said served
as a lesson to “be ever-vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time.”
The president met with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany on the contentious
issues of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, the nuclear program in Iran and the
global financial crisis. But he quickly moved to the next stop of a trip built
on his biography, visiting the site of Buchenwald, not far from where his
great-uncle helped liberate prisoners in World War II.
“To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened — a
denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful,” Mr. Obama
said. “This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts, a reminder of our
duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history.”
The poignant imagery, which was broadcast on television here, was intended to
underscore what Mr. Obama had described the day before in Cairo as America’s
“unbreakable” bond with Israel. His speech there, which also called for two
states, angered some in Israel because of his forceful opposition to expanding
existing settlements on the West Bank.
The president said Friday that “the moment is now” to begin aggressively seeking
a Middle East peace settlement. In addition to sending his envoy, George J.
Mitchell, to the region, Mr. Obama also put Israelis and Palestinians on notice
that it was up to them to make “difficult compromises.”
“The Palestinians have to get serious about creating a security environment that
is required for Israel to feel confident,” he said. “Israelis are going to have
to take some difficult steps.”
He added: “Ultimately, the United States can’t force peace upon the parties, but
what we’ve tried to do is to clear away some of the misunderstandings so we can
at least begin to have frank dialogue.”
At a joint news conference at Dresden Castle, the German and American leaders
dismissed suggestions that their relationship was chilly.
An early issue of contention between them was diverging approaches for solving
the financial crisis. The two leaders talked about an economic stimulus, aides
to Mr. Obama said, with Mrs. Merkel specifically calling for “an exit strategy.”
In principle, Mr. Obama agreed, his aides said, but no closure was reached. They
pledged to work together on climate change, on Middle East peace and on trying
to persuade Iran to abandon what the West fears is a nuclear program to build an
atomic bomb, but which Tehran says is for civilian purposes.
“With President Barack Obama,” Mrs. Merkel said, “there is actually a unique
opportunity now to see to it that this peace process — or let’s perhaps be more
careful — this negotiation process is to be revived again.”
There was no sign of progress on Washington’s desire for Europeans to accept
prisoners from Guantánamo Bay, as Mr. Obama moves to redeem a pledge to close
the detention center in Cuba. Mrs. Merkel said that she was pleased by the
administration’s effort to close the prison, but that a decision had not been
made about accepting detainees.
“I don’t anticipate it’s going to be resolved in the next two or three months,”
Mr. Obama said.
The overnight stop in Dresden, in addition to the bilateral meeting with the
chancellor, served as a bookend for the president’s address in Cairo. In many
ways, Germany is an ideal location for the themes of reconciliation and fresh
starts that Mr. Obama struck in calling for a new alliance to the Islamic world.
As Mr. Obama noted in Dresden, Germany went from a fascist dictatorship to a
successful democracy, one prepared to publicly admit past mistakes and learn
from them in perhaps a more comprehensive way than any other nation. The message
was embodied by Mrs. Merkel’s appearance at Buchenwald.
Indeed, it was Buchenwald, perhaps more than anywhere else, that embodied the
contradiction of a civilized society’s descent into organized barbarism. The
camp sits just a few miles outside Weimar, one of the country’s leading cultural
centers.
As he walked by the crematory ovens, barbed-wire fences and guard towers at
Buchenwald, Mr. Obama called the site the “ultimate rebuke” to those who deny or
seek to minimize the Holocaust. He paid tribute to those who died at the camp
and others, saying, “They could not have known how the nation of Israel would
rise out of the destruction of the Holocaust and the strong, enduring bonds
between that great nation and my own.”
With his hands behind his back, Mr. Obama walked through the former
concentration camp, flanked by Mrs. Merkel and Elie Wiesel, a Nobel peace prize
winner, writer and Holocaust survivor, who lived through a death march from
Auschwitz to Buchenwald and was at the camp when it was liberated in April 1945.
Mr. Wiesel spoke movingly about the death of his father a few months before the
liberation of the camp, calling his journey there “a way of coming and visiting
my father’s grave.” He added, “But he had no grave. His grave is somewhere in
the sky, which has become in those years the largest cemetery of the Jewish
people.”
Mr. Obama also seized upon a personal connection to the camp. His great-uncle,
Charles Payne, helped liberate a sub-camp of Buchenwald called Ohrdruf. Mrs.
Merkel, who like Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Obama laid a long-stemmed white rose in
memory of the dead, spoke of the German responsibility “to do everything
possible that something like that never happens again.”
She added, “I bow before all the victims.”
Volkhard Knigge, who directs the Buchenwald foundation and led Mr. Obama and
Mrs. Merkel on their tour, said he believed the president’s visit to the site
and his speech in Cairo were linked.
“He wanted to underline that he will take a real dialogue very seriously, but on
the other hand a real dialogue does not mean appeasement, toward dictatorship or
anti-Semitism,” Mr. Knigge said in an interview after the tour.
The fierce, and still contentious, aerial bombing in Dresden at the end of World
War II destroyed the baroque Frauenkirche, or Church of Our Lady, which the
president and Mrs. Merkel visited on Friday, stopping for a brief prayer.
Although they spent several hours together, their appearances renewed
speculation here about how friendly they really were beyond the diplomatic
smiles and handshakes.
Mr. Obama dismissed the suggestion that his relationship with Mrs. Merkel was
strained. Asked by a German television reporter about it, he playfully
admonished the press.
“Stop it, all of you,” Mr. Obama said. “We have more than enough problems out
there without manufacturing problems.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Dresden, and Nicholas Kulish from Weimar, Germany.
Alan Cowell contributed reporting from Paris.
JERUSALEM — Iran seems to be hurtling toward nuclear weapons capacity,
Hezbollah could win Sunday’s election in Lebanon and Hamas is smuggling
long-range rockets into Gaza again. So why is President Obama focusing such
attention on the building of homes by Israeli Jews in the West Bank?
That, in essence, is the question being angrily posed by the Israeli government
of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and underscores one of the biggest shifts
in American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in three decades.
While every administration has objected to Israeli settlement building in
occupied lands, the Obama administration has selected it as the opening issue
that could begin to untie the Gordian knot of the conflict.
American officials hope that by getting Israel to freeze settlement building on
land where the Palestinians expect to build their future state, they can then
press Saudi Arabia and other regional powers to offer Israel concessions like
low-level trade or tourism. In addition, stopping the construction would remove
a major concern of the Palestinians that their land is slowly disappearing under
settler housing. In his Cairo speech on Thursday, the president again called for
an end to the settlement building.
“Obama may have found the soft underbelly of Israel, because ending settlements
is a consensus issue in the world, among American Jewry and even among a
majority of Israelis,” said Yossi Beilin, a former leftist minister and member
of Parliament who now runs a private consulting firm. “He needs a strong
regional coalition to leave Iraq — and not to leave it to Iran. And it seems
like he sees ending settlements as a way to start this process. The only
question is whether Netanyahu can do what is needed.”
The administration is starting with settlements for two reasons. It wants to
send a message to the Arab world that the previous eight years of siding
consistently with Israel are over — hence the Cairo speech and the focus on
improving relations with Muslims. And it is one place where it actually has
leverage — given the American backing of Israel, it can push Israel to live up
to its commitment far more easily than it can persuade Hamas to abandon
violence.
A poll published in Friday’s Yediot Aharonot newspaper lends some credence to
the view that most Israelis would be willing to go along. Asked whether Mr.
Netanyahu should acquiesce to Mr. Obama’s demands or risk American sanctions, a
small majority favored acquiescing. When asked whether Israel should freeze
settlement construction, another slim majority agreed. But when asked about
“natural growth” of families in the settlements, a majority favored making
allowances.
The issue of natural growth has surfaced so prominently because while the
Israeli government presents it as a simple humane need to make room for
expanding families, the data show that settler growth has been enormous in
recent years and nearly all of it has been labeled natural growth.
While stopping the bulldozers seems like a relatively easy request of Israel, it
is politically dicey for Mr. Netanyahu and technically complicated. His
governing coalition includes parties with right-wing constituencies whose
central goal is to expand settlements. Moreover, 40 years of settlement building
have created interlocking bureaucracies and constituencies that will be hard to
stop.
As Yossi Verter, a political analyst, put it in the liberal newspaper Haaretz on
Friday, Mr. Netanyahu “will have to decide over the coming weeks whom he would
rather pick a fight with: the powerful American administration, whose president
sees himself in an almost messianic role, or his own coalition and members of
his party.”
Whether Mr. Netanyahu can do it and survive politically is not the only question
here. A second is whether this new American approach holds any promise.
“I am not a Greater Israel guy and I have no objection to dismantling
settlements as part of a peace deal, but getting so hung up on freezing
settlement growth is not wise because it is not the most important issue out
there,” argued Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic
Studies at Bar Ilan University.
The far bigger concern, he said, is that the Palestinians are unable to make
similar concessions because of their political divisions and weakness.
Israelis have turned rightward and most analyses suggest that the reason is a
growing fear of regional threats, notably Iranian-backed parties like Hezbollah
and Hamas, on Israel’s borders.
Sarah Honig, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, a conservative paper, put it
this way a week ago in a column: “Settlements aren’t the problem and removing
them isn’t the solution. Israel foolishly dismantled 21 Gaza Strip settlements
in 2005. Did peace blossom all over as a result? Precisely the reverse occurred.
The razing of Israeli communities was regarded as terror’s triumph, expediting
the Hamas takeover.”
The settlements are a complex issue that resonates in surprising ways here.
Zionism began 125 years ago through the Jewish purchase of land in Palestine and
the building of settlements on what the Jews saw as their ancient homeland. When
Israel won additional territory in the 1967 war, a conflict it felt was imposed
on it, many here viewed it as the miraculous continuation of Jewish national
rebirth in the biblical heartland. Religious Jews began settling there, but
others were attracted by low prices, open space and a pioneering ethos.
Criticism ensued immediately, including American government condemnation. The
Fourth Geneva Convention forbids a country to settle its civilians in areas
conquered militarily. Israel set up military outposts that turned into civilian
settlements.
Palestinians were enraged. Some resorted to terrorism, leading some Israelis to
argue that settlements were a vital front line to protect the heartland.
After Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization agreed in 1993 to mutual
recognition and began negotiating the terms of a Palestinian state, Israel ended
construction of new settlements. But the boundaries of existing settlements were
large, and over the next decade, the settler population more than doubled and
now stands at nearly 300,000.
In 2003, Israel and the Palestinians signed the so-called road map for a
two-state solution, calling on Israel to freeze all settlements, and on the
Palestinians to dismantle terror networks. Neither has done so.
The Israelis say they had unwritten agreements with the Bush administration to
continue building, as long as no new settlements were built. Bush officials say
that is only partially true. The Obama administration says such winks and nods
are over. It is signaling the Arab world that it is shifting policy. Whether it
does so, and how the Netanyahu government responds, will make for high drama in
the coming months.
Among Israel’s U.S. Backers, Anxiety and Some Support Greet
Obama’s Words
June 6, 2009
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s new formulation on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict — along with his tough new stance against Israeli settlements in the
West Bank — has rekindled fears among a few American Jewish organizations that
Mr. Obama may be fundamentally less pro-Israeli than his predecessors.
But several prominent pro-Israeli lawmakers on Capitol Hill indicated that they
remained behind Mr. Obama’s Middle East push, at least for now.
