Your anecdotes on the Jordanian reaction to President Obama's Nobel peace prize seem logical to me. I was studying Arabic in Jordan this summer and heard many people (from cab drivers to academics) say that they were delighted with the change in our administration, and were hopeful with regards to Obama's general view toward Muslims and his *verbal* commitment to progressing peace in the region. That being said, without tangible evidence of a change in even settlement construction in the West Bank, I think the Arab world as a whole is in a state of confusion after hearing the award's announcement.

In Oman (I'm based in Muscat now) I've only had the chance to ask a few people so far of their reaction. However, the academic I spoke with today (again, a strong Obama supporter- he could not emphasize enough the progress that was made with Bush's departure and Obama's arrival) echoed the same response as Jordanians it seems. He pointed to Israel and Palestine, and to Guantanamo, and asked...And how did he get the prize? I actually think Americans are asking the same questions though...

Looking forward to notes on the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and the domestic issues related to democratic reform!

I think for Jordanians; and presumably I am still considered as one, the problem is how to articulate the Obama "phenomenon".

Jordanians seem to have managed to define President Obama by what he is not. ie. a Neo-Con, or/and a follower of former President Bush's world outlook. However, in the absence of any concrete mechanisms and progress, on issues which they feel are cardinal to their mind, it becomes undoubtedly hard to define what President Obama actually is!!.

Then of course, the Nobel Prize came, to add to Jordanian bemusement, that the prize was given for intentions rather than for achievements and deeds. So, they wonder, like many other peoples including yours sincerely, if we have missed something?.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Considering that President Obama has promised a great deal to the Arab world in general, it is quite understandable that Jordanians are feeling both skeptical and bewildered over his Nobel Prize victory. It does not take a genius to figure out that Mr. Obama's hopes for the region have been drastically curtailed by the debacle in Afghanistan...as well as other domestic priorities that are high on his administration's agenda (i.e. health care reform and fixing the national economy).

Scholars such as Marc Lynch and Stephen Walt have already pointed to his lack of progress on substantial issues relevant to Arabs worldwide. President Obama's vision for a genuine and long-lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is perhaps the most effective illustration.

In the first few months of Obama's presidency, the White House essentially re-formulated its entire perspective with respect to the conflict. Palestinian grievances would be heard with open ears and respected with an open mind; Israelis would be pressured into making concessions that they have never made before; and Arab nations would be expected to moderate their behavior to further the prospects for regional peace. The key was to depart from the status-quo of the George W. Bush years, when U.S. support for Israel was virtually unlimited and unquestioned.

Months later, what has been accomplished on the Israeli- Palestinian front? The answer, of course, is nothing; unless you count Washington's regression back under the same old "we work for Israel" banner. Obama, for reasons I still do not understand to this day, has decided that caving-in to Prime Minister Netanyahu's settlement policy is more important than working towards a comprehensive agreement...not only exacerbating the already horrendous living-conditions of the Palestinian population, but diminishing the optimism that so many Arabs wanted to experience. U.S. policymakers are once again viewing Israel as a "reliable" partner, re-inflaming the same hostility that President Obama hoped to eliminate in his Cairo speech. The "say one thing and do another" approach is once again the microcosm of American foreign-policy

Perhaps the biggest blunder to Mr. Obama's Mideast peace plan is the fact that he has lost a considerable amount of support from the Arab world. While the 44th president still enjoys widespread international support (hence the Noble Peace Prize), people may be slowly realizing that he lacks the strength and resolve necessary to back up the “yes me can” rhetoric.

Iran is another case in point. Despite the President's pledge to limit Iran's nuclear capability (a key issue among Arab populations), Tehran continues to produce uranium at an unprecedented speed. Yes, talks between Iranian representatives and western powers are gradually gaining fruition on both sides; the idea that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is willing to export uranium for further enrichment is by no means a minor breakthrough. Yet, as everyone knows, this is certainly not a show-stopper.

There is a very real possibility that Obama's premature acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize could translate into his own demise, undermining his credibility and ruining his legacy. With the Prize in hand, the President is now placed with a tremendous amount of added pressure on his shoulders. With more power comes more responsibility, and if the White House fails to live up to its end of the bargain, the United States may very well return to its previous position: the most hated and unpopular nation on earth.

Of course, one cannot solely blame the President for these failures. After all, the man has only been in the Oval Office for the past nine months. No leader, however transformational on the global stage, would be able to successfully complete all idealistic objectives in such a short period of time.

Nevertheless, Arabs are losing patience. At least George W. Bush lived up to his philosophy.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

might actually have a point when he said, that being awarded medals is far better than having shoes thrown at you. However, one would add, that the latter option may well remain just a matter of time, for President Obama to remember.

khairi janbek.paris/france

You are 100% correct, you have captures exactly how we Arabs felt when Obama came to office, simply we felt hope as many around the world. However, quickly, actually very quickly, this hope is turning in front of our eyes to big disappointment and despair.

As an Arab American, I see Obama as sincere, however, his priorities are domestic first and last, and everything else is by far 2nd. I don't believe he will be willing to spend any political capital until the economy is fixed, and health care reforms is solidly in place, and for that to happened many years have to pass; may be in his 2nd term.

So far, he does not seam to me the FDR we need, he is more like a Kennedy: a weak president.

