BICOM

Key Points

• It is important to remember that Obama’s impressive and well received Cairo address was only a speech. But it was important in defining Obama’s view on US priorities.  
• It is remarkable that in a speech designed to recalibrate relations between the US and the Islamic world, Obama spent significant time challenging anti-Semitism, busting the myth of Holocaust denial, condemning terrorism and emphasising the unbreakable bonds between Israel and the US.  
• There was no detailed policy plan, but the speech combined Obama’s ideals with a hard-headed, realist view of the US interests. It was a direct challenge to the idea of a ‘clash of civilizations’ between the West and Islam.  
• The speech was directed at Muslim people, rather than their governments. The US went to considerable length, by flying in journalists, to ensure it was heard by Muslim people around the world.  
• Prime Minister Netanyahu had little choice but to welcome the speech, but it was notable that Obama’s address and subsequent comments marked a significant attempt to improve the tone of relations between US and Israeli governments.  

Introduction

President Obama’s address in Cairo, following a trip to Saudi Arabia, before an invited audience of 3,000 people, was seen widely as part of an effort to ‘reset’ relations between the US and the Muslim world. Israelis were listening particularly carefully to the way in which the speech related to the key issues of Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Less widely noticed internationally was a subsequent interview given by the President to a group of journalists, including a correspondent from Israel’s widest circulation newspaper, Yediot Ahronot. In this interview Obama softened the administration’s stance towards the current Israeli government.[i] This analysis examines Obama’s speech and subsequent comments, how they were received in Israel, and the implications going forward.  

What does the speech reveal about US Middle East policy?

Obama was elected to the US Presidency promising comprehensive change, and his Cairo speech represented a clear attempt to fulfill his promise of of repairing US relations with the Islamic world. The speech was aimed at a wide cross section of Muslim opinion, and the US made considerable efforts to ensure the message was heard widely. They invited Muslims from around the world to hear the speech in Cairo, and worked to ensure it was broadcast on regional TV news channels. The fact that Iranian supreme leader Ali Khameini felt the need to attack the speech before it have even been given, was a measure of his recognition of the impact that Obama might have.

Obama dealt with five broad issues. Firstly, he stressed that the US is not at war with Islam, but rather that Muslim majority nations have a common interest with the US in challenging ‘extremists’. Secondly, the speech discussed Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama wanted to make clear that US interests in these arenas are only to protect itself, not to control other peoples. He noted US plans for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by 2012, and US contributions to aiding development in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.[ii] Thirdly, the speech focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Obama reiterated the ‘unbreakable’ bond between the US and Israel, and characterised the conflict as between ‘two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive.’[iii]

In calling for the Palestinians to reject violence, Obama reminded his audience that the successful struggle of American blacks for equality in the US was not conducted through violence – but rather through ‘peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America’s founding.’[iv] While some have tried to interpret this linkage as a comparison between the struggle against slavery and the Palestinian struggle, in fact the comments were specifically intended as a critique of the use of violence by the Palestinians. Obama explicitly reiterated the firm US position that Hamas needs to commit to Quartet guidelines in order to be seen as a potential partner in the diplomatic process.

The fourth topic the speech focused on was the issue of nuclear weapons in the region, and specifically the Iranian nuclear program. Obama spoke of his readiness for negotiations without preconditions with Iran, and of his willingness to see Iran developing peaceful nuclear energy within the framework of its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) obligations. At the same time, he made clear the US concerns regarding Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.

In addition to these four core strategic areas, Obama discussed human rights issues in the region. He expressed support for democratization, women’s rights, religious freedom and economic and educational development, whilst carefully avoiding the implication that any specific way of life or form of government could be imposed from outside.

Implications for Israel and Israeli reactions

Obama’s address was watched closely in Israel, as it was elsewhere in the region. Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made conspicuous efforts to make clear that they welcomed the speech. In addition, Knesset members from the centrist Kadima opposition party, the centre-left Labour party, and the left-wing Meretz party were particularly quick to praise Obama’s commitment to the peace process.

