Obama's Speech in Cairo . . . Attempt to Find Common Ground Often Fell Short

Great speeches are measured by content, context, timing, and place. President Obama's largely thematic "new beginning" address in Cairo was a groundbreaking attempt to reach out to the world's billion-plus Muslims to change the political landscape at a time when tensions are high between Muslims and the West.

Obama is to be commended for speaking directly to the Muslim world on the important issues of human rights, democracy, education, freedom of religion, mutual respect, and Islamic extremism. He correctly stated that the battleground is not Islam. The threat to world peace comes from those who have corrupted Islam into a violent cause. His call for a new dialogue was a welcome reminder of the obligation of all -- Muslims, Christians, and Jews -- to eradicate this clear and present danger. To achieve this, Obama sought to find common ground. This is where the address fell short in several respects.

First, common ground is not attained through the president's apologies (expressed and implied) for America's actions, among them (1) the reference to Iraq as a "war of choice" -- although its move toward democracy is becoming the very model he wishes other Arab nations to emulate; (2) the denial of Muslim rights resulting from colonialism, since the Untied States never has been, nor sought to be, a colonial power; and (3) the alleged torture of Islamic terrorists at Gitmo.

All this he balanced against Islam's acknowledged contributions to civilization and also to its proud historic tradition of "religious tolerance and racial equality," citing Andalusia and Cordoba as the example (although both Jews and Christians subjected to dhimmitude might differ with that characterization).

America may not be perfect, but its history of striving to better humanity, both ours and the world's, is unparalleled. Constant mea culpas represent weakness, are self-defeating, and at some point become pandering. The president missed an opportunity to cite the many ways the U.S. has positively impacted the lives of Muslims -- for example, our role in Bosnia and Kosovo, Kuwait and Afghanistan.

SECOND, THE PRESIDENT was light on Iran. There was no mention of its support of terrorism, of its aid to Hamas and Hezbollah, of its sending extremists into Iraq to kill Americans, of the need for Arab nations in the area to unite in combatting this common threat.

Third, the president's expressed intention to make it easier for U.S. Muslims to make charitable contributions is troublesome when scores of charities have been shut down or prosecuted, such as the Holy Land Foundation in Texas, for serving as a conduit of funds to terrorist groups.

Fourth, while the president was forceful and clear in expressing America's unbreakable bond with Israel, the rejection of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and the right to the existence of a Jewish homeland free of terror and Palestinian violence, he missed several opportunities to put into context the historic Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Among them, the failure to address incitement against Jews in mosques, schools, and the media (about which I spoke directly to Yasser Arafat when I was president of B'nai B'rith), the long record of Palestinian noncompliance with peace initiatives, and the missed Palestinian opportunities for statehood beginning in 1947.

THE PRESIDENT'S demand to halt settlement activity, even expansion of existing settlements through natural growth, contradicts the Road Map to which all the parties have agreed. The issue of settlements was to be the subject of negotiations, not a pre-condition to negotiations. Further, at great sacrifice the Israelis removed 8,000 Jews from the settlements in Gaza, and there was no peace. Palestinian recalcitrance and violence, not settlements, are the obstacle to peace.

The "on the other hand" references of the president to Palestinian dislocation are disturbing attempts at moral equivalence without basis in the historical context. How can one draw from this moral comparisons to the suffering of the Jewish people over the ages, and an independent State of Israel having to defend itself against daily terrorist attacks and wars launched against it by Arab nations? Clearly, the Palestinians have suffered and they are entitled to a state of their own, where they too can live in peace and security. But Israel must first have a negotiating partner, one which recognizes the Jewish state and rejects violence. Then all is possible.

Obama's appeal to reconciliation with the Muslim world is a laudable objective. It can occur only where there is an honest, realistic, and meaningful desire to make the hard decisions necessary to achieve it. We all share the president's vision of hope and goal of peace for humanity.

Let the dialogue begin.
Tommy P. Baer is a former president of B'nai B'rith International. Contact him at tbaer@canfieldbaer.com.