Salah Mansour
Chicago
BTW, I came to your blog from Google's Fast Flip

Salah, your unique perspective as an Arab-American is duly noted. From my humble observations, it appears that your feelings with respect to President Obama is a microcosm of Arab frustration in general.

There was so much hope and happiness throughout the Middle East when George W. Bush's presidency was over. People around the world firmly believed that the unilateralism and military might that had come to dominate American foreign-policy during the Bush years would be replaced with a more fresh and unbiased approach. With Mr. Obama entering the Oval Office, it seemed like the world felt at peace for the first time in eight years. Africans, Arabs, Asians, Europeans, Americans, and Hispanics felt as if the new president-elect would be willing to make unpopular decisions for the sake of a safer and more prosperous world (such as coercing Israel into negotiations).

Naturally, like you have said, this hope failed to live up to its expectations. Virtually no conflict has been solved, democratic governance remains at a standstill in the Middle East, and Al'Qaeda continues to run rampant throughout the African continent (and of course the mountains of Pakistan). On the contrary, problems of significance have not only failed to mitigate...they have escalated in response to worsening circumstances. This is especially true in Afghanistan, where the President is debating whether to send thousands of additional troops (on top of the 20,000 already deployed in March) to the front-lines.

If this is not a prime example of a love-hate relationship, then I do not know what is. As history demonstrates, presidents often take on a different persona from their former days as a candidate. Despite the lack of progress, I still hold a small amount of confidence that Mr. Obama will be able to transform into the type of leader that he so blatantly promised.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

When are you all going to realise that Obama's role in history is to play good cop to Bush's bad cop in pursuit of the same end goals? The goals remain the same because (a) the future doesn't stand still and (b) because US self interests generally maintain the same trajectory no matter who is president.

In this regard, Obama's peace prize is plus because it continues the illusions about Obama that keep the Left in line allowing Obama to continue to pursue Bush's end goals without serious opposition from his own base.

but many people in the world, hope that President Obama, will not echo Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar's words " Waving our red weapons o'er our heads, Let's all cry Peace, Freedom, and Liberty".

khairi janbek.paris/france

One remembers that the Arab-Israeli peace question, has always been subjected to criticism on the Arab popular level, for being a matter of signing a peace of paper between governments, and hardly anything to do with people's concerns and views.

However, one personally thinks, the problem is deeper than that. Essentially, both Arabs and Israelis, tend to define peace from two opposite perspectives. For Israel, the idea is "Might is Right"; meaning basically, that from the position of strength and military prowess, Israel can impose the political arrangement it sees fit. While for the Arab people, the concept is still that of " Right is Might"; meaning that, so long as there are legitimate rights which their governments should defend and aim at restoring, then the Arab position will always remain strong; irrespective of any military balance.

I don't know if President Obama will try to go for the middle ground here, and adopt the "resultant"; in terms of Physics, of both positions, which would translate as probably "Mright is Rmight" or " Rmight is Mright", but this approach is most likely to turn out to be just as incomprehensible as the "resultant".

khairi janbek.paris/france

When was Hamas accepted as part of a Palestinian unity government, Mr janbekster?

The Obama admin has droned incessantly right from the beginning: recognise Israel, renounce violence, abide by previous agreements signed by the PA. Only then it will be accepted by the US as part of a unity government.
Exactly the note Bush and Rice had been droning since Hamas won the election in 2006. The transition from admin to admin was seamless.

When did Obama abandon the "moderate Arab front"? And what's different about the US/Syria dialogue today from that which existed under the Republican George Bush Sen Admin and the Clinton admin? This dialogue ended under the Clinton admin, not under George W.

Obama's only new move has been to publicly strong-arm Israel over the settlements - and he's backed off that already! In about 3 months!

I hope Mr./Ms bb you'll find my answers satisfactory. One is neither an American citizen nor a partisan of any US administration, rather basing my analysis on the following observations:

1) Ties between Damascus and Washington have been increasingly strained, since the US led invasion of Iraq 2003, and the assassination of late Mr. Hariri in Beirut in 2005. Washington recalled its ambassador to Damascus in 2005 {January if I recall correctly}. Jeffrey Feltman's visit ot Damascus in March this year, was the first high level US trip to Syria since then; being the Principle Deputy Assistant Sec. of State for the Near Eastern Affairs. He was quoted saying in a press conference " We came here today, as part of President Obama committments to use diplomacy and more dialogue, in order to try to see where we can can move forward, where our interests overlap, and to see where we can try and work together to bridge the differences that remain in some of our policies".

2) Ha'aretz 21.2.2009. " The Obama administration's special envoy to the region; George Mitchell, said Thursday, that Washington wished to see the formation of Hamas-Fateh unity government. He said that efforts to reconcile the factions were important, and labeled the schisms as an obstacle to the peace process. Mitchell made the comments at a meeting with the leaders of several US Jewish groups".

3) President Obama remains till this day, committed to the two-state solution to the Palestinbian problem, and is committed to the establishment of a contiguous independent Palestinian state. That's what he keeps saying.

4) The recent visit of the Saudi King Abdullah to Damascus, the first since 2005; with almost 1 billion US$ of Saudi investment money heading Damascus' way, and the return to the meetings of the stalled Jordan-Syria Joint High Committe, as well as the Arab mediation efforts between Cairo and Damascus, are the clearest signs yet for the abondenment of the US to the policies of axis in the Middle East.

khairi janbek.paris/france