“The president is absolutely on the right track,” said Representative Gary L.
Ackerman, Democrat of New York. “Certainly he’s right that expansion of
settlements is not helpful, and hurts a peace process.”
Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York, praised the speech that Mr.
Obama delivered on Thursday from Cairo, in which he voiced sympathy for what he
called the “daily humiliations” of the Palestinians. Ms. Lowey said,
“Recognition of historical realities and the dignity, rights and opportunity all
people deserve must be at the center of our pursuit of stability and security.”
Whether Mr. Obama can continue to hold on to this support from pro-Israeli
lawmakers remains to be seen. His background — a practicing Christian who is the
son of a Muslim father from Kenya — as well as some statements and his
friendships with prominent Palestinians had left many American Jewish groups
worried that he might be tougher on Israel than past American presidents had
been.
Mindful that the Cairo speech could cause a stir among American Jews, senior
White House officials held a conference call Wednesday night from Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, with three to four dozen American Jewish leaders, to alert them to the
president’s message and to try to win their support.
But Mr. Obama will clearly have more soothing to do when he comes home. The
Zionist Organization of America issued a statement on Friday calling the Cairo
speech “strongly biased” against Israel. A statement by the organization’s
president, Morton A. Klein, said Mr. Obama’s remarks “may well signal the
beginning of a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.”
Although Mr. Obama chose to bypass Israel on his trip, he announced that he was
dispatching his Middle East envoy, George J. Mitchell, to the region next week
for talks on Arab-Israeli peace, an indication that he intends to follow up the
Cairo speech with quick action.
“The moment is now for us to act on what we all know to be the truth, which is
that each side is going to have to make some difficult compromises,” Mr. Obama
said Friday in Germany. He added: “The Palestinians have to get serious about
creating a security environment that is required for Israel to feel confident.
Israelis are going to have to take some difficult steps.”
Some of the concerns that supporters of Israel voiced about Mr. Obama before he
took office began to dissipate as he assembled a staff that includes a White
House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who was a civilian volunteer in the Israeli
armed forces, and a secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who established
strong pro-Israel credentials during her years as a senator from New York.
But some apprehension clearly remains. In an interview on Friday, Representative
Ackerman said he believed that Mr. Obama needed to clarify what he meant by a
freeze on Israeli settlements, a call that has left Israeli officials deeply
uneasy.
Mrs. Clinton said last week that a freeze meant no “natural growth exceptions,”
and some Israeli officials have contended that the Obama administration is, in
effect, telling Israeli settlers that they cannot have babies. Most Middle East
experts say the term “natural growth” applies to actual construction of
additional units within the settlements’ existing boundaries.
“We can’t tell people that they can’t have a child,” Mr. Ackerman said.
But the settlers’ annual population growth, at 5.6 percent, far outstrips the
Israeli average of 1.8 percent, and Palestinians have complained that even
natural growth cannot account for such a disparity.
Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, fell in behind Mr. Obama on the
settlement issue, much as he did last month when the Israeli prime minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu, was in Washington and got an earful from lawmakers on
Capitol Hill that the United States was serious about a freeze on settlement
construction.
Mr. Kerry urged Palestinians to crack down on terrorism, and called for Arab
countries to reach out to Israel. He added: “Israel must take difficult steps as
well, and as a friend of Israel, the United States must speak with unity on
their importance. I agree with President Obama that Israel’s settlement activity
undermines efforts to achieve peace, and that these settlements must stop.”
The world’s eyes and ears on Cairo underscores how President Obama has given us
the gift of a new and unique opportunity — one that only a year ago seemed like
a fantasy — to reorient America as a peaceful citizen of the planet we seem to
have rejoined at last.
President Obama has “pressed the reset button,” as Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton did with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and our return
from the wilderness could help bring the Israelis and the Palestinians closer to
peace and reconciliation — and underneath all restore those Western-Islamic
relations that have so heavily burdened the second half of the last century and
especially the beginning of the new one.
No wonder Al Qaeda fears and hates President Obama. And no wonder, even after
the new millennium started with an unexpected nightmare, it seems we can at
least dream, after all, that our and the Middle East’s and world’s children
might grow up to better lives.
We can never of course get back to the world of Sept. 10, 2001, but with lots of
determination — and luck — our president may eventually return us closer to that
place than we had ever dared to hope.
James Adler
Cambridge, Mass., June 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
As extremists inherently pit Islam against the West and Westerners often espouse
progressive ideals to the Muslim world in a nonprogressive manner, I doubted if
any public figure could offer concrete ideas to promote peace. President Obama’s
Cairo address, however, dispelled those doubts.
Presenting a vast overlap of Islamic and American ideals, the president’s
address gave the Muslim world hope, and extremists angst. The president referred
to the Koran and history to show that Islam advocates for pluralism, education
and sanctity of life. He reminded the Muslim world of America’s support for
Islam dating back to John Adams’s presidency, to its defense of the hijab, or
head scarf, to the fact that so many Muslims have succeeded in so many ways in
America.
By incorporating Islam into the equation rather than rejecting it, President
Obama presented the most conciliatory message for global peace in recent memory:
swords may bend heads, but only ideas bend minds.
Sardar Anees Ahmad
Waterloo, N.Y., June 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
In President Obama’s push for Mideast peace, one key unasked question is: Can
the Islamic world accept a non-Muslim state in the middle of an Arab-dominated
region? If the answer is no, then all negotiated agreements are nothing more
than subterfuge.
Howard Schwartz
Englewood, N.J., June 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
For as long as I can remember, my Muslim identity and my American identity have
made me a stranger in both worlds.
In the sensitivities of the post- 9/11 era, I had to be cautious when asserting
my Muslim identity to my fellow Americans who were not Muslim. When visiting
cousins in Pakistan, I had to be cautious asserting my pride in being an
American.
Today, I have never been so proud to be a Muslim-American. Thank you, President
Obama, for bringing our two worlds together, and for helping me merge the worlds
within myself.
Moein Khawaja
Philadelphia, June 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
To those of us who desire a just peace in the Middle East, it was disappointing
to see President Obama, in the interest of evenhandedness, gloss over some
inconvenient truths.
To create an appearance of equivalence between the Holocaust and the condition
of the Palestinians, he said of them: “For more than 60 years, they’ve 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.”
The inconvenient truth, which he failed to acknowledge, is that, for the first
19 of those 60 years, the West Bank and Gaza were administered by Jordan and
Egypt, respectively, and that it was under the administration of the Arab
nations that the Palestinians were confined to refugee camps.
At any time during those first 19 years, the Arab nations could have provided “a
life of peace and security” by, for example, establishing a Palestinian state or
integrating the people into their own countries. Instead, they kept them
confined to the camps as pawns in a propaganda war against Israel.
At the same time, Jewish refugees from Arab countries were forced to flee their
homes by the backlash to the establishment of Israel.
In contrast to the actions of the Arab nations, Israel took them in, sometimes
requiring daring rescue missions, and integrated them into their modern,
Western-oriented society, just as they did, one might add, for the Arabs who
chose to remain as citizens of Israel.
Joel S. Engel
Armonk, N.Y., June 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
As the author of a history of Saudi Arabia, I am delighted that we have a
president who can speak to Muslims with sensitivity and insight, and who says
that Muslims and Westerners need not be adversaries.
Rivalry can be friendly. Sura (Chapter) 5 of the Koran says that God sent
mankind the Torah, the Gospel and the Koran. “For every one of you, We have
appointed a path and a way ... So compete with one another in good works.”
Mark Weston
Armonk, N.Y., June 5, 2009
The writer is the author of “Prophets and Princes: Saudi Arabia From Muhammad to
the Present.”
•
To the Editor:
What a beautiful speech President Obama gave in Cairo! With the pragmatism of
Jefferson and some of the fire of Rumi, our new president is laying out
leadership and vision we’ve desperately needed.
Despite the nit-picking of cynics, the substance is all there, and President
Obama’s faith and citations of people believing in one another, and themselves,
is exactly what we need at this time.
June 5, 2009
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and ALAN COWELL
CAIRO — In opening a bold overture to the Islamic world on
Thursday, President Obama confronted frictions between Muslims and the West, but
he reserved some of his bluntest words for Israel, as he expressed sympathy for
the Palestinians and what he called the “daily humiliations, large and small,
that come with occupation.”
While Mr. Obama emphasized that America’s bond with Israel was “unbreakable,” he
spoke in equally powerful terms of the Palestinian people, describing their
plight as “intolerable” after 60 years of statelessness, and twice referring to
“Palestine” in a way that put Palestinians on parallel footing with Israelis.
Mr. Obama’s speech in Cairo, which he called a “timeless city,” was perhaps the
riskiest of his presidency, as he used unusually direct language to call for a
fresh look at deep divisions, both those between Israel and its neighbors and
between the Islamic world and the West. Among his messages was a call for
Americans and Muslims to abandon their mutual suspicions and do more to confront
violent extremism.
But it was Mr. Obama’s empathetic tone toward the Palestinians that attracted
the most attention in the region and around the world. His words left many
Palestinians and their Arab supporters jubilant but infuriated some Israelis and
American backers of Israel because they saw the speech as elevating the
Palestinians to equal status.
Mr. Obama said the bond between the United States and Israel was “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.”
“On the other hand,” Mr. Obama added, “it is also undeniable that the
Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a
homeland. For more than 60 years, they’ve endured the pain of dislocation.” He
said Americans “will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration
for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.”
Mr. Obama seemed to connect with his audience in his 55-minute speech from Cairo
University as he quoted repeatedly from the Koran and occasionally sprinkled his
remarks with Arabic, even beginning his address with the traditional Arabic
greeting “salaam aleikum,” or “peace be upon you.”
In the speech, which was broadcast and translated around the world, Mr. Obama
sounded forceful, even scolding at times, as he promoted democracy in Egypt and
women’s rights and acknowledged that the United States had fallen short of its
ideals, particularly in the Iraq war.
He divided his speech into seven sections, standing at the podium like the
university professor he was before beginning his political career. Mr. Obama
sharply criticized what he called the “disturbing tendency” among some Muslims,
both Sunnis and Shiites, to “measure one’s own faith by the rejection of
somebody else’s faith.”
But while he spoke uncompromisingly of the American fight against Al Qaeda, Mr.
Obama never mentioned the words “terrorism” or “terrorist.” That was a departure
from the language used by the Bush administration, but one that some Middle East
experts suggested reflected a belief by the new administration that overuse had
made the words inflammatory.
Still, Paul D. Wolfowitz, a former top Bush administration official who was an
architect of the war in Iraq and is a strong supporter of Israel, offered
general praise for Mr. Obama’s address.
“I could have used less moral equivalence, but he had to get through to his
audience, and it’s in America’s interest for him to get through,” Mr. Wolfowitz
said.
Mr. Obama’s remarks will be parsed by Israelis and Palestinians, in part because
when previous American presidents have used the word “Palestine,” they have
usually done so only in reference to a future Palestinian state, as President
George W. Bush did in March 2002.
“Now Obama is saying ‘Palestine’ is a present reality,” said Robert Malley,
director of the Middle East program at the International Crisis Group, and a
Middle East negotiator in the Clinton administration.
Mr. Obama’s stark statement that “the United States does not accept the
legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” is also likely to be seen as a
sharp challenge to Israeli assumptions that existing West Bank settlements will
always be allowed to remain.
