Obama s'adresse au monde musulman

[Al-khiyal]

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.

[Al-khiyal]

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.

[Al-khiyal]

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.

[Al-khiyal]

What Obama didn't say

June 4, 2009 -- President Obama's much-anticipated speech, before 2,500 invited guests at Cairo University, was billed as a candid discussion about the reasons for the estrangement between Muslims and the United States. He addressed some of those concerns, but he did not satisfactorily address the concern in the Muslim world about the financial and political backing by Washington of repressive governments – and in particular the government of Egypt.

Obama's speech essentially failed to address the dismal human rights record of Egypt and its neighbours, beyond generalities. His words, greeted with both rapturous applause and moments of silence, were addressed to the whole Muslim world. But he could and should have alluded in a far more direct way to the repressive practices of Egypt and many of its neighbors. Those troubled by the signs that the Obama administration is downgrading the place of human rights in U.S. foreign policy will have found nothing reassuring in his speech.

For the opposition and human rights community in Egypt, the democracy section of his speech was especially critical. They feared that the government of President Hosni Mubarak would take Obama's choice of Cairo for the speech as a seal of approval for his dismal human rights record. Coming four years after then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's pro-democracy speech in Cairo, which some saw as having helped to widen the space for democratic activism in Egypt, Obama's comments on democracy were eagerly awaited.

In her 2005 Cairo speech, Rice said that in Egypt peaceful supporters of democracy "are not free from violence" and that "the day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees — and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice." In contrast, Obama spoke in bland terms of how people yearn for the rule of law and administration of justice, avoiding reference to the long-standing states of emergency that undermines the rule of law in Egypt, Algeria, Syria and elsewhere.

He spoke of torture only in the context of post 9/11 practices by the United States. But he could have gone on to say that the torture that is so widely practiced by governments in the lands he was addressing needed to be eradicated, while acknowledging U.S. complicity in past renditions of terrorist suspects to face torture in countries that included Egypt.

Obama spoke of the importance of the "ability to speak your mind," but could have more pointedly alluded to the imprisonment of dissidents, journalists and bloggers in Egypt and beyond.

In contrast, when it came to criticizing Israel's settlement policy on the West Bank and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Obama was direct, just as he was straightforward in calling for the "upholding of religious diversity" for Copts in Egypt and Maronites in Lebanon.

He should have evoked just as directly the heavy-handed repression of nearly all dissent in so many countries of the region, Egypt included. Intoning that respect for human rights promotes stability, or that democracy involves ruling by consent, will not make the Egyptian government feel particularly uncomfortable.

President Obama will have seen little of the dismal state of human rights in Cairo, although he will have seen the full glory of Egyptian security which cleared the streets of people and cars, told shops and businesses to close down for the day and postponed university exams – in addition to some decoration, such as painting lampposts and landscaping the areas around Cairo University.

Overall, Obama's references to human rights were vague and bland, surely a disappointment to human rights activists in the region. Obama has a lot more to do if he wants to address this cause of Muslim criticism of the U.S.

[Al-khiyal]

A Bush in sheep's clothing

June 4, 2009 -- Once you strip away the mujamalat – the courtesies exchanged between guest and host – the substance of President Obama's speech in Cairo indicates there is likely to be little real change in U.S. policy. It is not necessary to divine Obama's intentions – he may be utterly sincere and I believe he is. It is his analysis and prescriptions that in most regards maintain flawed American policies intact.

Though he pledged to "speak the truth as best I can", there was much the president left out. He spoke of tension between "America and Islam" – the former a concrete specific place, the latter a vague construct subsuming peoples, practices, histories and countries more varied than similar.

Labelling America's "other" as a nebulous and all-encompassing "Islam" (even while professing rapprochement and respect) is a way to avoid acknowledging what does in fact unite and mobilise people across many Muslim-majority countries: overwhelming popular opposition to increasingly intrusive and violent American military, political and economic interventions in many of those countries. This opposition – and the resistance it generates – has now become for supporters of those interventions, synonymous with "Islam".

It was disappointing that Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the U.S. when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq – those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the U.S.-invoked escalation in Pakistan.

As President George Bush often did, Obama affirmed that it is only a violent minority that besmirches the name of a vast and "peaceful" Muslim majority. But he seemed once again to implicate all Muslims as suspect when he warned, "The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer."

Nowhere were these blindspots more apparent than his statements about Palestine/Israel. He gave his audience a detailed lesson on the Holocaust and explicitly used it as a justification for the creation of Israel. "It is also undeniable," the president said, "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."

Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?

