That President Obama has changed the character of the discourse towards the Muslim World is now old news. He conjures themes of reconciliation and mutual respect and eschews discussions of hate and fear. He talks of dialogue and diplomacy and avoids threats. It has been noted and rewarded. He is easily the most popular leader in the Muslim World and anti-Americanism has experienced palpable decline since his election.

While the fear that the US may invade another Muslim country has receded there is still anger and resentment at the US for its military operations in Iraq and Afpak and its support for Israel. Intellectuals and politicians do recognize that President Obama by using a new language has ignited hope that US-Muslim relations will change. But there is lingering skepticism. There are those who say, “perhaps the packaging has changed but the contents remain the same.”

President Obama however has gone beyond changing the language of US foreign policy; he has also changed its posture towards the Muslim World. Here are two examples. President Obama and his team have repeatedly insisted the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not helpful to the peace process and must be halted. This is not a change in policy; this was US policy all along. The only change is that a US administration is willing to assert this even in the face of a public disagreement with the Israeli government.

A more significant change in posture underpins President Obama’s approach towards Iran. His insists that the US will leave no diplomatic stone unturned in an effort to persuade Iran to abandon its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The recent decision to accept Iran’s invitation for direct talks even after it refused to discuss its nuclear program speaks volumes about America’s new posture towards Iran.

Most analysts in the Muslim World are not giving President Obama due credit for the changes he has brought to American foreign policy towards the Muslim World. They acknowledge that he speaks differently but they are still waiting to see if he acts differently.

These skeptics must realize that both language and posture in foreign policy cannot be altered without significant adjustments. The reason why President Obama is able to speak in a different language and adopt a different posture is primarily because he has a different vision of America’s presence on the world stage. Yes, he wants America to be secure, preeminent and influential globally, but unlike his predecessor he wishes to secure these goals by rebuilding the culture of multilateralism, restoring faith in American diplomacy and deploying respect rather than arrogance as a medium of international exchange.

He wants America to work in concert with other nations in pursuit of common goals and not bully them to advance self-interests at the expense of others. Nevertheless there is demand for action both at home and abroad; especially against states that are defying US and refusing to comply with its demands.

There is a strong constituency in the US and Europe that feels that Iran is getting closer to a nuclear weapon and every delay helps it in its relentless pursuit. They feel that Iran is going to use dialogue as a ploy to buy time. This constituency feels that unless the US acts soon either Iran will go nuclear or Israel will take matters in its own hands and attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Either scenario will lead to the destabilization of the Middle East and according to most analysts a spurt in radicalism and terrorism.

Iran is not the only state in the Middle East defying the US. Israel too has for months refused to comply with US demands to stop building Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Israel’s refusal has become a major impediment to the peace process since the Palestinians feel that settlements are altering facts on the ground.

The Arab world shares Israeli and US concerns about Iranian nuclear ambitions, but is waiting to see how the US deals with Israeli defiance. They too are demanding action; either Israel stops or the US makes it stop.

If the US punishes one defiance and rewards the other; the hypocrisy may escape observation in the US but in the Middle East it will signal the return of the Bush-Cheney America – hypocritical, unreliable and untrustworthy. The gains made by President Obama’s eloquence and positive overtures towards the Muslim World will be lost.

The point is simple, President Obama; talk is good and good talk is necessary and helpful, but ultimately what matters is action.

Despite perceptions to the contrary, the U.S. influence has always been a result of her own power, in combination with that of her friends. President Bush never understood the idea, and lost friends, and subsequently influence, as his administration degenerated.

The American government's "power" is both predatorial globally and canibalistic domestically. The effects of this are now evident daily. I can no longer even refer to "America" as it is increasingly less and less a homgenous entity. Every American citizen projects his own private state of mind, his own values, needs, and intersts onto the whole and that is ridiculous and has no grounds for reality. To even try to discuss "America" as a single, monlithic entity is absurd. Yet everyone is fighting and arguing trying to defend the overriding and supreme existence of their own private neighborhood and family values as speaking for the whole. Why?

And here's something creepy for those who find it too easy to fall asleep at night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/glenn-beck-and-the-912-ma_b_284387.html?view=print

Every American citizen projects his own private state of mind, his own values, needs, and intersts onto the whole and that is ridiculous and has no grounds for reality.
- Posted by Akenanubis


At least you're the exception...

At least you're the exception...
>>>

Could be. I hardly see myself reflected in the majority of Americans I meet, or hear the words and ideas of in any of the media, print, TV, or BLOGS I encounter so I sure as hell don't think all Americans are ME.

You are right Fester. I should never have used the word "every."

Muqtedar >>> Yes, he wants America to be secure, preeminent and influential globally, but unlike his predecessor he wishes to secure these goals by rebuilding the culture of multilateralism, restoring faith in American diplomacy and deploying respect rather than arrogance as a medium of international exchange.