It was noteworthy that the only Palestinian political group that Mr. Obama
specifically mentioned was Hamas, the militant Islamic organization that won
Palestinian legislative elections in 2006. Hamas governs Gaza, but is loathed by
Israel. Mr. Obama called on Hamas to forswear violence and recognize Israel’s
right to exist, but Middle East experts said that his mention was an
acknowledgment that Hamas might have become a more important actor than the
Fatah Party, controlled by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
Mr. Obama said, “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also
have to recognize they have responsibilities.”
The president offered few details on how to solve problems around the globe. But
he offered up his own biography as a credible connection to his various
audiences. His message touched on a lengthy list of challenges, but his
appearance here could simply be boiled down to this: Barack Hussein Obama was
standing on the podium in this Muslim capital as the American president.
“I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to
fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” Mr. Obama
said. “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.”
Some Muslims were delighted.
“I feel that he spoke to my emotions, and showed a sense of recognition of the
dignity of Palestinians,” said Ghaith al-Omari, advocacy director of the
American Task Force on Palestine.
Although Mr. Obama strongly condemned those who would deny the Holocaust, many
American supporters of Israel said they resented what they viewed as comparing
it to the plight of the Palestinians.
“I understand Palestinian suffering, it is terrible,” said Abraham Foxman, the
national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “But it is not on the other
hand to the Holocaust.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Cairo, and Helene Cooper from
Washington.
When President Bush spoke in the months and years after Sept. 11, 2001, we
often — chillingly — felt as if we didn’t recognize the United States. His
vision was of a country racked with fear and bent on vengeance, one that imposed
invidious choices on the world and on itself. When we listened to President
Obama speak in Cairo on Thursday, we recognized the United States.
Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s security and
values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to defeat Al Qaeda
and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no desire to
permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq.
He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment to
Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that
all of those listening — in the Muslim world and in Israel — must do more to
defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.
Words are important. Mr. Obama was right when he urged leaders who privately
speak of moderation and compromise to dare to say those words in public. But
words are not enough. Mr. Obama, who, after all, has been in office for less
than six months, has a lot to do to fulfill this vision. So do others.
Like many people, we were listening closely to how the president would address
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not shy away from pressing Israel’s new
government, insisting that the construction of settlements must stop, the
existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and “the situation for the
Palestinian people is intolerable.”
In the same stern tone, he pressed the Palestinians to reject violence and said
that Arab states must stop using the conflict “to distract” their people from
other problems. They must recognize Israel and do more to help Palestinians
build strong state institutions.
We couldn’t have agreed more when he said that the elements of a peace formula
are known. We are now waiting to hear his strategy to move the process forward.
On Iran, Mr. Obama warned that its pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a
dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious
negotiations. We are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will propose and how he plans
to persuade Russia, China and the Europeans to support a credible mix of
punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran’s behavior.
Mr. Obama challenged the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who
justified, the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the war in Afghanistan was one of
necessity and insisted that despite the high cost, in lives and treasure,
America’s commitment will not weaken.
At the same time, Mr. Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of “choice that
provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Mr. Obama, who
said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, missed a chance to urge Iraq’s
neighbors to do all they can to help hold the country together as American
troops withdraw.
The audience was undoubtedly waiting to hear how Mr. Obama handled the issue of
democracy — and its depressing scarcity in the Islamic world. He avoided
President Bush’s hectoring tone and did not confront his host, President Hosni
Mubarak of Egypt. But we suspect everyone in the hall knew whom he was talking
about (they applauded at key moments) when he said that governments must
maintain power “through consent, not coercion” and that “elections alone do not
make true democracy.” We hope he made those points directly when he met Mr.
Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Before Thursday’s speech, and after, Mr. Obama’s critics complained that he has
spent too much time apologizing and accused him of weakening the country. That
is a gross misreading of what he has been saying — and of what needs to be said.
After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends
against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the
mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the
world to do better.
Varying Responses to Speech in Mideast Highlight Divisions
June 5, 2009
The New York Times
By ISABEL KERSHNER, ROBERT W. WORTH and MICHAEL SLACKMAN
JERUSALEM — President Obama’s carefully balanced message was greeted warmly
by his immediate audience in Cairo on Thursday and in some other parts of the
Mideast, but there was also dismissiveness and frustration. And among Israelis
and Palestinians, reactions to a message designed to open each side up to the
other and foster new understandings seemed rather to reflect the fractures.
Israelis and Palestinians picked at the content of the sweeping speech almost
like a biblical text, finding reassuring passages and more ominous ones,
depending on which side of the political spectrum they came from.
Israelis on the far right, for example, blasted Mr. Obama for what they said was
his casting of an equivalency between the Holocaust and the suffering of
Palestinians in two concurrent paragraphs of his 55-minute long address.
“How dare Obama compare Arab refugee suffering to the six million Jews murdered
in the Holocaust?” asked Aryeh Eldad, a parliamentarian from the rightist
National Union Party, adding that Mr. Obama might understand the difference
better when he visits the Buchenwald concentration camp in the coming days.
It was a mirror image in Gaza, where Ahmed Youssef, the deputy foreign minister
of the Hamas government, criticized the speech for not going far enough on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “He points to the right of Israel to exist, but
what about the refugees and their right of return?” Mr. Youssef said of Mr.
Obama’s remarks, leaving out that Mr. Obama also said Palestine’s right to exist
can’t be denied.
“As a legal specialist,” Mr. Youssef added, Mr. Obama “should know people are
under occupation, and they can not recognize the state while they are under
occupation, only afterwards. Why put pressure on Arabs and Muslims to recognize
Israel while it is not recognizing our existence?”
Each side also acknowledged that there were positive statements in the speech to
buttress their own causes.
Israelis noted that that Mr. Obama referred to America’s bond with Israel as
“unbreakable” and defined Israel as a “Jewish homeland,” an important point of
contention with the Palestinians; they also appreciated his unequivocal
condemnation of Palestinian resistance through violence, including rocket
attacks, and his condemnation of Holocaust denial.
Palestinians noted that Mr. Obama was the first American president to refer to
“Palestine,” and praised his willingness to acknowledge the depth of Palestinian
suffering so deeply.
Many lines in Mr. Obama’s speech drew applause from the audience in the elegant
Cairo University hall where it was held, but perhaps none so expressively as
those lifted from the Koran, which emphasized Islam as a religion of justice and
equality. The president’s respectful treatment of the religion, and his elegiac
recounting of the achievements of Muslims through history, resonated strongly
with many throughout the region, who seemed delighted by it.
Even those who took strong issue with some of the speech’s political points
acknowledged that its tone, rhetoric, and overall sense of empathy, were
strikingly new.
“I think his performance was marvelous,” said Khalid al-Dakhil, a professor at
King Saudi University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. “He seems so much more
sympathetic, so much more understanding of the feelings, attitudes and
perceptions of Arabs and Muslims. I think it was a speech with a vision, it was
designed to set the stage for a new beginning.”
Even the way Mr. Obama began his speech, his references to Koranic verses and
his use of the phrase “peace be upon him” after mentioning the Prophet Muhammad,
and his opening greeting — “Peace be upon you” in Arabic — struck a chord with
many people, particularly in Saudi Arabia, the deeply conservative desert
kingdom where Islam was born.
“Starting the speech with the words ‘salaam aleykum’ was a really good
approach,” said Ghina Sibai, a 32 year-old art director from Beirut, Lebanon, in
comments echoed by others across the Arab world. “Its kind of like a peace
treaty. He’s trying to address the Muslim world through its own culture.
“He was trying to erase stereotypes about Islam,” said Marwan Kabalan, a
professor of political science at Damascus University in Damascus, Syria. “It
was the most tolerant speech I have ever heard by an American president
concerning Islam and Muslims.”
Despite their admiration for Mr. Obama’s message and tone, however, some viewers
in Syria, a one nation with particularly strained ties to the United States,
viewed the address through the region’s omnipresent strategic lens, saying they
felt its softened tone was dictated partly by American weakness.
“The United States is in a weaker position now,” said Omar Amiralai, a
well-known 65-year-old Syrian film maker. “They are stuck in Iraq and
Afghanistan and don’t know how to get out. Bush, after the Iraq war, had some
ability to pressure Sharon on Israeli settlements, but I don’t see that the
United States has the ability to impose its law or desires on Israel now.”
Ayman Abdullah, a 47-year-old electrical engineer, was watching the speech live
on large television screens along with dozens of others at the Rawda Cafe in
Damascus. “The United States has lost power and popularity across the world, and
this is really just a new kind of attempt to regain it, which probably wont
work,” he said.
There seemed, to many Arab viewers, a kind of blindness in Mr. Obama’s speech
when it came to wars being conducted by the United States abroad, and a failure
to acknowledge that the United States, too, was responsible for the deaths of
innocents.
“What is astonishing is that he condemned violence, but he didn’t say a word
about what the United States did in Iraq,” said Khalid Saghieh, the executive
editor of al Akhbar, a Lebanese daily newspaper that leans towards Hezbollah.
“If you want to call for a new beginning, you should at least apologize for tens
of thousands of victims in Iraq.”
Other viewers passed over Mr. Obama’s comments about Iraq and Afghanistan as
political boilerplate, something the United States was duty bound to defend even
if the facts remained inconclusive. Instead, they felt he placed all the blame
for the violence on the Islamic militants, rather than acknowledging that they
too were reacting to historic wrongs.
“All this talk of extremism it is a transitory phenomenon,” said Mr. Amiralai,
the Syrian film maker. “It is a kind of foam that simply disguises the deeper
sources of injustice in the Islamic world.”
The subject that aroused the greatest interest by far was Israel and Palestine.
Some gave Mr. Obama credit for being clearer and firmer about the need for
Israel stop building settlements and to agree to a two-state solution. But most
of the listeners also expressed urgency that Mr. Obama’s soaring language to be
translated into new policies that would push Israel harder than the United
States has in the past.
Many went much farther, assailing Mr. Obama for essentially repeating old
American policies and for equating the suffering of Israelis seen here as the
oppressors with that of Palestinians. The passage in which Mr. Obama talked
about the Holocaust evoked little reaction, as many Arabs view that history —
whether or not they doubt its veracity — as one that has often been invoked to
justify Israeli oppression.
“He wasn’t tough enough on Israel,” said Saoud Kabli, a 25-year-old columnist
for the Saudi newspaper Watan. “He mentioned Muslim extremists, but he didn’t
mention what the Israelis do to the Palestinians. What I was looking for on an
intellectual level is a tough hand on the other side. There are Palestinians who
suffer every day from what the Israelis are doing.”
Mr. Saghieh, the Beirut newspaper editor, was harsher, saying Mr. Obama’s
even-handed treatment of Israeli and Palestinian suffering was bound to anger
people in this part of the world. He added that most Arabs would not agree with
Mr. Obama’s categorical comments about the futility of violence, noting that
American revolutionaries had used violence in their struggle for independence
against Britain.
“There was a vague hint in the speech that Jerusalem can be place for all sons
of Abraham,” Mr. Saghieh said. “But did not attack the two main issues, the
status of Jerusalem and the issue of refugees.”
Some others went still farther.