He lectured Palestinians that "resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed". He warned them that "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." (Note: the last suicide attack targeting civilians by a Palestinian occurred in 2004)

Fair enough, but did Obama really imagine that such words would impress an Arab public that watched in horror as Israel slaughtered 1,400 people in Gaza last winter, including hundreds of sleeping, fleeing or terrified children, with American-supplied weapons? Did he think his listeners would not remember that the number of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians targeted and killed by Israel has always far exceeded by orders of magnitude the number of Israelis killed by Arabs precisely because of the American arms he has pledged to continue giving Israel with no accountability? Amnesty International recently confirmed what Palestinians long knew: Israel broke the negotiated ceasefire when it attacked Gaza last November 4, prompting retaliatory rockets that killed no Israelis until after Israel launched its much bigger attack on Gaza. That he continues to remain silent about what happened in Gaza, and refuses to hold Israel accountable demonstrates anything but a commitment to full truth-telling.

Some people are prepared to give Obama a pass for all this because he is at last talking tough on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. In Cairo, he 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."

These carefully chosen words focus only on continued construction, not on the existence of the settlements themselves; they are entirely compatible with the peace process industry consensus that existing settlements will remain where they are for ever. This raises the question of where Obama thinks he is going. He summarised Palestinians' "legitimate aspirations" as being the establishment of a "state". This has become a convenient slogan that is supposed to replace for Palestinians their pursuit of rights and justice that the proposed state actually denies. Obama is already on record opposing Palestinian refugees' right to return home, and has never supported the right of Palestinian citizens of Israel to live free from racist and religious incitement, persecution and practices fanned by Israel's highest office holders and written into its laws.

He may have more determination than his predecessor but he remains committed to an unworkable two-state "vision" aimed not at restoring Palestinian rights, but preserving Israel as an enclave of Israeli Jewish privilege. It is a dead end.

There was one sentence in his speech I cheered for and which he should heed: "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail."

[Al-khiyal]

Obama address warmly received in Maghreb

June 5, 2009 -- Many Maghreb politicians and experts viewed as "positive" the U.S. president's address to the Muslim world Thursday (June 4th), which called for turning the page in relations between the US and the Muslim world. Some, however, called for concrete action to resolve the Arab Israeli conflict, an issue they said is crucial to improving the U.S. image in the region.

"Obama’s speech can be described as historic," said Reda Chenouf, an international affairs journalist in Algeria's El Khabar. Chenouf said the speech could be a "turning point", signalling a new U.S. policy in dealing with the Muslim world.

Chenouf praised Obama for reassuring more than one billion Muslims around the world that relations based on respect and partnership would be established.

In the speech, delivered at Cairo University, Obama identified several sources of tension between the U.S. and the Muslim world, including the war in Iraq and the Arab Israeli conflict. He called for a "new beginning" based on mutual respect and removing the shackles of the past. The U.S. president said that America "is not, and never will be, at war with Islam".

"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, " Obama told a mixed audience of young men and women from different political and religious beliefs.

Chenouf noted Obama's "positive" language and the absence of phrases such as "clash of civilizations" and "war on terror".

Tunisian political analyst Berhane Bousais agrees, describing the speech as "void of the vocabulary of arrogance, classification and lessons-giving". Bousais said the "positive introduction" marks a real shift in US policy towards the Arab and Muslim worlds. He specifically noted the absence of a "hostile language" when referring to Palestinian group Hamas when the U.S. president "invited it to move from the partnership of violence to the partnership of peace-making."

Taj Eddine El Housseini, a Moroccan lecturer in international relations, described the president’s speech as balanced and realistic, and "a turning point" after years of tension. He noted the U.S. president's attempt to clarify that all religions aspire to peace. He said that the speech's emotional tone could have an impact on the public.

"[Obama] has adopted an effective means to combat the conflict between religions and civilisations," he said.

Meriam ben Yedder, a Tunisian woman in her 40s, said that for the first time in her life she was interested in a politician’s speech. "I was drawn to his words when he confirmed his desire to start a new page with the Muslim world, and also his recognition of the values of Islam that call for tolerance and brotherhood."

Obama's emphasis on Islamic values and quoting of the Qur'an had a similar effect on Mauritanians interviewed by Magharebia.

"President Obama has come to the Muslim world carrying an enlightened vision for how things should be, as well as an open heart and unprecedented frankness," Islam Ould Mohamad, a Mauritanian journalist, said. "The most positive aspect about the speech is Obama’s visibly strong knowledge of Islam. He quoted verses from the Qur’an that urge for peaceful co-existence and relinquishing malice and extremism."

Sheikh Ahmad Ould Al Arabi, a mosque Imam, believes Obama's efforts will bear fruit. "Obama’s prosperous visits to Saudi Arabia and Cairo, the cradle of Islam, have laid down the foundations for unprecedented rapprochement between the U.S. and Muslims. We pray that those efforts would be enhanced in order to realize peace and prosperity for our peoples."