I think its naive to assume the best of any administration, especially if it doesn't deliver. If the US can activate its massive and costly war machinery in a few weeks, why should it take years to change foreign "policies". Internally, the Republican/Democrat dynamic may seem very different, but externally they are almost like hard and soft edges of the same imperialist project. Where Republicans pursure neo-conservative foreign policy, the US pursues neo-liberal foreign policy.

Under Obamas administration, he's already pursued a divisive economic policy with Africa and abandoning some key Clinton year trade reforms. He's also pushing harder for an African Command than any of his predecessors. Who knows if he'll even bother changing his view of farming subsidies. Th G5 remains the old-boys club its always been.

The travesty of the bank bailout under Obamas administration and the costly war under the Bush administration is that both of these costs (while seemingly different) could have been better spent making the world a more equitable place. In reality, they're plugged into organs of empire that perpetuate increased inequality, while developing world debt just continues to spiral.

I think that when we speak of the Muslim world, the reluctance to accept Obama's positive talk, is based on more than just perceived Islamic-nonIslamic ideological differences. There is a real socio-political and socio-economic stage that is given very little attention. Issues like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are endemic of a larger problem, not its cause. Its PR reach is given far more weight than it deserves. And let us not forget that Billions of Dollars of damage and 1400 innocent lives have been lost in a cynical campaign to cripple the Palestinians further. Surely TALK about settlements are a distraction in the light of war crimes?

The Arabs, and much of the Islamic World, has taken the attitude that it needs do nothing and simply wait for Obama to press Israel for concessions. Obama outlined a mutual process, and without the participation of all parties, how can that happen?

As for accusations of "hypocrisy", how much are the moral and ethical judgments of unfree peoples worth? How can one make judgments of Israel's actions if one lives in a society where your head can be chopped off, or your property seized, or your inheritance revoked, for voicing the "wrong" opinion, inconvenient fact, or opposing reasoning?

So for two decades before the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. accepted that their adversarial relationship would be managed with little resort to inflammatory moral posturing. Great things were accomplished: test-ban treaties, arms limitations, increased trade, and the near-total elimination of Soviet-sponsored terrorism in Europe. Perhaps that is the road that should now be taken.

As for accusations of "hypocrisy", how much are the moral and ethical judgments of unfree peoples worth? - Posted by Solomon2


huh?


How can one make judgments of Israel's actions if one lives in a society where your head can be chopped off, or your property seized, or your inheritance revoked, for voicing the "wrong" opinion, inconvenient fact, or opposing reasoning? - Posted by Solomon2


What country are you referring to? Is it one relevant to the discussion?

"As for accusations of "hypocrisy", how much are the moral and ethical judgments of unfree peoples worth?"

Is "unfree" even a word? Care to "un-generalize" this please. Who are you referring to here?

Sol2 >>> Is "unfree" even a word? Care to "un-generalize" this please. Who are you referring to here?

The pejudice is in the generalisations. The US is offering massive amounts of military aid to Saudi Arabia, but the Arab populace shouldn't criticise the US. Sol2...Never failing to pass the buck onto Muslims. How is Israel free again? The 20% Arab populace apparently has actually lost land since 1948. I've calculated that the US has given aid to the value of at least $30,000 per Jewish citizen in Israel. And all the 9/12 protestors who are mostly conservatives who support Israel and that trillion dollars war, are worried about subsidising healthcare! lol

Again, the expectation of the US is to deliver not in some disproportionate way to everyone else. But when you are a nation that consumes so much resources, exercise so much legal and illegal privilege, effect policies that are proven to cripple the developing world and widen the gap between rich and poor .. you have to be held to some sort of accountability. It seems to me that even negative public opinion is too much for the nation to bear.

Sol2 >>> So for two decades before the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. accepted that their adversarial relationship would be managed with little resort to inflammatory moral posturing.

They were engaged in a war that would have destroyed the world ... literally. And in the instance of the Israeli conflict, no nation resorts to more PR moral posturing than Israel. You need to stop ignoring the United Nations which is at least a platform for world opinion. Or are they too, unfree?

Israel is a just the public face of conflict resolution. It is a symptom of an illness, not its cause.

Do you really think changing the subject is going to help, Ghulam? The issue is whether it's up to Obama to take action now, or not - and if not, then what?

Unfree
When another program debated whether Palestinians "risk becoming their own worst enemy," the audience agreed by 71 percent.

Uhm .. dude .. you changed the subject. I was only responding to your assertion. Really. Check it.

Secondly, 1400 civilians and billions of dollars of lifegiving infrastructure were destroyed in January. Settlements are a secondary issue with war ciminals.

>>> another program debated whether Palestinians "risk becoming their own worst enemy," the audience agreed by 71 percent.