“I consider Mr. Obama’s speech a morphine injection, to numb the minds of Muslim
and Arab people so that they don’t mind so much the injustices carried out by
the United States in the region, as long as Mr. Obama respects Islamic culture
and heritage,” said Mr. Abdullah, the Syrian electrical engineer.
In Cairo, where the speech was carried on national television and was widely
watched, the speech seemed widely appreciated as a step in the right direction,
even if people still found in it many failures, oversights, missteps and flaws.
“It was honest, is the first word that comes to mine,” said Hossam Bahgat,
executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, an
independent human rights organization.
Mr. Bahgat, who attended the speech, said that one of the most important
elements of the speech was what was left out: “I think it was remarkable the
speech left out the term terrorism completely,” he said. “It may have been a
paradigm shift for the US away from using this politically charged word.”
Others analysts said that Mr. Obama clearly went as far as he could, given that
his allies are the leaders of the region and that Israel is a close strategic
partner. He spoke about freedom, democracy, human rights and even criticized
Israel on its expansion of settlement. For that, they said, he left the hall
appreciated and a rock star; but they also cautioned that the glow will soon
fade if it is not followed up, quickly, with some action.
“What is the next step we can witness which can make American policies different
from what they used to be?” said Mansoor al-Jamri, the editor of a Bahrain
newspaper, Al Wasat, and a member of one of the kingdom’s most prominent Shiite
families. “There has got to be actual steps to confirm all these declarations of
intent. What is the next step, thank you very much.”
Isabel Kershner reported from Jerusalem; Robert W. Worth from Beirut,
Lebanon; and Michael Slackman from Cairo. Reporting was contributed by Taghreed
El-Khodary from Gaza; Hwaida Saad from Beirut; Muhammad al-Milfy from Riyadh;
Omar al-Mani from Damascus, Syria; and Sharon Otterman from New York.
June 5, 2009
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and ALAN COWELL
CAIRO — President Obama pledged on Thursday to “seek a new beginning between
the United States and Muslims around the world,” imploring America and the
Islamic world to drop their suspicions of one another and forge new alliances to
confront violent extremism and heal religious divides.
“We have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek,” he
said. “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.”
He dwelled on Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan but reserved some of his sharpest
words for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He offered no major initiatives on
the Middle East peace process although he put Israelis and Palestinians on
notice that he intends to deal directly with what he sees as intransigence on
key issues, evoking the concerns of both parties but asking both to shift ground
significantly.
The speech in Cairo, which he called a “timeless city,” redeemed a promise he
made nearly two years ago while running for president. It was, perhaps, the
riskiest speech of his young presidency, and Mr. Obama readily conceded that not
every goal would be easily or quickly achieved.
“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,” he said. “Instead, they overlap, and share common principles —
principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human
beings.”
His message was sweeping and forceful — at times scolding and combative —
promoting democracy in Egypt, warning Israelis against building new settlements,
and acknowledging that the United States had fallen short of its ideals,
particularly in the Iraq war. It also evoked a new and nuanced tone, and some of
Mr. Obama’s language drew appreciative applause from his audience of 3,000
invited guests in the Major Reception Hall at Cairo University.
Several times, for instance, he spoke of “Palestine,” rather than the more
ambiguous term often used by American leaders, “future Palestinian state.” And,
in reference to the Palestinians, he pointedly mentioned “the daily humiliations
— large and small — that come with occupation.”
He described the bond between the United States and Israel as “unbreakable,” and
urged Hamas, the Islamic militant group in control of the Gaza Strip, to stop
violence. But in his next breath, Mr. Obama said Israel must curtail its
expansion of West bank settlements and recognize Palestinian aspirations for
statehood. He also acknowledged that Hamas, which the United States labels a
terrorist organization, “does have some support among some Palestinians.”
“But they also have responsibilities,” Mr. Obama said, listing them as “to end
violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.”
“Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be
denied, neither can Palestine’s,” Mr. Obama said. “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.”
And, while Israel’s hawkish government has not accepted a so-called two-state
solution, Mr. Obama said: “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.”
“This is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest and the
world’s interest,” he said. In the Middle East, “too many tears have been shed;
too much blood has been shed.”
The address drew initial support from Palestinians. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a
spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, called it “a good start and
an important step towards a new American policy.”
“It was honest, is the first word that comes to mind,” said Hossam Bahgat,
executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, an
independent human rights organization.
Mr. Bahgat, who attended the speech at Cairo University, said that one of the
most important elements of the speech was what was left out. “I think it was
remarkable the speech left out the term terrorism completely,” he said. “It may
have been a paradigm shift for the United States, away from using this
politically charged word.”
But others in the region faulted it. The President, some noted, did not offer
any new initiatives, did not lay out a time line for progress towards a Middle
East settlement and asked his audience to accept an view which gave equal weight
to Israeli and Palestinian concerns.
That part did not go down well, people in the region said.
“I feel it is important historically, but it will bring nothing new,” said Hasim
Fouad, 24, a reporter with the independent Egyptian newspaper Al Dustour.
Mr. Obama strode onto the stage to loud applause and a standing ovation in the
conference hall. He conceded that his speech came at “a time of great tension
between the United States and Muslims around the world.”
But he sought to explain that he represented the new face of American
leadership. He did not mention the name of George W. Bush, who preceded him in
office, and whose policies contributed to the mistrust.
“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,” Mr. Obama said. “Because we reject the same thing that people of all
faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.” Mr. Obama
said: “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.”
Mr. Obama offered few details for how to solve myriad problems and conflicts
around the globe, but he offered up his own biography as a credible connection
to his audience. While the message touched upon a litany of challenges, it
boiled down to simply this: Barack Hussein Obama was standing at the podium as
the American president.
“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,” Mr.
Obama said, delivering a common greeting signifying peaceful intent.
Mr. Obama said the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001
caused “enormous trauma to our country.” He offered no direct criticism of the
previous administration, but reminded his audience that he has “unequivocally
prohibited the use of torture” and has ordered the prison to be closed at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
“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,” Mr. Obama said. “We
are taking concrete actions to change course.”
The president divided his speech into seven sections, often sounding like the
university professor he was before he sought political office. He touched on
“sources of tension” from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy, religious
freedom, women’s rights and economic development and opportunity.
He said the Iraq war had been 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.”
By contrast, he described America’s military presence in Afghanistan as a
necessity after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan,” he said.
“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 now
Pakistan, determined to kill as many Americans as possible. But that is not yet
the case.”
Turning to Iran’s contentious nuclear program, he said any nation “should have
the right to access to peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its
responsibilities” under international regulations to counter the proliferation
of nuclear weapons.
Iran maintains its nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful civilian purposes
but many in the West suspect it is designed to build a nuclear bomb. “This is
not simply about America’s interests,” Mr. Obama said, “It is also about
preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region
and the world down a hugely dangerous path.”
As his visit to the region began Wednesday in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Obama was
greeted with reminders of the vast gulfs his address must bridge, as voices as
disparate as Al Qaeda’s and the Israeli government’s competed to shape how Mr.
Obama’s message would be heard.
In a new audiotape, Osama bin Laden condemned Mr. Obama for planting what he
called new seeds of “hatred and vengeance” among Muslims, while in Jerusalem,
senior Israeli officials complained that Mr. Obama was rewriting old
understandings by taking a harder line against new Israeli settlements.
Jeff Zeleny reported from Cairo, and Alan Cowell from London. Helene Cooper
contributed reporting from Washington, and Michael Slackman from Cairo.
The following is a text of President Obama's prepared remarks to the Muslim
world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House.
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.
Re “Arab Nations Say Israel Must Make the Next Gesture” (news article, June 3):
The immediate imperative is an American gesture signaling a genuine
determination to resolve the Arab- Israeli conflict. This could be accomplished
by including the following in President Obama’s speech in Cairo on Thursday:
“The United States is fundamentally adopting the substance of the 2002 Arab
peace initiative as re-endorsed in 2007 and committing that we will devote all
appropriate resources and make every possible effort to expeditiously bring
about the realization of two viable, independent, mutually non-hostile states,
Palestine and Israel, sharing Jerusalem as their capital, based on the pre-1967
division.”
The absence of such a gesture will reveal a fundamental vacuity in the
president’s message.
Ed Martin
New York, June 3, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Let’s remember that Israel is the only country that gave land to the
Palestinians for their autonomous rule. Jordan and Egypt did not do so during
the 19 years that they controlled the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel did so by
withdrawing from Gaza four years ago. The Palestinian response was not peaceful
coexistence, but missiles and terror.
Settlements are not the problem here. Israel has destroyed settlements and
displaced its citizens from their homes in Gaza. But the Palestinians didn’t
build peaceful towns in the settlements; they used them as missile launching
pads.
The world needs to avoid distractions, like settlements and border details, and
focus on Arab willingness to live in peace. Peace means no missiles, no terror,
no kidnappings.
Until the Arabs are willing to accept peace, Israeli overtures will go the same
way as the Gaza withdrawal.
Bruce Dov Krulwich
Beit Shemesh, Israel, June 3, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Re “Obama on Obama,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, June 3):
If President Obama believes that “nowhere is truth-telling more important than
the Middle East,” he should be telling the truth to the Palestinians on what is
the most fundamental issue underlying the conflict: Israel is a Jewish state and
Palestinian refugees will “return” to the nascent Palestinian state, not to
Israel.
It is not sufficient to tell the Palestinians that they must stop incessant
incitement against Israel and Jews. The truth goes much deeper than that. They
must be told that the war of 1948 is truly over and that their future lies in
building their own state. But this truth always seems too delicate to broach.
This is not an issue that can be shuffled off to final-status negotiations. If a
meaningful peace process is to begin, Israelis must see that the Palestinians
acknowledge Israel’s core issue, just as Israel is expected to acknowledge the
Palestinians’ core issue.
Perhaps most important, the Palestinian leadership must embrace the truth in
order to prepare its people for peace.
Gregg M. Mashberg
New Rochelle, N.Y., June 3, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Re “Israel and U.S. Can’t Close Split on Settlements” (front page, June 2):
This split stems from a significant disconnect that should not be chalked up to
mere semantics. Rather, the descriptive language used in defining this split
reveals its depth.
The Obama administration views the Israeli presence in the West Bank as unlawful
because the settlements sit on occupied territory; the Netanyahu administration
views the Israeli presence in the West Bank as lawful because the settlements
sit on disputed territory.
Referring to all Jewish communities in the West Bank as “settlements” suggests
that each is a far-reaching outpost isolated from Jewish population centers when
many are just “suburbs” of Jerusalem. Only final borders arrived at through
direct and unconditional negotiations among the principals will end this
Israeli-United States split.
David S. Kasdan
Cortlandt Manor, N.Y., June 2, 2009
•
To the Editor:
From reading your article about the settlement split, I understand that the
Israeli government and the settlers do not want peace.
Israel stands against the world community for its illegal actions. These actions
produce terrorism and strengthen radical Islam. America’s support for Israel is
a threat to United States security interests.
I support President Obama’s demand that Israel halt all settlement activities in
the occupied territories. Israel’s expansion in the occupied territories is an
existential threat to Israel.
Nabil Wahbeh
Berkeley, Calif., June 2, 2009
•
To the Editor:
The Israeli settlements are a key impediment to progress in the Middle East. All
those settlements, patrolled connecting roads and checkpoints disrupt life in a
way no society would tolerate.
