Obama in Cairo: Triumph or surrender?

Did President Obama succeed in changing the dynamic between the U.S. and the Muslim world with his address in Cairo?

It was the most anticipated speech of Barack Obama’s presidency thus far, said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an editorial, and it was nothing less than “a masterpiece.” Before an electrified audience of thousands of Muslims in Cairo, and millions watching on TV throughout the region, Obama last week called for a “new beginning” in America’s relations with the Muslim world—and may actually have brought one about. With the “skill and sensitivity” we’ve come to expect, Obama directly addressed the “spiky issues” in U.S.-Muslim relations, from Israel to women’s rights to nuclear weapons. But he did so, said Eugene Robinson in The Washington Post, in a “tone of respect” that previous presidents have never managed, noting that he was descended from “generations of Muslims” on his Kenyan father’s side, quoting knowledgeably from “the holy Koran,” and even saluting the crowd with the traditional “Assalaamu alaikum.” He was met with repeated applause, and a final standing ovation, with one man jumping up to shout, “I love you!” Change will not come overnight, but “the fact that many Muslims now see a sympathetic figure in the White House creates new possibilities.”

Obama’s speech was historic, all right, said Wesley Pruden in The Washington Times, in that “no president before him has ever shamed us so.” Clearly relishing “the role of Apologizer-in-Chief,” Obama said the U.S. has been too heavy-handed in its dealings with Muslim nations, never used the word “terrorism” or referred to the horrific human-rights violations in Egypt and other Islamic countries, and vastly exaggerated the number of Muslims in the U.S. as 7 million. (The Pew research group says it’s 1.8 million.) And then came the main course—sticking it to Israel, said Anne Bayefsky in National Review Online. The plight of the Palestinians, said Obama, is “intolerable.” He said the U.S. “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” and falsely claimed that “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied”—thus affirming the regionally popular idea that Israel was a misguided gift to “transplanted, alien Jews” to compensate them for the Holocaust, rather than the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. This treacherous speech “was nothing short of an earthquake—a distortion of history, and an insult to the Jewish people.”

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up
To continue reading this article...
Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.
Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.
Cancel or pause at any time.
Already a subscriber to The Week?
Not sure which email you used for your subscription? Contact us