Obama reikt moslims de hand


In een speech die hij had beloofd tijdens zijn campagne om president te worden, heeft Barack Obama de hand gereikt aan de moslimwereld. Obama gebruikte herhaaldelijk quotes uit de koran en begroette het publiek aan de unief in Caïro in het Arabisch: "assalaamu alaykum. Ik ben Barack Hoessein Obama."


Nieuw begin

De Amerikaanse president Barack Obama wil een nieuw begin in de relaties met de moslimwereld. Er moet een einde komen aan de spiraal van "wantrouwen en meningsverschillen", zei hij tijdens een toespraak in de Universiteit van Cairo.


Principes

Volgens Obama moeten de relaties tussen de Verenigde Staten en de circa 1,5 miljard moslims over de wereld gebaseerd zijn op "wederzijdse belangen en wederzijds respect". Amerika en de islam zijn elk niet exclusief en hoeven niet in strijd met elkaar te zijn, aldus de president. De VS en de moslimwereld "delen gemeenschappelijke principes, principes van rechtvaardigheid en vooruitgang, tolerantie en de waardigheid van de mensen".


"Spreek altijd de waarheid"

Obama erkende dat "een enkele speech niet jaren van wantrouwen kan wegnemen''. Maar hij riep beide partijen op "om in alle openheid de dingen te zeggen die nu vaak achter gesloten deuren blijven". Hij citeerde daarvoor een regel uit de Koran: "wees bewust van God en spreek altijd de waarheid".


Kolonialisme

De spanningen tussen het Westen en de islamitische wereld zijn ook de jongste tijd gevoed door een "kolonialisme dat de rechten de mogelijkheden van vele moslims ontzegt", zei Obama. "Het betrof een "Koude Oorlog" waarin de islamitische landen enkel gebruikt werden, of ze dat nu wilden of niet. De snelle veranderingen en de globalisering hebben ervoor gezorgd dat vele moslims het Westen als vijandig gezind ten opzichte van de traditie van de islam hebben aanzien."


11 september

"Gewelddadige extremisten hebben van de spanningen gebruik gemaakt. De aanslagen van 11 september en de daden van extremisten hebben de valse indruk geschapen dat de islamitische wereld het Westen en de mensenrechten vijandig gezind zijn", zei Obama.


Afghanistan

Hij benadrukte dat er blijvende strijd tegen het extremisme in de wereld moet zijn. Er mag geen twijfel over bestaan dat de VS zich overal zullen weren tegen hun vijanden. Bij terreuraanslagen in de VS heeft al-Qaida 3.000 mensen gedood en dient daarvoor te worden bestreden. "Wij zullen onze troepen niet in Afghanistan houden, wij willen daar geen militaire basissen", zei Obama. "Niemand zal extremisme tolereren".


"VS niet in oorlog met islam"

"De islam is het een deel van het probleem in de strijd tegen het gewelddadig extremisme, het is een belangrijker deel om vrede te bewerkstelligen", aldus het Amerikaanse staatshoofd dat aan zijn uitspraken in Ankara herinnerde: de VS "zijn niet in oorlog met de islam". De problemen in Afghanistan en Pakistan kunnen niet alleen met de wapens worden opgelost.


Israël

Verder zei Obama dat Israël de rechten van de Palestijnen moet erkennen en het bouwen van nederzettingen moet stoppen. De Palestijnen moeten op hun beurt het geweld afzweren.

Er was met belangstelling naar de toespraak van Obama uitgekeken, omdat hierin het herstel van de betrekkingen met de islamitische wereld centraal staat. Die relaties zijn onder zijn voorganger George Bush sterk verslechterd, vooral door de Amerikaanse invasie van Irak en de onvoorwaardelijke Amerikaanse steun aan Israël.


Blog HLN, 04-06-2009 (afp/mvl)

__________________
"Never argue with an idiot, they'll just bring you
down to their level and beat you with experience." (c)TB

The Grim Picture of Obama's Middle East

By Noam Chomsky


June 05, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- A CNN headline, reporting Obama's plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads 'Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.' Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.