The settlements don’t provide security. Who would put families with children in
hostile territory to protect the homeland? The fact is, the settlements look to
many like a land grab and inflame passions across the region.
Israel should dismantle settlements not contiguous with its border and negotiate
land swaps to redraw borders around the most populated areas. If the
Palestinians are not willing to participate, Israel should draw upon an
international forum to determine a just compromise and then act unilaterally.
Israel is the developed nation, and it needs to do the right thing and stop the
tit-for-tat bickering that is so often driven by extremists.
If after that the Palestinians continue with aggression, I, for one, would
support a security belt around the border on Palestinian territory, and would
happily help finance it through my tax dollars.
June 4, 2009
The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
CAIRO — This city has been painted and paved, manicured and swept clean.
Every coffee house and every corner has been buzzing with talk of President
Obama’s speech to the Muslim world on Thursday. But all the polish and all the
excitement will fade shortly after Air Force One lifts off, most people here
say, if nothing changes in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Consensus is rare in the culturally diverse and politically divided Islamic
world, but on this point there is unanimity, according to diplomats, political
analysts, government officials and average citizens from around the region.
“All American presidents say they will resolve the problem,” said Ahmed Fayek,
22, a student at Cairo University, as he sat outside the freshly painted, swept
and landscaped campus where more than 75 years ago the father of Islamic
radicalism, Sayyid Qutb, earned a degree in education. “We hope he really does.”
“No, he has to,” said Lamees Muhammad, 18, another student at the school. “The
Palestinian problem is the most important. We need real deeds.”
The president and his aides have tried to tamp down expectations, framing the
speech as one step in a continuing diplomatic push. And the Arab world has
jaundiced memories of lofty promises that have gone unfulfilled.
“He can say very beautiful words, he can make a speech in which he tells the
Muslim world that there has been a misunderstanding, that we look forward to a
new era, that we respect you and we love you, but all of this would be
considered mere rhetoric,” said Abdel Raouf al-Reedy, chairman of the Egyptian
Council on Foreign Relations and a former ambassador to the United States. “If
he is serious, the test is what he is going to say on the Palestinian problem.”
While his audience is deeply skeptical, it is also excited.
After so many years of feeling bullied and vilified by the Bush White House,
many Arabs are greeting President Obama’s visit as a historic moment, and an
opportunity.
“I am looking at the speech like Nixon going to China or Sadat going to
Jerusalem,” said Abdel Moneim Said, director of Egypt’s premier research center,
the state financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. “We forget
how just a year ago neo-cons were facing the problems in the world in terms of
the clash of civilizations.”
Mr. Obama’s visit is also something of a spiritual tonic here. It has inspired a
remarkable citywide cleanup while setting off a resurgence in pride in Egypt’s
historic — if faded — role as the most important Arab center.
“People actually want to like him,” said Nabil Fahmy, a former ambassador to the
United States and now dean of the school of public affairs at the American
University in Cairo. “He represents change. He represents for them the best in
America and he represents someone who seems committed to diplomacy.”
For Mr. Obama to win favor, however, he needs to address challenges facing the
Arab world, from poverty and inadequate education systems to limits on democracy
and human rights. He also appears mindful of the need to address issues of
democracy and human rights while not seeming to criticize or lecture the
authoritarian leaders of the region, whose help he needs.
“He has to address those issues carefully so that it is not seen as another
person coming to give us lessons,” said Ali el-Garouche, head of Arab
administration at the Arab League. “He has to present them in the framework of
‘In order to improve the general situation, you must also get on top of this and
that.’ ”
June 4, 2009
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Aiming to repair the American relationship with the
Muslim world, President Obama was greeted on Wednesday with reminders of the
vast gulfs his Cairo speech must bridge, as voices as disparate as Al Qaeda’s
and the Israeli government’s competed to shape how Mr. Obama’s message would be
heard.
In a new audiotape, Osama bin Laden condemned Mr. Obama for planting what he
called new seeds of “hatred and vengeance” among Muslims, while in Jerusalem,
senior Israeli officials complained that Mr. Obama was rewriting old
understandings by taking a harder line against new Israeli settlements. [Pages
A6 and A14.]
The speech that Mr. Obama is to deliver Thursday in Cairo is intended to make
good on a two-year-old promise to use a major Muslim capital as the scene for a
major address. Mr. Obama has pledged a new face and tone to relations between
the United States and the Muslim world. But whether his expected call for
America and Islam to come together can trump Mr. bin Laden’s call to arms is a
question that could define Mr. Obama’s presidency in the years to come.
Aware of the high expectations for the speech, Mr. Obama and his advisers have
spent months soliciting opinion and advice from a wide variety of experts, from
men of the cloth to Arab businessmen to Persian scholars. On his first stop in
the Middle East, Mr. Obama spent Wednesday afternoon with King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia, home to Islam’s two holiest sites, and declared on arrival, “I thought
it was very important to come to the place where Islam began.”
In a bid to make sure that Mr. Obama’s message will be heard, particularly among
young people, the White House has mounted an unusually aggressive campaign,
including a Web site created in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and English where people
outside the United States can sign up to receive the speech via text message.
The State Department is to translate the speech into at least 13 languages.
Mr. Obama’s advisers nevertheless sought to lower expectations. “There’s been an
undeniable breach between the American and Islamic world,” said David Axelrod, a
senior adviser to the president.
“That breach has been years in the making. It is not going to be reversed with
one speech. It’s not going to be reversed, perhaps, in one administration.”
The speech will cover a wide swath of territory, advisers said, beginning by
challenging the misperceptions that Americans may hold about Muslims and that
Muslims may hold about Americans. Mr. Obama will touch upon violent extremism,
the threat of a nuclear Iran and the need for the expansion of human rights and
democracy.
But even on Wednesday night, as Mr. Obama headed to his quarters at Al
Janadriyah Farm, where he is a guest of the king, he told his advisers that he
had more thinking to do on the speech and that he would deliver a final version
by dawn.
As the son and grandson of Muslims, Mr. Obama has had years to reflect on
America’s troubled ties with the Islamic world. But the path to the Cairo
address, as described by some advisers, also offers a case study in the
president’s approach to a delicate issue, one in which he reached out to dozens
of people on how to shape his message.
Before his trip, he and his aides talked to American chief executives of major
companies who are Muslims. He read unsolicited essays that were sent to the
White House. And he sought out not only Muslims, but also Jews and people of
other faiths and experts across academia.
In recent weeks, as advisers presented him with drafts of the speech, Mr. Obama
would end sessions with a question. “Are you making sure that we are hearing a
Muslim voice?” he would say, according to participants.
Among the Muslim business leaders consulted during the preparations were: S. A.
Ibrahim of the Radian Group; Tariq Malhance, the president of UIB Capital;
Hultam Olayan of the Olayan America Corporation; and Noosheen Hashemi, a former
vice president at Oracle.
On the Friday afternoon before the Memorial Day weekend, White House officials
hosted a group of Muslim and other foreign policy scholars to discuss what
points Mr. Obama should touch on. The meeting was organized by Michael McFaul,
the White House senior adviser for Russia, who arranged it under his purview as
a senior democracy adviser. Other White House officials in the 90-minute meeting
included the National Security Council officials Mara Rudman, Dan Shapiro, Denis
McDonough and Ben Rhodes.
On the other side of the table were Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian-American expert
from the Carnegie Endowment, Ghaith Al-Omari, a former Palestinian peace
negotiator, Vali Nasr, another Iran expert who is soon to join the Obama
administration, and Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for
Middle East Policy, who described for the assembled officials the results of
polling in the Middle East about attitudes toward the United States, according
to people in the meeting.
Even as Mr. Obama flew toward Saudi Arabia early Wednesday, he sat on Air Force
One, long after most of his advisers had fallen asleep, working with pen in hand
through page after page of the speech.
On the first of a five-day trip through four countries, Mr. Obama was treading
carefully, with every move being carefully watched in the Middle East. He
exchanged a light embrace and a double-kiss with King Abdullah, but the
president did not bow as he did at their first meeting in London this year in a
gesture that drew criticism.
“I also want to express my best wishes to the friendly American people who are
represented by a distinguished man who deserves to be in this position,” King
Abdullah said, presenting the president with a large gold medallion known as the
King Abdul Aziz Collar.
“Shoukran,” Mr. Obama replied, which in Arabic means “thank you.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Riyadh, and Helene Cooper from Washington.
JERUSALEM — Senior Israeli officials accused President Obama on Wednesday of
failing to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush
administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within
certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement “freeze.”
The complaint was the latest in a growing rift between the Obama administration
and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to move forward
to achieve peace in the Middle East. Mr. Obama was in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday
and is scheduled to address the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday.
The Israeli officials said that repeated discussions with Bush officials
starting in late 2002 resulted in agreement that housing could be built within
the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was
expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements
and no new settlements were built.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could discuss an
issue of such controversy between the two governments.
When Israel signed on to the so-called road map for a two-state solution in
2003, with a provision that says its government “freezes all settlement activity
(including natural growth of settlements),” the officials said, it did so after
a detailed discussion with Bush administration officials that laid out those
explicit exceptions.
“Not everything is written down,” one of the officials said.
He and others said that Israel agreed to the road map and to move ahead with the
removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that
settlement growth could continue.
But a former senior official in the Bush administration disagreed, calling the
Israeli characterization “an overstatement.”
“There was never an agreement to accept natural growth,” the official said
Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the
matter. “There was an effort to explore what natural growth would mean, but we
weren’t able to reach agreement on that.”
The former official said that Bush administration officials had been working
with their Israeli counterparts to clarify several issues, including natural
growth, government subsidies to settlers, and the cessation of appropriation of
Palestinian land.
The United States and Israel never reached an agreement, though, either public
or private, the official said.
A second senior Bush administration official, also speaking anonymously, said
Wednesday: “We talked about a settlement freeze with four elements. One was no
new settlements, a second was no new confiscation of Palestinian land, one was
no new subsidies and finally, no construction outside the settlements.”
He described that fourth condition, which applied to natural growth, as similar
to taking a string and tying it around a settlement, and prohibiting any
construction outside that string.
But, he added, “We had a tentative agreement, but that was contingent on drawing
up lines, and this is a process that never got done, therefore the settlement
freeze was never formalized and never done.”
A third former Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, who was on the
National Security Council staff, wrote an opinion article in The Washington Post
in April that seemed to endorse the Israeli argument.
The Israeli officials acknowledged that the new American administration had
different ideas about the meaning of the term “settlement freeze.” Mr. Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have said in the past week that the
term means an end to all building, including natural growth.
But the Israeli officials complained that Mr. Obama had not accepted that the
previous understandings existed. Instead, they lamented, Israel now stood
accused of having cheated and dissembled in its settlement activity whereas, in
fact, it had largely lived within the guidelines to which both governments had
agreed.
On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said Israel “cannot freeze life in the settlements,”
calling the American demand “unreasonable.”
Dov Weissglas, who was a senior aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wrote an
opinion article that appeared Tuesday in Yediot Aharonot, a mass-selling
newspaper, laying out the agreements that he said had been reached with
officials in the Bush administration.
He said that in May 2003 he and Mr. Sharon met with Mr. Abrams and Stephen J.