You argument is one in a long chain of western thought that perceives others as inferior and incapable. White mans burden as DrM puts it, that conveniently decriminalises the westerner and criminalises the other non-westerner. The very basis of international law, is to prevent the opinions of people in some nations from undermining the sovereignity of other nations.

You go further and undermine the speech of the citizen himself. Rather than letting arguments and discussions run a natural course and letting the truth evidence itself in a civilised way, which is the core of western philosophy, it just stops applying with Muslims. The dhimmi-watch sycophants run into the same arguments ending up promoting against Muslims, what they accuse Muslims of being.

Eid Mubarak everyone!

Sol2 ... I read your link. Typical of you to make a non-core argument of free-speech (in an arab country no less), to detract from foreign policy that kills people. Then accuse me of changing the subject.

Ghulam: The idea of the Palestinians being their own worst enemy is FAR from being solely a western construct.

Ghulam: I didn't think I was changing the subject, but reviewing what I wrote I see I may have been unclear that I was recommending that Obama adopt a new policy approach. I didn't think that's what you were doing.

>> You need to stop ignoring the United Nations which is at least a platform for world opinion. Or are they too, unfree?

Did you ask yourself why Hamas would have threatened the UNRWA about teaching the Holocaust if Hamas didn't feel that terrorizing the U.N. wasn't effective? (Indeed, the UNRWA assured Hamas they would do no such thing.) Have you ever considered that the U.N.'s first priority may be to protect its own personnel, including locally-hired Arabs? How are they supposed to do that in the Arab refugee camps without U.N. police and troops which the Security Council won't supply? Especially in a Gaza where Arabs claim that Hamas throws those who oppose it from roof-tops?

If you were running the UN, what would you do under the circumstances? Might you not choose to issue reports exculpating those who threaten your employees, even as you try to document their crimes in the hope that they could one day in the future be brought to justice? Bray loudly in agreement with tormentors as you whisper for help to others?

Solomon2: I can't comment on your facts, but that is the first useful post you've done in quite a while.

Sol2 >>> Did you ask yourself why Hamas would have threatened the UNRWA about teaching the Holocaust if Hamas didn't feel that terrorizing the U.N. wasn't effective?

What a sweet little sidestep. Not one of your posts even mentions the crazed violence that occurred in Gaza (which was just a step-up of the normal day to day Israeli torment). Also, look how you distract from my assertion. You're taking a talkshow that dealt with general public opinion and made it a general comment that undermined the pre-planned murder of civilians (yes government orchestrated butchery). The opinion expressed in the show related to alot of issues and most of those were not in support of the Israeli war machine in the Middle east. The same response would be generated if asked about Israel. Do you even doubt that?

I think the Palestinians are their own worst enemies because they don't seek greater political assistance outside arab regimes. I think they are their own worst enemy because they're not unionised and aren't using the diasporas technical talents to build their shredded economy more effectively. I think they don't leverage possible support from China and Russia by going through the Iran and Syria. There is alot that can be said about the failures of the Palestinians, but the injustice done to them is absolute and undeniable.

Secondly, UN facilities were bombed by Israel in December. How easy it is to criticise the palestinians when the real violence on internationl Human rights norms and international law is committed by israel, as unanimously understood by majority of the worlds people. Hamas has a very good working relationship with UN aid bodies. But why should they allow the refugee wing of the UN to indirectly delegitimise the struggle and strengthen the Israeli military infrastructure, when their only concern should be the safety of the refugees.

To that extent, the UNRWA should be operating a large peacekeeping force rather than build up the refugee camps into irrevocable slums, that disconnect the people from their rightful home. Even the UN can unwittingly serve the aim of the regime. Why would Israel never allow a truly multi-national peacekeeping force? Americans need to change their policies based on concrete evidence of Israeli hatred rather than this imagined criminality of the resistance.

>>> Bray loudly in agreement with tormentors as you whisper for help to others?

How ironic this statement is. Your cloak of human rights discussion is so transparent by now. Why not proudly proclaim your fascist zionist colours, rather than this tip-toeing around racist discussions of civility.

Ghulam: Are we agreed that while Israel isn't perfect, neither are the Palestinians? Are we agreed that the needless butchery has gone both ways, and that two wrongs do not make a right?

You cannot compare victim to offender. The entire article is about changing the role the US is played in the systematic victimisation and abuse of the Palestinian people. If your views are so "objective", why not convince your government to give $20,000 worth of infrastructure investment per Palestinian citizen, for every $20,000 spent on tools of murder, racism and destruction for every Israeli citizen? That would be perfect wouldn't it? Is this not about the US's involvement? How about some words about the worlds perfect super-power?

How about some words about the worlds perfect super-power?

- Posted by Ghulam

OK, how about this: There aren't any perfect world super-powers. That includes the United States. The last administration went well beyond what was necessary to prove that.

What about this administration? The guy's been in office less than a year, it's too early to tell if he'll do any better. My guess is: he already is.