Mauritanian MP Mohamad Al Mokhtar Ould Al Zamel said the speech is "well-timed, since the Muslim world is eagerly looking forward to turning a new leaf with the U.S. This is a fact emphasized by this historic speech, which has undoubtedly left quite a positive impact that calls for optimism."

Some were more sceptical and called for concrete action, especially in dealing with the Arab Israeli issue.

Islamist Moroccan MP Abdelbarri Zemzemi said that Obama's speech, setting out a number of promises, was good to hear, but hoped "that the broad lines of the speech will be turned into concrete action."

Mustapha Ferhat, an Algerian expert in Islamist groups and assistant editor at the Echourouk daily, said that Muslims are waiting for Obama to give them more than a diplomatic speech. He criticized the use of the phrase "historical relations between U.S. and Israel", which he said could "strengthen the belief that the U.S. wouldn’t exercise any pressures on Israel to make it change its extremist and hard-line policies."

In the address, Obama said his administration was committed to a two-state solution to the Arab Israeli conflict. The U.S. president spoke of the suffering endured by both Palestinians and Israelis, calling on Palestinians to abandon violence and on Israelis to halt settlement activity and take concrete steps to enable progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people.

Morocco's Justice and Development Party (PJD) chairman Saâddine El Othmani said that the speech was "certainly positive", but questioned the U.S. government's ability to resolve the issue of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees. "Is the American government capable of achieving these goals? That’s what remains to be seen over the days ahead," he said.

Some, however, positively viewed Obama's commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state and his description of Jerusalem as a "lasting home" for all three religions.

"The most important thing in the speech was the confirmation of the current US administration’s keenness on reaching a just solution in the Middle East, and that there was a need to give justice to the Palestinian people and to enable them to have their own state, and to recognize Israel’s right to exist", Mondher Thabet, a member of the Tunisian Senate, told Magharebia.

The speech, Thabet said, "corresponds to the liberal concepts we are embracing, and is especially embodied by the idea that Jerusalem be an open city for divine religions and a symbol of tolerance and communication among peoples."

Zied el Heni, in charge of external relations in the National Union of Tunisian Journalists (SNJT), defended the speech against the perception that it is just a public relations campaign, saying that Obama was "quite aware of the complex situation, something that made him confirm that 'change won’t happen overnight; and just one speech won’t overcome all the differences.'"

"We need to positively deal with President Obama. We don’t have anything to lose in that," he told Magharebia. El Heni said that resolving the Palestinian issue in a just way that is based on UN resolutions "will open the door for new and good relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world and "will help overcome the circumstances that give rise to terrorism".

Although Maghreb media coverage emphasised Obama's support for a 2-state solution, Algerian state news agency APS also highlighted Obama's mention of the $4m to be allocated each of the next 5 years for Afghanistan reconstruction. In a special news feature, the Algerian agency reported Obama's plan for new funding to support technology development in the Muslim world.

APS also published a brief report on the Arab League reaction, quoting Arab League chief Amr Moussa as saying that the speech conveyed a "clear vision and a new approach to relations with Muslim countries, including the dialogue of civilizations, the Palestinian question and the rights of the Palestinian people".

Moroccan state-run news agency MAP noted that in his first speech to the Arab and Muslim world, Obama pointed out that Morocco was the first country to recognise the United States. Communication Minister Khalid Naciri said the mention reaffirmed the friendship between the two countries.

[Al-khiyal]

Des avancées rhétoriques qui attendent des actes :
La grande opération de séduction d'Obama

Samedi 6 Juin 2009 -- Au Caire, devant un auditoire choisi, le président américain, Barack Hussein Obama, dans son adresse au monde musulman, a exercé ses talents de séducteur et de brillant rhétoricien sans pour autant apporter quelque chose de nouveau. Tout est en définitive dans le «ton». À lire et entendre les réactions dans le monde arabe, un constat s'impose : Barack Obama est crédité d'une sincérité et d'intentions louables sans que cela n'atténue la profonde méfiance à l'égard de la politique des Etats-Unis. Cela peut paraître paradoxal, mais il faut bien y voir le résultat d'une accumulation de «savoir» sur la politique américaine au sein des opinions arabes et musulmanes sur le modèle de fonctionnement du système américain. La relative bonne image de Barack Obama ne déteindra sur les Etats-Unis que s'il apporte la preuve en acte qu'il est en mesure de faire bouger les choses et d'aller au-delà des invariants d'une politique totalement pro-israélienne. Même s'il a dit des choses importantes, le président américain s'est livré à l'exercice factice de la symétrie des concessions que doivent faire les parties concernées par le conflit du Proche-Orient. Or, la symétrie est la seule chose qui n'existe pas entre Israël et les Palestiniens. Comment pouvoir affirmer que face à une situation coloniale vécue par les Palestiniens «la résistance par la violence et la mort est erronée et ne peut l'emporter».