Hadley of the National Security Council and came up with the definition of
settlement freeze: “no new communities were to be built; no Palestinian lands
were to be appropriated for settlement purposes; building will not take place
beyond the existing community outline; and no ‘settlement encouraging’ budgets
were to be allocated.”
He said that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser at the time, signed
off on that definition later that month and that the two governments also agreed
to set up a joint committee to define more fully the meaning of “existing
community outline” for established settlements.
In April 2004, President Bush presented Mr. Sharon with a letter stating, “In
light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli
population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status
negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
That letter, Mr. Weissglas said, was a result of his earlier negotiations with
Bush administration officials acknowledging that certain settlement blocks would
remain Israeli and open to continued growth.
The Israeli officials said that no Bush administration official had ever
publicly insisted that Israel was obliged to stop all building in the areas it
captured in 1967. They said it was important to know that major oral
understandings reached between an Israeli prime minister and an American
president would not simply be tossed aside when a new administration came into
the White House.
Of course, Mr. Netanyahu has yet to endorse the two-state solution or even the
road map agreed to by previous Israeli governments, which were not oral
commitments, but actual signed and public agreements.
In his opinion article in The Washington Post, Mr. Abrams, the former Bush
official who was part of negotiations with Israel, wrote: “For the past five
years, Israel’s government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed
with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new
settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no
new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the
guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on
Palestinians.”
Mr. Abrams acknowledged that even within those guidelines, Israel had not fully
complied. He wrote: “There has been physical expansion in some places, and the
Palestinian Authority is right to object to it. Israeli settlement expansion
beyond the security fence, in areas Israel will ultimately evacuate, is a
mistake.”
Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.
June 4, 2009
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL SLACKMAN
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Obama arrived here Wednesday afternoon,
making his first visit to Saudi Arabia as he opened a five-day trip intended to
improve relations between the United States and the Muslim world and push for
progress in settling the Arab-Israeli conflict.
“The United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship,” Mr.
Obama said, standing alongside King Abdullah, as the two began a series of
meetings. “We have a strategic relationship.
He added, “I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam
began and to seek his majesty’s counsel and to discuss with him many of the
issues that we confront here in the Middle East.”
Mr. Obama, who flew overnight from Washington, received a royal welcome as he
stepped off Air Force One and walked across a red carpet in the grueling
afternoon heat. The president and the king exchanged a light embrace and kiss,
but Mr. Obama did not bow before the king as he did at their first meeting in
London earlier this year, a gesture that drew criticism.
The trip to Saudi Arabia, which comes on the eve of Mr. Obama’s highly
anticipated speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, was added to the White House
itinerary last week. Administration officials said it would have been
diplomatically awkward to be in the region without visiting Saudi Arabia, an
important ally.
The king, who placed a gold medallion around Mr. Obama’s neck, smiled as he
recalled the visit of another American president to his horse farm outside
Riyadh.
“I am not surprised, given the historically strategic ties between our two
countries, I believe that go back to the time of the meeting between the late
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the late King Abdul Aziz,” King Abdullah said. “I
also want to express my best wishes to the friendly American people who are
represented by a distinguished man who deserves to be in this position.”
Mr. Obama replied, “Shoukran,” using the Arabic for “Thank you.”
On his Middle East tour, Mr. Obama is expected to press the Arab nations to
offer a gesture to the Israelis to entice them to accelerate the peace process.
But in his meetings with the Saudi king, he should be prepared for a polite but
firm refusal, Saudi officials and political experts say. The Arab countries,
they say, believe they have already made their best offer and that it is now up
to Israel to make a gesture, perhaps by dismantling settlements in the West Bank
or committing to a two-state solution.
“What do you expect the Arabs to give without getting anything in advance, if
Israel is still hesitating to accept the idea of two states in itself?” said
Mohammad Abdullah al-Zulfa, a historian and member of the Saudi Shura Council,
which serves as an advisory panel in place of a parliament.
While not dismissing the possibility of some movement on the peace process, the
Saudis say the Arab world made substantial concessions in the Arab Peace
Initiative, which was endorsed by a 22-nation coalition during an Arab League
summit in Beirut, Lebanon, in 2002. That proposal offered full recognition of
Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawing to its 1967 borders and agreeing to
a “just settlement” to the issue of the Palestinian refugees.
The Saudis are concerned about the potential threat to the coalition should one
nation make further concessions on its own. That, they say, could provide the
less committed countries a rationale for abandoning the peace initiative,
according to officials and regional analysts.
“Any unilateral decision from any Arab head of state will shred the Arab world
and tear its ranks, because there will always be those who oppose and those who
support,” said Anwar Majid Eshki, director of the Middle East Center for
Strategic and Legal Studies in Riyadh.
Mr. Obama has said he is traveling to the Middle East to push for settling the
Arab-Israeli conflict and to improve the image of the United States in the
Muslim world. There are likely to be other issues discussed as well, including
efforts to curtail Iranian influence in the region and the price and supply of
oil.
In Cairo, Mr. Obama is scheduled to give his much anticipated speech from the
domed hall at Cairo University, meet with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and
visit the Great Pyramids of Giza and the historic Sultan Hassan Mosque.
Before leaving Washington, Mr. Obama signaled that while he would mention
American concerns about human rights in Egypt, he would not challenge Mr.
Mubarak too sharply, calling him a “force for stability and good” in the Middle
East.
In an interview with the BBC released by the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama
said he did not regard Mr. Mubarak as an authoritarian leader. “No, I tend not
to use labels for folks,” Mr. Obama said.
The president noted that there had been criticism “of the manner in which
politics operates in Egypt,” but he also said that Mr. Mubarak had been “a
stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States.”
Officials in Saudi Arabia and Egypt said that Mr. Obama had already made
progress on his Middle East agenda, having restored some confidence that the
United States is interested in and serious about pushing for a Middle East
settlement.
With that reserve of good will, any proposal the president offers will be
considered, officials said. But response to it will also be limited by what the
leadership here sees as its bottom line: they cannot grant concessions without
first gaining some, and all decisions must be agreed to by all members of the
Arab League.
“In our estimation we will judge everything by the degree of Israeli commitment,
and measures that are taken,” said Ambassador Hossam Zaki, a spokesman for the
Egyptian Foreign Ministry. “In other words, if the Israeli side remains evasive
and does not commit to any substantial move to redress the situation and put it
on the right track, it is unlikely to see that Arab countries are going to be
responsive to any request of gestures.”
A Saudi official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, because he was not
authorized to discuss details of the presidential visit, said that Arab nations
might be willing to accept certain incentives to expedite the peace process, but
only if they occur simultaneously with Israeli action.
“It depends on what the Israelis give,” the official said. “Israelis say, ‘We
opened a passage.’ Come on, you open a passage, you close a passage. That is not
one of the issues. Let’s deal with the major issues.”
It is hard to overstate how much excitement President Obama’s visit here has
generated. People across the crowded metropolis of Cairo are marveling at how
much sprucing up the government has done, from paving over the road in front of
Cairo University to painting light poles and bridges to planting trees and
bushes around the Citadel.
Officials, political analysts and residents said there was an atmosphere of what
might be described as skeptical optimism. No one here is predicting a
breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict; but with the president at least
talking about criticizing Israel over its settlement policy and with his
personal popularity relatively high, there is a hint of optimism.
“I think we should hear something positive from President Obama,” said Ahmed
Kattaan, the Saudi ambassador to the Arab League. “I think he is going in the
right way now.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Michael Slackman from
Cairo. Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo, Peter Baker from
Washington, and Sharon Otterman from New York.
June 4, 2009
The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
CAIRO — Just as President Obama arrived in the Middle East, the Al Jazeera
television news broadcast an audiotape on Wednesday that it said was Osama bin
Laden condemning Mr. Obama for planting new seeds of “hatred and vengeance
toward Americans.”
The message focused on President Obama’s decision to step up pressure on
extremists in Pakistan. The speaker specifically blamed the president for the
Pakistani military’s drive to retake an area in the Swat Valley that had
recently come under the control of Taliban forces. He blamed Mr. Obama for the
“one million Muslims” who have had to flee their homes because of the fighting.
United Nations and Pakistani officials estimate that as many as three million
people have been displaced by the conflict. “Obama has followed the footsteps of
his predecessor in increasing animosity towards Muslims and increasing enemy
fighters and establishing long-term wars,” the recording said. “So the American
people should get ready to reap the fruits of what the leaders of the White
House have planted throughout the coming years and decades.”
The recording, if verified, is a signal that Mr. bin Laden, the fugitive leader
of Al Qaeda, remains alive and in touch with current events, and that he retains
effective channels of communication with the outside world. The message was
released one day after Mr. bin Laden’s lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, issued his
own audiotape condemning the president.
Many groups with a stake in the future of the Middle East and in relations
between the Muslim community and the United States are attempting to ride the
wave of attention to the president’s visit. Human rights groups, democracy
advocates, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups have all tried to force their
agendas to the forefront as the president passes through.
Al Qaeda, however, easily rose to the top of the local news cycle here —
especially with what seems to be the recorded voice of Mr. bin Laden, who
continues to capture the imagination of those who revile him as well as those
who see him as an outlaw hero. It appeared to be the first recording attributed
to the Al Qaeda leader since January, when Al Jazeera aired an audio message
attributed to him during the Israeli offensive in Gaza and the last days of
former President George W. Bush’s term.
“He is of course asserting his ability to be a part of daily political events,”
said Amr el-Shobaky, an expert on Islamic movements with the Ahram Center for
Political and Strategic Studies, a government funded research institute here.
“He is twisting reality and blaming this new administration for things it is not
responsible for so that the new administration would look as extreme and no
different from the previous Bush administration.”
The recording released Wednesday said that the Pakistani authorities were doing
Washington’s bidding when they prevented “implementing Sharia law by fighting
and killing and through bombings and destruction.”
The recording continued: “Obama and his administration have planted new seeds to
increase hatred and revenge from America. The number of those seeds is the same
as the number of those harmed and displaced from Swat Valley and the tribal
regions in North and South Waziristan and the number of their sympathizers.”
This is not the first time Al Qaeda has attacked Mr. Obama. In a blunt personal
attack on the incoming president in November, Mr. Zawahri painted Mr. Obama as a
hypocrite and a traitor to his race, comparing him unfavorably with ”honorable
black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s black Muslim leader, and referring to
him as a “house Negro,” using a direct translation of a term Malcolm X himself
used.
The latest recording and the attention it provoked served as a reminder of what
is at stake as the president tries to recalibrate America’s image throughout the
Muslim world. This trip, and the speech he is scheduled to give in Cairo
tomorrow, are part of a broad diplomatic push that has included a speech in
Turkey, an appearance on an Arabic language satellite news channel and a video
message sent to Iran during Persian New Year celebrations.
“This is an important indicator as to how much we need this new administration
to exert more effort in marginalizing Osama Bin Laden’s discourse so that he is
not able to exploit popular causes towards violence,” Mr. Shobaky said.
The president faces a challenge as he tries appear sensitive to the Islamic
world, respectful of the region’s leaders, and yet not appear to turn a blind
eye to the human rights violations and autocratic practices the constrain the
lives of average people. That is one area that Al Qaeda continues to try to
exploit.
“If Obama comes to Egypt he will be received by its torturers, its thieves, and
its corrupt who turned Egypt into an international station of torture in
America’s war against Islam,” Mr. Zawahri said.
