Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 1:45 PM
With a day's perspective, Obama's al-Arabiya TV interview still looks like a home run. The response from the Arab world has been mostly positive, with the skepticism I described yesterday interwoven. The new tone and the early outreach (not waiting for an Abu Ghraib moment, as Bush did) are important as signals of his intentions, but -- as Obama himself pointed out -- he'll be judged by his administration's deeds and not just the words. Most commentators therefore tempered their enthusiasm with a wait and see attitude to see if he delivers on these new ideas. Others noted, as they did throughout the campaign, that the U.S. will continue to pursue its interests no matter who is the president.
For all the positives, there were some things missing and some already looming problems. Here are a few:
Give Geneive Abdo a blog at FP
Lynch:
"With a day's perspective, Obama's al-Arabiya TV interview still looks like a home run."
Geneive Abdo:To whom?
While al-Arabiya isn't the top-rated station in the region, it is often recognized as the (more leveled) alternative to al-Jazeera's sensationalist reporting.
Marc: As you suggest, Hamas buy in will be necessary at some point. For Mitchell to deal directly with them at this point would be foolish. First of all, it is always smart diplomacy for the U.S. to use the good offices of others, and Egypt is already carrying the freight. Along with others -- think of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- we have allies that happen to enjoy better access and more leverage than we are likely to have for some time. So why undercut the chances for a Palestinian national unity government that would still keep Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah in the position of principal negotiating partners with Israel? Unfortunately, the political fortunes of Avigdor Lieberman and his party are likely to increase in the forthcoming Israeli election, but I don't think you would advocate reaching out to that faction in Israeli politics at this particular time. Let's not give up prematurely on the coalitions of moderate Arabs and moderate Israelis. Mitchell will find out soon enough whether or not they can deliver. David
Marc:
To what was President Obama referring when he said the United States was regarded with respect in the Muslim world 20-30 years ago? Was it 1979 at the time of Iran's Islamic revolution and the taking of the US hostages? Was it 1989 after a decade of backing the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the bombing of Libya, failing to condemn Iraq's invasion of Iran and the arming of both Iraq and Iran during the ensuing 8 year war - just to mention a few issues that concerned the Muslim world in that period?
And since this 20-30 years ago period basically encompasses Reagan's presidency, are we to take from this that President Obama plans to pattern himself on the Gipper himself with your glowing approval?
Further to the above, is there one word yet that has come out of the mouth of President Obama or George Mitchell or Hillary Clinton that is in any way different to what would have been uttered by President George W Bush, Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice? Or not uttered, for example, in not condemning Israel's actions against civilians in Gaza? Indeed I seem to recall that Rice cautioned Israel about proportionality in 2006, but Obama apparently did not see the need.
Ao are we take to take it from this, that President Obama will be taking a harder line than Bush/Rice of the last 4 years and that you are happy to pretend he isn't? (As is Helena Cobban, I notice).
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE