Neither violent or non-violent protest works better

Every now and then, Matt Yglesias posts a blog referring to a suggestion that the Palestinians adopt a strategy of non-violent protest against Israel. In these posts, the commenters have reached some non-obvious consensus conclusions about weaker parties protesting policies of stronger parties.

How protest in these situations works, violent or non-violent, is that the target comes to calculate that the repression necessary for continuing its policies is not worth the benefit of these policies. Repressing protest requires a level of brutality that is generally uncomfortable and contrary to the self-image of the stronger party, and so there are situations where the stronger party just lets it go.

One surprising conclusion is that violent and non-violent protest each work in the same way and under the same circumstances. The target policy, what the weaker party is trying to change, has to be non-essential for the stronger party. If that is the case, any organized campaign of protest will cause the stronger party cede the demands protested for.

A corollary, also surprising as it developed, is that a distant but necessary party can be a more effective target than the most directly involved party. In the case of the US civil rights campaigns to end legal racial discrimination southern US whites were more invested in the discrimination than northern US whites. Protests that entered the consciousness of northerners, even those located in the south, caused changes in national policies led by northerners who were not as invested in the system of discrimination whose cooperation was necessary for the south to continue the system.

Comparably, governments other than South Africa's did not feel the investment in the Apartheid system that the White South Africans felt. Protests against Western governments that supported South Africa cause those governments to change policies that supported Apartheid, which rendered Apartheid non-viable.

A continuous campaign of protest against the US and European government policies without which Zionism as a political movement cannot remain viable, likely would cause the US or Europe to change these policies. One difference is that US Jewish citizens are invested in Zionism and have disproportionate influence on US Middle East foreign policy. Jewish Americans though, are a small proportion of the US electorate, this does not seem to be an insurmountable obstacle.

Given that both violent and non-violent protest work, human decency requires a preference for non-violence. But in the case of protest against the United States and Europe, there is another consideration. A campaign of non-violent protest is less likely to be disrupted and thereby can become continuous. One-off attacks, such as the attack on the World Trade Center are not effective at changing policy. Many smaller actions over a longer period of time would have been more likely to change US policy.

Netanyahu to give major speech Sunday

I think we'll see Netanyahu's best effort to get out of the settlement freeze issue without either succumbing or engendering further hostility from Obama. My best guess is he'll make a different but possibly substantial concession, like unilaterally removing settlers from outposts that Israel does not consider important now, while pledging to continue settlement expansion in settlements Israel wants.

Here's hoping Mousavi wins in Iran

The biggest difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad is that Mousavi offers the US a face-saving way to back down, which the US is likely eager to take.

Ahmadinejad would have done well to be more polished. On the other hand, his attacks on Rafsanjani and corruption in the old guard clerics demonstrated both desperation and courageousness. He may even benefit from saying what everyone in the country knows but no viable candidate could say. He's probably more of a reformer than Mousavi, but that's for Iran's voters to decide.

Ahmadinejad losing gives the US all the pretext it needs to open to Iran despite the objections of Israel and Israel's supporters.

Kerry: US position of no enrichment was "ridiculous"

It's becoming clear that the US is preparing to admit it has lost this campaign to prevent Iran from having domestic uranium enrichment. The US has not yet made a commitment to give up on it though. I would not be stunned if the US still at this point tries to make an offer that requires an indefinite suspension of enrichment until Iran gets US permission to continue and presses for sanctions when Iran rejects that offer. But that scenario is looking slightly less likely now that John Kerry, well known as well connected to Obama and his administration, has emphatically spoken against Bush's demand that Iran not have one spinning centrifuge.

Certainly [the line should be for Iran] not to be a quote nuclear weapon state. Now some people can argue about when you are a nuclear weapons state. Capability versus, different definitions of that, just leave that there for a minute.

The key here is that, first of all the Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous, on its face, because Iran is a signatory to the [nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty and whether they are inside or outside their obligations, to ask them to give up something that was within their rights within the treaty assuming they were up to their obligations is a non-starter. It was bombastic diplomacy. It was wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will (inaudible).

Because it seemed so unreasonable to people. They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose. But they don’t have a right, obviously, to be outside of the other restraints of the IAEA and of the non-proliferation agreement. And so the key here was to really open a different kind of dialogue with them about where you draw the line.

He's right though. Condoleeza Rice could have accepted fewer than 200 spinning centrifuges in 2006 and there is a solid possibility Iran would have ratified the additional protocols by now. But I suspect the US and Israel also have an interest in sanctions for the sake of sanctions. US sanctions on Iran began long before there was a nuclear issue, and the nuclear issue provided a pretext to get other countries to participate in sanctions the US favors anyway.

Kerry also says a little about a two state solution:

I believe you can work out a two state solution with demilitarisation, with adequate verification, with adequate buffers and it may even involve some kind of force on the ground, in the buffer zone, as a security backup somehow, there are all kinds of modalities that are possible.

"Demilitarization", "buffers", "force on the ground" are each, by themselves, issues I'm doubtful could pass a Palestinian referendum. Abbas, is a discredited obvious US/Israeli stooge at this point, and I'm not sure even he'd put his name on an agreement that Kerry is envisioning.

But the point here is that there is at least a possibility that the Palestinians are going to reject the reservations Israel and the United States are contemplating offering them. What will be the step after that? Obama and Kerry are working with the assumption that Abbas will accept whatever the US offers and can bring the Palestinians along. I think both of those assumptions are wrong, but clearly either assumption can possibly fail to hold.

If the Abbas or the Palestinians do not accept what the US offers, which will be "minimal", and I think they will not and should not, then it is time to begin formulating a single state that protects individual rights but allows a more general return.

Hezbollah's March 8 coalition had a bigger popular vote margin than Obama in 2008

A commenter from Moon of Alabama directed me to the vote totals in Lebanon's election. It turns out that March 8 won over 54% of the popular vote in Lebanon's recent election (Barack Obama won slightly less than 53% of the popular vote in 2008).

These numbers do not directly impact the process by which the winning March 14 coalition will form a government (winning with about 45% of the vote), but they do point to the severe distortion caused by Lebanon's ethnicity-based electoral system.

Presumably, because Hezbollah's seats were all safe and uncontested, which meant turnout efforts were not directed towards those seats, a one-person one-vote system would have resulted in a bigger win for Hezbollah and its allies.

Lebanon does not do a census because groups that have lost population share since the current ethnic proportion was emplaced in Lebanese politics do not want an official certification of how much the electoral system shifts the national power balance in their favor. But every election there are election results that do just that. In this case the disparity could not be more stark.

Hopefully the US and Israel will not pressure March 14 under these circumstances to confront the popularly larger March 8 coalition in a way that could damage the country. I'm optimistic but slightly concerned because the US has an agenda for Lebanon that goes against the desires of most Lebanese citizens.

Polling a two state solution

A lot of polling information from OneVoice (pdf), an organization devoted to advancing the idea of a two-state solution.

I've always felt like poll answers to "two state solution" are misleading because Israelis are answering "two states with a demilitarized Palestine that accepts the permanent expulsion of the refugees, while Palestinians are answering "two states both fully sovereign as well as a return of the refugees"

When the terms of a two state solution are spelled out, it is no more popular than a one-state solution.

From this poll, Israel having to agree on the number of refugees to return is unacceptable to 75% of Palestinians despite a "two state solution" being unacceptable only to 24%. While every scenario where Palestinians return has greater than 50% unacceptable for Israelis, but a two state solution is only unacceptable to 21%. The Israeli and Palestinian side are hearing the phrase "two state solution" and interpreting them as different, mutually exclusive concepts.

Then groups advocating a two-state solution announce these misleading results with the sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional concurrent effect of justifying the status quo "while negotiations are underway." This is part of the "fiction that serves U.S. purposes" of pretending to make progress while actually working to ensure nothing changes earlier discussed by George Friedman at Stratfor.

Palestinians are likely to secure a bare minimum of rights while Israel walks off with the rest

Interesting conclusion to a New York Times Op-Ed by Nadia Hijab about the prospects for a peace settlement during the Obama administration.

So, yes, nothing has changed on the ground yet. But because of the way it works, the Obama administration has a much better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East than its predecessors. Still, before breaking out the champagne, remember that Mr. Obama works within the boundaries of the American establishment.

Within those narrow confines and given the present Israeli-Palestinian power imbalance, the Palestinians are likely to secure a bare minimum of rights while Israel walks off with the rest. Unless, that is, the Palestinians can rapidly tilt the balance in their favor — or unless Israel’s intransigence does it for them.