The president plans to spend the night in Riyadh, the Saudi capital and is
scheduled to arrive in Cairo on Thursday morning. His speech is scheduled for
1:10 p.m. local time (6:10 a.m. Eastern time).
To Open a Muslim Dialogue, Obama Visits Saudi King
June 3, 2009
Filed at 7:41 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times
RIYDAH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- President Barack Obama is in Saudi Arabia after
an overnight flight from Washington. Obama is planning to meet with Saudi King
Abdullah to discuss a host of thorny problems, from Arab-Israeli peace efforts
to Iran's nuclear program. The surge in oil prices also was on the agenda.
The president was to stay overnight at the king's horse farm in the desert
outside Riyadh before heading to Egypt.
The talks with the monarch come a day before the president is to deliver a
highly anticipated speech in Cairo on the U.S. relationship with the world's 1.5
billion Muslims.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's
earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is beginning his latest bid to open a
dialogue with the Muslim world by paying a call on Saudi King Abdullah, guardian
of Islam's sacred sites in Mecca and Medina.
The monarch of Saudi Arabia plans to greet Obama at Riyadh's main airport with
coffee and ceremony when he arrives Wednesday after an overnight flight from
Washington.
Saudi Arabia is a stopover en route to Cairo, where Obama is to set deliver a
speech that he's been promising since last year's election campaign -- aiming to
set a new tone in America's often-strained dealings with the world's 1.5 billion
Muslims.
Many of those Muslims still smolder over Iraq, Guantanamo and unflinching U.S.
support of Israel, but they are hoping the son of a Kenyan Muslim who lived part
of his childhood in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, can
help chart a new course.
''You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim
world,'' Obama said in a pretrip interview with the BBC. ''And, obviously, there
are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of
us in the West.''
Aides cautioned that Obama was not out to break new policy ground in his Cairo
speech, which follows visits to Turkey and Iraq in April and a series of
outreach efforts including a Persian New Year video and a student town hall in
Istanbul. And they said the president is not expecting quick results, even
though the speech will be distributed as widely as possible.
''We don't expect that everything will change after one speech,'' White House
spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. ''I think it will take a sustained effort
and that's what the president is in for.''
Officials said Obama also wouldn't flinch from difficult topics, whether it's
the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the goal of a Palestinian state or democracy
and human rights. Obama has been criticized for setting the address in Egypt,
where President Hosni Mubarak has jailed dissidents and clung to power for
nearly three decades.
In Riyadh, the president was talking to Abdullah about a host of thorny
problems, from Arab-Israeli peace efforts to Iran's nuclear program. The Saudis
have voiced growing concern in private that an Iranian bomb could unleash a
nuclear arms race in the region.
The surge in oil prices also was on the agenda. Crude topped $68 a barrel this
week, sparking fears that a fresh jump in energy costs could snuff out early
sparks of a recovery from a deep global slump.
Obama likely will be looking for help from Saudi Arabia on what to do with some
100 Yemeni detainees locked up in the Guantanamo Bay prison. Discussions over
where to send the Yemeni detainees have complicated Obama's plan to close the
prison. The U.S. has been hesitant to send them home because of Yemen's history
of either releasing extremists or allowing them to escape from prison.
Instead, the Obama administration has been negotiating with Saudi Arabia and
Yemen for months to send them to Saudi terrorist rehabilitation centers.
The president was to stay overnight at the king's horse farm in the desert
outside Riyadh. Abdullah, who hosted then-President George W. Bush at the ranch
in January of last year, keeps some 260 Arabian horses on its sprawling grounds
in air-conditioned comfort.
In any effort to court Muslims, the Saudis will be key -- not just for their oil
wealth, but by virtue of the authority they wield at the center of Arab history
and culture.
Obama's meeting with the 84-year-old Abdullah will be his second in three
months. The two saw each other at the G-20 summit in London, a meeting both
sides called friendly and productive. Perhaps a bit too friendly: Critics
accused Obama of bowing to the Saudi monarch during a photo-op. The White House
maintained he was merely bending to shake hands with a shorter man.
''This in many ways will be one of the pivotal relationships President Obama can
develop,'' said Robin Wright, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center. ''Saudi
Arabia is important not just in terms of the Gulf and oil prices. It sets the
tenor. It's one of the most conservative regimes. It's also important because
King Abdullah is, among the various royals, more open-minded than others. These
are two men who might actually deal well with each other.''
June 3, 2009
The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
CAIRO — President Obama starts his much anticipated Middle East tour on
Wednesday in Saudi Arabia, where he is expected to press the Arab nations to
offer a gesture to the Israelis to entice them to accelerate the peace process.
But when he meets in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with King Abdullah, he should be
prepared for a polite but firm refusal, Saudi officials and political experts
say. The Arab countries, they say, believe they have already made their best
offer and that it is now up to Israel to make a gesture, perhaps by dismantling
settlements in the West Bank or committing to a two-state solution.
“What do you expect the Arabs to give without getting anything in advance, if
Israel is still hesitating to accept the idea of two states in itself?” said
Mohammad Abdullah al-Zulfa, a historian and member of the Saudi Shura Council,
which serves as an advisory panel in place of a parliament.
While not dismissing the possibility of some movement on the peace process, the
Saudis say the Arab world made substantial concessions in the Arab Peace
Initiative, which was endorsed by a 22-nation coalition during an Arab League
summit in Beirut, Lebanon, in 2002. That proposal offered full recognition of
Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawing to its 1967 borders and agreeing to
a “just settlement” to the issue of the Palestinian refugees.
The Saudis are concerned about the potential threat to the coalition should one
nation make further concessions on its own. That, they say, could provide the
less committed countries a rationale for abandoning the peace initiative,
according to officials and regional analysts.
“Any unilateral decision from any Arab head of state will shred the Arab world
and tear its ranks, because there will always be those who oppose and those who
support,” said Anwar Majid Eshki, director of the Middle East Center for
Strategic and Legal Studies in Riyadh.
President Obama has said he is traveling to the Middle East to push for settling
the Arab-Israeli conflict and to improve the image of the United States in the
Muslim world. There are likely to be other issues discussed as well, including
efforts to curtail Iranian influence in the region and the price and supply of
oil.
After visiting Saudi Arabia, President Obama is to arrive in Cairo, where he is
scheduled to meet with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, give a much anticipated
speech from the domed hall at Cairo University and visit the Great Pyramids of
Giza and the historic Sultan Hassan Mosque.
Before leaving Washington, Mr. Obama signaled that while he would mention
American concerns about human rights in Egypt, he would not challenge Mr.
Mubarak too sharply, calling him a “force for stability and good” in the Middle
East.
In an interview with the BBC released by the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama
said he did not regard Mr. Mubarak as an authoritarian leader. “No, I tend not
to use labels for folks,” Mr. Obama said.
The president noted that there had been criticism “of the manner in which
politics operates in Egypt,” but he also said that Mr. Mubarak had been “a
stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States.”
Officials in Saudi Arabia and Egypt said that Mr. Obama had already made
progress on his Middle East agenda, having restored some confidence that the
United States is interested in and serious about pushing for a Middle East
settlement.
With that reserve of good will, any proposal the president offers will be
considered, officials said. But response to it will also be limited by what the
leadership here sees as its bottom line: they cannot grant concessions without
first gaining some, and all decisions must be agreed to by all members of the
Arab League.
“In our estimation we will judge everything by the degree of Israeli commitment,
and measures that are taken,” said Ambassador Hossam Zaki, a spokesman for the
Egyptian Foreign Ministry. “In other words, if the Israeli side remains evasive
and does not commit to any substantial move to redress the situation and put it
on the right track, it is unlikely to see that Arab countries are going to be
responsive to any request of gestures.”
A Saudi official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, because he was not
authorized to discuss details of the presidential visit, said that Arab nations
might be willing to accept certain incentives to expedite the peace process, but
only if they occur simultaneously with Israeli action.
“It depends on what the Israelis give,” the official said. “Israelis say, ‘We
opened a passage.’ Come on, you open a passage, you close a passage. That is not
one of the issues. Let’s deal with the major issues.”
It is hard to overstate how much excitement President Obama’s visit here has
generated. People across the crowded metropolis of Cairo are marveling at how
much sprucing up the government has done, from paving over the road in front of
Cairo University to painting light poles and bridges to planting trees and
bushes around the Citadel.
Officials, political analysts and residents said there was an atmosphere of what
might be described as skeptical optimism. No one here is predicting a
breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict; but with the president at least
talking about criticizing Israel over its settlement policy and with his
personal popularity relatively high, there is a hint of optimism.
“I think we should hear something positive from President Obama,” said Ahmed
Kattaan, the Saudi ambassador to the Arab League. “I think he is going in the
right way now.”
Qaeda Deputy Denounces Obama
CAIRO (AP) — Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, on Tuesday said
President Obama’s speech to the Islamic world would not change the “bloody
messages” he was sending to Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Zawahri’s audio message was posted on militants’ Web sites.
Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo, and Peter Baker from
Washington.
June 3, 2009
The New York Times
By ALAN COWELL and HELENE COOPER
LONDON — On the eve of a visit to the Middle East and Europe, President Obama
on Tuesday played down a dispute with Israel over his demand for a suspension of
further Jewish settlement in the West Bank but reiterated his call for a
two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians that Israel’s hawkish
leaders have not accepted.
Mr. Obama said that he believed the United States was “going to be able to get
serious negotiations back on track” between Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli
officials have publicly rejected Mr. Obama’s call for all expansion of Jewish
settlements in the West Bank to be frozen, saying natural expansion of the
settlements should be permitted.
In an interview with the BBC, Mr. Obama also said he hoped to achieve progress
by the end of the year on the dispute over Iran’s contentious nuclear activity
through “tough, direct diplomacy.” He insisted that Iran “set aside ambitions
for a nuclear weapon.” Tehran says its nuclear enrichment program is solely for
civilian purposes.
The president is to arrive in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and deliver a keynote
speech to the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday. He then plans to travel to
France for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings on June 6, 1944 that
turned the tide of World War II in Europe.
The visits to Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be his first as president. In an
earlier visit to the region in April after the Group of 20 summit in London, he
traveled to Turkey and Iraq.
On Monday, President Obama indicated that he would be more willing to criticize
Israel than previous administrations have been.
“Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Mr. Obama said in an interview
with NPR News. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as
we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory,
in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also
U.S. interests.
“We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations
that will lead to peace,” he added. “I’ve said that a freeze on settlements is
part of that.”
His comments were made as Israeli officials dug in their heels against a
settlement freeze. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that halting
construction in settlements in the West Bank would be equal to “freezing life,”
and, therefore, “unreasonable.”
In the 15-minute interview on Tuesday, broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s Today program,
Mr. Obama said the “conversation” with Israel was at an early stage — both on
the settlement issue and on the demand for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
“Not only is it in the interest of the Palestinian people to have a state, it’s
in the interest of the Israeli people to stabilize the situation there,” he
said.
“And it’s in the interest of the United States that we’ve got two states living
side by side in peace and security.”
Referring to the debate about settlements, he said: “Diplomacy is always a
matter of a long hard slog. It’s never a matter of quick results.”
He also said it was “in the world’s interests for Iran to set aside ambitions
for a nuclear weapon.”
“Although I don’t want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want
to make sure that, by the end of this year, we’ve actually seen a serious
process move forward,” he said.