Keeping just to Israel-Palestine -- there was nothing substantive about anything else -- Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to 'point fingers' at each other or to 'see this conflict only from one side or the other.' There is, however, a third side, that of the United States, which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict. Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be considered.

Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then, that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.

Obama once again praised the Arab Peace Initiative, saying only that Arabs should see it as 'an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.' How should the Obama administration see it? Obama and his advisers are surely aware that the Initiative reiterates the long-standing international consensus calling for a two-state settlement on the international (pre-June '67) border, perhaps with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to borrow U.S. government usage before it departed sharply from world opinion in the 1970s, vetoing a Security Council resolution backed by the Arab 'confrontation states' (Egypt, Iran, Syria), and tacitly by the PLO, with the same essential content as the Arab Peace Initiative except that the latter goes beyond by calling on Arab states to normalize relations with Israel in the context of this political settlement. Obama has called on the Arab states to proceed with normalization, studiously ignoring, however, the crucial political settlement that is its precondition. The Initiative cannot be a 'beginning' if the U.S. continues to refuse to accept its core principles, even to acknowledge them.

In the background is the Obama administration's goal, enunciated most clearly by Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to forge an alliance of Israel and the 'moderate' Arab states against Iran. The term 'moderate' has nothing to do with the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to conform to U.S. demands.

What is Israel to do in return for Arab steps to normalize relations? The strongest position so far enunciated by the Obama administration is that Israel should conform to Phase I of the 2003 Road Map, which states: 'Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).' All sides claim to accept the Road Map, overlooking the fact that Israel instantly added 14 reservations that render it inoperable.

Overlooked in the debate over settlements is that even if Israel were to accept Phase I of the Road Map, that would leave in place the entire settlement project that has already been developed, with decisive U.S. support, to ensure that Israel will take over the valuable land within the illegal 'separation wall' (including the primary water supplies of the region) as well as the Jordan Valley, thus imprisoning what is left, which is being broken up into cantons by settlement/infrastructure salients extending far to the East. Unmentioned as well is that Israel is taking over Greater Jerusalem, the site of its major current development programs, displacing many Arabs, so that what remains to Palestinians will be separated from the center of their cultural, economic, and sociopolitical life. Also unmentioned is that all of this is in violation of international law, as conceded by the government of Israel after the 1967 conquest, and reaffirmed by Security Council resolutions and the International Court of Justice. Also unmentioned are Israel's successful operations since 1991 to separate the West Bank from Gaza, since turned into a prison where survival is barely possible, further undermining the hopes for a viable Palestinian state.

It is worth remembering that there has been one break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. President Clinton recognized that the terms he had offered at the failed 2000 Camp David meetings were not acceptable to any Palestinians, and in December, proposed his 'parameters,' vague but more forthcoming. He then announced that both sides had accepted the parameters, though both had reservations. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt to iron out the differences, and made considerable progress. A full resolution could have been reached in a few more days, they announced in their final joint press conference. But Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, and they have not been formally resumed. The single exception indicates that if an American president is willing to tolerate a meaningful diplomatic settlement, it can very likely be reached.

It is also worth remembering that the Bush I administration went a bit beyond words in objecting to illegal Israeli settlement projects, namely, by withholding U.S. economic support for them. In contrast, Obama administration officials stated that such measures are 'not under discussion' and that any pressures on Israel to conform to the Road Map will be 'largely symbolic,' so the New York Times reported (Helene Cooper, June 1).

There is more to say, but it does not relieve the grim picture that Obama has been painting, with a few extra touches in his widely-heralded address to the Muslim World in Cairo on June 4.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (retired) at MIT. He is the author of many books and articles on international affairs and social-political issues, and a long-time participant in activist movements. His most recent books include: Failed States, What We Say Goes(with David Barsamian), Hegemony or Survival, and the Essential Chomsky.


ICL, 05-06-2009

__________________
"Never argue with an idiot, they'll just bring you
down to their level and beat you with experience." (c)TB