Situation «intolérable» des Palestiniens

À cette aune, le colonialisme aurait eu la vie longue et l'indépendance américaine aurait attendu longtemps. Et surtout comment être pacifiste quand M. Obama reconnaît lui-même que la «situation pour le peuple palestinien est intolérable». Le discours symétrique est faussé. Le président américain est trop intelligent pour ne pas le savoir. La question est de savoir s'il y a recours pour admettre les «limites» de sa propre capacité de rééquilibrer la politique étasunienne ou s'il s'adresse à Israël pour lui signifier que le moment est venu de changer la donne. Il faut néanmoins reconnaître à Obama de rompre, au plan du discours, avec les platitudes guerrières de son prédécesseur. Ses propos sur l'impératif des deux Etats et son refus des colonies tranchent, en effet, avec l'attitude habituelle des Américains. Il suffit de se souvenir du discours haineux de Bush à la Knesset pour mesurer l'évolution. Les propos d'Obama sur les colonies paraissent encore généraux, mais comment ne pas les opposer à l'affirmation de Bush décrétant que les Palestiniens devraient tenir compte des «réalités du terrain». Si l'équipe de Bush avait choisi de ne parler qu'avec ses «amis» au Proche-Orient et de vouer aux gémonies les autres, ceux de l'axe du mal, Barack Obama a une approche plus pragmatique. Quand il parle du Hamas, ce n'est pas pour le traiter de mouvement terroriste mais pour lui rappeler que le soutien qui lui est apporté par une partie des Palestiniens impose qu'il «assume ses responsabilités» et «joue un rôle dans la réalisation des aspirations palestiniennes». Le constat de divergences avec le Hamas est fait sans acrimonie et laisse ouverte la possibilité qu'il soit un interlocuteur.

Jeu de séduction

Tout le jeu de séduction mené par Barack Obama a consisté en fait à s'adresser aux acteurs «indésirables» mais socialement présents, que la précédente administration ignorait et combattait : le Hamas, l'Iran, la Syrie... Le discours d'Obama n'annonce pas des mesures mais il crée des attentes. S'il ne lève pas les méfiances et les haines suscitées par l'ère Bush, il prend option pour une relation moins crispée, pour un «nouveau départ». «Aucun discours ne peut éliminer des années de méfiance», mais «tant que nos relations seront définies par nos différences, cela renforcera ceux qui sèment la haine plutôt que la paix, ceux qui font la promotion du conflit plutôt que de la coopération». Sa manière de parler des Palestiniens est très différente de ses prédécesseurs. Il reconnaît leurs «souffrances» qui durent depuis plus de 60 ans et les «humiliations quotidiennes» qui accompagnent l'occupation. Mais d'un autre côté, il semble exiger des Etats arabes d'aller plus loin que le plan de paix qu'ils ont proposé. Que peuvent-ils offrir de plus même si Obama n'a pas tort - et les Etats-Unis y sont pour beaucoup - de souligner que beaucoup de responsables arabes ont instrumentalisé la cause palestinienne pour leurs propres intérêts. Fait remarquable dans ce discours, Obama a reconnu que son pays a joué un rôle dans la chute du gouvernement de Mossadegh en 1953 qui avait été renversé par un coup d'Etat fomenté par la CIA. Il se dit prêt à un dialogue sans conditions préalables sur le nucléaire tout en admettant que l'Iran a «le droit, comme toutes les autres nations, d'accéder à l'énergie nucléaire», à condition qu'il «respecte ses obligations concernant le traité de non-prolifération (TNP)». Il estime, dans une formulation qui semble menaçante, que sur le dossier nucléaire «nous sommes arrivés à un point décisif».

Suppôt d'Al Qaeda

Globalement, Barack Obama, au risque de se faire fustiger par les néoconservateurs et les ultra-sionistes, a réussi son coup de marketing dans une région où l'appréciation positive à son égard ne s'étend pas aux Etats-Unis. Il est difficile d'attendre davantage d'un discours qui a été calculé au millimètre près. Il y a eu un beau discours, quelques avancées rhétoriques. Se traduiront-elles par du concret ? C'est toute la question et c'est toute la raison qui fait que les opinions arabes peuvent apprécier Obama tout en restant plus que méfiants à l'égard des Etats-Unis. Et pour cause, aux Etats-Unis, certains à droite n'hésitent déjà pas à présenter Obama comme un suppôt d'Al-Qaeda.