Alan Cowell reported from London, and Helene Cooper from Washington.
WASHINGTON — President Obama indicated on Monday that he would be more
willing to criticize Israel than previous administrations have been, and he
reiterated his call for a freeze of Israeli settlements.
“Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Mr. Obama said in an interview
with NPR News. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as
we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory,
in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also
U.S. interests.
“We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations
that will lead to peace,” he added. “I’ve said that a freeze on settlements is
part of that.”
His comments, on the eve of his first trip as president to the Middle East,
where he is scheduled to give a speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday,
were made as Israeli officials dug in their heels against a settlement freeze.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said Monday that halting
construction in settlements in the West Bank would be equal to “freezing life,”
and, therefore, “unreasonable.”
Mr. Obama declined to say what he would do if Israel continued to balk at
halting all construction. But he said that Israel needed to hear the truth, as
he saw it. He also said that in the past, American officials had not been
willing to call things as they saw them. “That’s part of a new dialogue that I’d
like to see encouraged in the region,” he said.
Mr. Obama leaves Wednesday morning for a five-day trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Germany and France. Israel is not on his itinerary. In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, he
is expected to press King Abdullah to engage more fully on Arab-Israeli peace
and to make an overture to Israel, possibly a tall order. In a separate
interview with the BBC on Monday, Mr. Obama hinted at that, saying, “I think we
have not seen a set of potential gestures from other Arab states, or from the
Palestinians, that might deal with some Israeli concerns.”
Many in the Muslim world are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will do if, as
expected, Israel ignores his request on the settlements. When asked about this
during the NPR interview, Mr. Obama indicated that he was not yet ready to
stipulate an “or else,” despite the fact that several American presidents before
him have demanded settlement freezes in Israel and been ignored.
“The United States has to follow through on what it says,” Mr. Obama said.
He added: “I haven’t said anything yet because it’s still early in the process.
They’ve formed a government, what, a month ago?”
Mr. Obama also dismissed criticism that he should not deliver his speech to the
Muslim world from Cairo because of Egypt’s poor record in upholding human
rights. “It’s a mistake to suggest that we’re not going to deal with countries
around the world in the absence of them meeting all our demands,” he said.
Obama Talks Health Care Before Leaving for Mideast
June 2, 2009
Filed at 4:57 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama holds talks on health care today
and signs a measure paving the way to honor former President Ronald Reagan
before traveling to the Middle East.
The White House says the president will meet with Senate Democratic leaders to
discuss how to get rising health care costs under control.
The president later will sign the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act. The
measure sets up a commission to plan and carry out activities honoring the late
president in time for the 100th anniversary of his birth, in 2011.
Obama leaves in the evening on his overseas trip aimed at reaching out to the
world's 1.5 billion Muslims. The president will visit Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He
will deliver a long-promised speech in Cairo.
June 2, 2009
The New York Times
By ISABEL KERSHNER
KFAR TAPUAH, West Bank — Thirty Israeli couples are on a waiting list to move
into the Kfar Tapuah settlement, which teems with children on the hilltops south
of Nablus. Some on the list grew up here. But there is not an apartment
available for sale or rent, or even a stifling trailer to be had.
If Israel built all the housing units already approved in the nation’s overall
master plan for settlements, it would almost double the number of settler homes
in the West Bank, according to unpublished official data provided to The New
York Times.
The decision of whether to build, and how much, goes to the heart of the
tensions between the administrations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of
Israel and President Obama, an unaccustomed and no-budge conflict between Israel
and the United States. Washington is standing firm against any additional
settlement construction in the West Bank, including what Israel argues is
necessary to accommodate what it terms “natural growth.”
That term has been defined vaguely by Israeli officials, meaning for some that
settlements should expand to accommodate only their own children. But Mr.
Netanyahu, of the conservative Likud Party, made his own wider position clear on
Monday. He said that while Israel would not allow new settlements and that some
small outposts would be removed, building within the confines of established
settlements should go on.
Israel “cannot freeze life in the settlements,” he said, describing the American
call as an “unreasonable” demand.
And in fact, whatever the American demands and Israeli definitions, the reality
is that no full freeze seems likely.
The issue is, in part, political: Mr. Netanyahu is trying to hold together a
fractious coalition, including parties that favor settlement building and oppose
the establishment of a Palestinian state. He must contend with an aggressive
settler movement, emboldened by support from Israeli governments for decades and
determined to continue building, if necessary through unofficial means.
“It is important for the world to know we won’t stop,” said Doron Hillel, 29,
the settlement council head and one of the first children born here after it was
founded about 30 years ago. “These decrees make things difficult, but they
strengthen us. We will continue to build and grow.”
A partial freeze has been in place for several years, but settlers have found
ways around the strictures. Twenty trailer homes have been assembled in Kiryat
Arba, near Hebron, for young families over the past year. The Samaria Council,
which represents settlers in the northern West Bank, has brought in 150
trailers. Thousands of permanent houses have been illegally constructed within
existing settlements, and settlers have recently bulldozed new roads through
fields to link up the outposts.
Critics argue that successive Israeli governments have turned a blind eye to
this construction and that they have contributed more broadly to settlement
growth.
The settlers’ annual population growth, at 5.6 percent, far outstrips the
Israeli average of 1.8 percent. But official data from the Central Bureau of
Statistics of Israel shows that while about two-thirds of that is a “natural”
increase, as defined by settler births in relation to deaths, one-third stems
from migration. There is also a disproportionately high level of state-supported
building in the settlements compared with most regions of Israel.
And many critics of the settlement movement dispute the notion that settlers’
children have an absolute right to continue living in their parents’ settlement.
“A newborn does not need a house,” said Dror Etkes of Yesh Din, an Israeli group
that fights for the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories. “It is a
game the Israeli government is playing” to justify construction, he said.
Underlining the competing pressures on Mr. Netanyahu, extremist settlers rioted
on Monday in various parts of the northern West Bank, stoning Arab vehicles,
burning tires and setting fields alight, according to a witness and the police.
They were protesting the government’s recent actions against some tiny outposts.
Several Palestinians were wounded. Six Israeli settlers and a rightist member of
Parliament were arrested and later released.
The Israeli population of the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem, has
tripled since the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort started in the early 1990s,
and it now approaches 300,000. The settlers live among 2.5 million Palestinians
in about 120 settlements, which much of the world considers a violation of
international law, as well as in dozens of outposts erected without official
Israeli authorization. Israel argues that the settlement enterprise does not
violate the law against transferring populations into occupied territories.
According to the newly disclosed data, about 58,800 housing units have been
built with government approval in the West Bank settlements over the past 40
years. An additional 46,500 have already obtained Defense Ministry approval
within the existing master plans, awaiting nothing more than a government
decision to build.
The data began to be compiled in 2004 by a retired brigadier general, Baruch
Spiegel, at the request of the defense minister at the time, Shaul Mofaz. The
Defense Ministry has long refused to make the data public, but it has since been
leaked and obtained by nongovernmental groups. Mr. Etkes analyzed the master
plans in the Spiegel data, together with a colleague from Bimkom, an Israeli
group that focuses on planning and social justice.
Under international pressure, construction in the settlements has slowed but
never stopped, continuing at an annual rate of about 1,500 to 2,000 units over
the past three years. If building continues at the 2008 rate, the 46,500 units
already approved will be completed in about 20 years.
In Kfar Tapuah, a group of young Israelis who grew up here decided about six
years ago that when they married, they would stay. The population has more than
doubled since then, to 150 families from 60. Like in other West Bank
settlements, nobody counts individuals here: the rate of new births makes that
impossible.
Revitalized from within, the community also attracted young couples from other
settlements and from cities in Israel who were seeking a lifestyle that combined
relatively cheap suburban comfort with the national-religious ideal of settling
the land.
Kfar Tapuah has a reputation as an extremist settlement, having become a base
for the followers of the virulently anti-Arab Rabbi Meir Kahane after he was
assassinated in 1990. It now seems overrun by young children. A $150,000
state-of-the-art playground recently went up, a second kindergarten just opened
and a third is planned.
“This is our land from the beginning of days,” said Aviva Herzlich, 67, most of
whose 10 children and more than 40 grandchildren live in and around the
settlement. “We do not have anywhere else.”
June 2, 2009
Filed at 12:01 p.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times
SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras (AP) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton said Tuesday that any move toward allowing Cuba to join the Organization
of American States must be accompanied by the communist nation's release of
political prisoners, respect for basic human rights and democratic reforms.
''We do look forward to the day when Cuba can join the OAS,'' she told a
breakfast meeting with Caribbean foreign ministers. ''But we believe that
membership in the OAS must come with responsibilities and we owe it to each
other to uphold our standards of democracy and governance that have brought so
much progress to our hemisphere.''
''It is not about reliving the past,'' Clinton said. ''It is about the future of
being true to the founding principles of this organization.''
The United States is largely isolated within the OAS in demanding conditions.
Top officials from members of the OAS have been nearly unanimous in calling for
Cuba to be allowed to rejoin the 34-nation group without conditions.
Despite President Barack Obama's tentative overtures to Cuba, Clinton, who is
attending the session, says any move to allow Cuba to rejoin the group must be
accompanied by changes by its government.
Faced with a solid bloc of countries opposed to the conditions, U.S. officials
are hoping to stall a vote on reversing Cuba's nearly 50-year-old suspension
from the OAS without demands for change.
Clinton expressed hope that a ''common way forward'' could be found.
But the region's growing number of socialist leaders, spearheaded by Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Bolivian President
Evo Morales and El Salvador President Mauricio Funes are pressing for a vote,
and U.S. officials are unsure how the meeting will proceed.
Even though Cuba has expressed no interest in rejoining the bloc and the
organization generally makes decision by consensus, proponents can push ahead
with a resolution that needs only a two-thirds majority, or 23 votes, to pass.
OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza said Tuesday that the group ''has
always agreed on main issues by consensus. I don't believe it would take away
that tradition today because it has also been very useful.''
''Only the foreign ministers can take a decision (on Cuba) now,'' he said.
Forcing a vote would put Clinton in a difficult position because regional and
U.S. officials believe there are easily enough countries in favor. Diplomats
have been scrambling to reach consensus on a compromise resolution but as of
late Monday had been unable to do so.
The administration is toeing a delicate line as it reaches out to Cuban leader
Raul Castro and by extension his ailing brother Fidel by lifting restrictions on
money transfers and travel to the island by Americans with family there.
Cuba agreed over the weekend to a U.S. proposal to resume immigration talks with
Washington that former President George W. Bush suspended in 2003 and to
negotiations on restarting direct mail service between the two countries. It has
also proposed exploring cooperation on counternarcotics and terrorism as well as
on disaster preparedness.
But the Castros have repeatedly said they want a full lifting of the decades-old
U.S. embargo on Cuba, something the administration has refused to consider
without reforms. That stance has left the United States increasingly isolated.
Clinton is at Tuesday's meeting as the representative of the last country in the
Western Hemisphere without full diplomatic ties with Cuba.
El Salvador had been the only other one, but in his first act as president,
Funes on Monday restored his country's diplomatic relations with Cuba that had
been broken in 1961.
The signing ceremony to commemorate that event was held in the same room at the
presidential palace in San Salvador where Clinton and Funes later held their
joint news conference.