Many Israelis were impressed that whilst addressing an Arab audience, the president described the bonds between the US and Israel as ‘unbreakable’, and expressed a firm condemnation of Holocaust denial. That the speech avoided any reference to Operation Cast Lead was also notable. In addition, Obama’s statement that the Arab Peace Initiative represented only a beginning and that it should be “a cause for action… to recognize Israel’s legitimacy” was welcomed in Jerusalem. The Netanyahu government attaches particular importance to the need to involve the Arab states more closely in the diplomatic process, and there is common ground between the government and the US administration in this area. 

Obama made a clearly calculated effort to ensure a positive reception for his words in Israel with an interview given afterwards to Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea of Yediot Ahronot, alongside five journalists from Muslim majority countries. Obama showed understanding for Israel’s security challenges and expressed confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu, saying: “When rockets are fired every day against Israeli citizens, you can understand why Israelis have lost their faith that they will live in security and win recognition from the Arab world. I believe that Netanyahu recognizes the strategic need of reaching peace in the Middle East. It could be that he will be given an opportunity that a leader of the Labour Party or of the Left would not get. Only the anti-Communist Nixon could have opened the doors to China.”[v]

Whilst Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have been encouraged by this, he was apparently concerned that the president’s speech, whilst making clear US opposition to Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons, did not express unequivocal opposition to the Iranian program of uranium enrichment. The speech will in addition have offered little comfort to the Israeli government on the question of settlements. Obama was unambiguous in reiterating his administration’s opposition to further construction in West Bank settlements and in expressing his view that the settlements represent an impediment toward efforts to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.[vi]

But Israeli officials noted that while US opposition to building in settlements was unequivocal, in other key areas – the need for the Palestinians to develop institutions, the importance of economic issues among the Palestinians, the need for the Arab states to play a more practical positive role in the process – there is broad agreement between the administration and the government of Israel. 

In a more symbolic but no less important area, the fact that Obama chose to discuss Jewish suffering in the Holocaust, and then immediately afterwards Palestinian suffering as a result of the creation of Israel was noted with concern in some quarters. Some Israelis were disturbed that in presenting the case for Israel’s right to exist, Obama made no mention of the ancient and continuous Jewish connection to the land. Rather, the basis and justification for Israel’s existence was located entirely in the modern Jewish experience of suffering in Europe.

But differences over details in the historical narrative are not the current preoccupation of the Israeli government. Prime Minister Netanyahu is aware that there is a new mood afoot in US policy on the Middle East, and whilst not ignoring potential areas of disagreement, he will be looking for a way to bring Israel on board with Obama’s programme. With this in mind, Netanyahu issued a carefully formulated statement welcoming the speech, and made a concerted effort to insure that his positive message was not contradicted by his cabinet ministers. He has also announced that he will make a major speech at Bar-Ilan University setting out his own diplomatic policy next Sunday. Obama’s post-speech interview shows that he does not seek confrontation with Netanyahu’s government for its own sake, and Netanyahu’s speech is likely to respond positively to the President’s attempt to recalibrate relations between the two governments.

Conclusion

Obama’s speech was a truly remarkable attempt to recalibrate US-Muslim relations. It is very important to note that in this context, he did not seek to sacrifice relations with Israel to curry favour in the Islamic world. As Obama’s speech and subsequent interview indicated, whilst there are differences of opinion between the Israeli and US governments on specific issues, there is common interest in advancing a peace process which isolates extremists and helps Israel achieve recognition and legitimacy in the region. Obama clearly showed that he does not seek a deliberate rift between the US and Israel. It is now the task of the government of Israel to build a policy stance able to respond positively to the vision expressed by Obama in Cairo, while at the same time expressing Israeli concerns and interests in areas of disagreement. In this regard, there is much anticipation of the Prime Minister’s upcoming speech next Sunday, which is expected to lay down the broad parameters of the Israeli government’s response to the new message emanating from Washington.  

 

---

[i] “Obama sees ‘great opportunity’ in Mid East” 5 June 2009 Ynet News

[ii] Full text of President Obama’s Cairo speech; The White House

[iii] Ibid. 

[iv] Ibid. 

[v]  “Obama sees ‘great opportunity’ in Mid East” 5 June 2009 Ynet News

[vi] Full text of President Obama’s Cairo speech; The White House