I am not able to envision a scenario in which an agreed peace is reached between Zionism and the Palestinians in the forseeable future, certainly not in a single or two-term presidency of Barack Obama.

Getting a majority of Lebanese Christians to vote with the side associated with the US and Israel was an impressive feat, but getting a majority of Palestinians to vote on a resolution granting themselves "minimum rights" acceptable to Netanyahu would be far more difficult.

So March 14 won big. What does that mean?

I expected a close election, at least markedly closer than the last election that was in the wake of the Hariri assassination. My thoughts about what this unexpected victory for March 14 means in the larger scheme haven't fully formed yet.

The battleground in this election was always going to be the Lebanese Christian community - which on a per-person basis is substantially over-represented in Lebanon's Parliament, but it was never expected that they would go for March 14 as opposed to March 8, the group containing Hezbollah, to the degree they did.

My explanation for March 14th's success in this election is effective political work as well as a flood of resources from, especially, Saudi Arabia. If there is an anti-Iranian alliance between the Saudis and Israel, this is a model of Saudi activity along those lines.

The Saudis have shown they are able and willing to devote a huge amount of resources to impact an election in the Muslim world. This may mean Fatah will have far greater resources in its next electoral competition with Hamas. It is also possible that comparable resources be devoted to getting a yes vote on a referendum. In either case, it is possible that Saudi interventions can effectively sway Arab electoral decisions.

On the other hand, Hezbollah, and its leader Nasrallah, who I still see as one of the best Arab politicians, will learn from this loss, regroup and run in future elections.

The structural disadvantage of the Shiites in the Lebanese electoral system is a problem that will still have to be addressed. Exacerbating the problem is that Israel and the US, for the same reasons they support dictatorships in Egypt and Jordan, favor the disenfranchisement of the Shiites in Lebanon and will consistently intervene to prevent a one-person/one-vote electoral system. Possibly US/Israeli interventions will have more active Saudi assistance than before.

The United States will now pressure pro-Western parties in Lebanon to form a cabinet in which there is no Shiite veto. It is unlikely that the Shiites will go along with this, which means there is a good chance Lebanon will revisit the crisis atmosphere of late 2007. A return to confrontation would hurt Lebanese people a lot more than it would hurt either Israel or the US, so hopefully March 14 will come to a peaceful accomodation.

Obama and Clinton see bad trends for Israel. What are they?

Barack Obama, NPR interview - June 1, 2009:

I believe that, strategically, the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security; that, over time, in the absence of peace with the Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems along its borders.

Hillary Clinton, CNN interview - June 7, 2009:

We see historical, demographic, political, technological trends that are very troubling as to Israel's future. At the same time, there is a legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people that needs to be addressed.

This sounds like what Obama and Clinton are saying is that the United States does not expect to have the resources to contain Iran indefinitely and with an uncontained Iran, it will not be possible to maintain its string of pro-Israel dictatorships over most of the Arab world indefinitely.

But if they are going make vague references to threats and troubling trends, why wouldn't somebody ask them to spell them out?

The obvious corrollary, either that the Palestinians can get better terms by waiting, or that if they do not accept a state today, they will be able to get one Palestinian-majority state over the entire territory later, is probably too painful for either Obama or Clinton to even contemplate.

Video of drunk Jewish people making fun of Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxt9HwfPwPo

Not much to say, except that the fastest and most effective way to end US support for Zionism is to portray Zionists as anti-African American racists.

It wouldn't take many more of these for the US to wash its hands of Israel, press for one state and get on to the business of convincing the oil states to align with the US against future potential rivals such as Russia, China and to some degree India, Japan and Europe.

Iran's NPT Treaty Obligations

US officials, up to and including the current and former presidents of the United States often discuss Iran's, and other non-weapons states' responsiblities or obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Here's Obama in his Cairo speech:

And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States though, has a drastic, and probably dishonest interpretation of what these responsibilities are.

The actual treaty is fairly clear that the overarching responsibility of non-weapons treaty states is not to build or acquire a weapon or explosive device.

Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The US stretches this responsibility past "weapons" to "weapons capability" in its official policy. This policy has not been retracted by the Obama administration, though it is plainly selectively applied. Many nations, including Japan and Brazil have "weapons capability". Here the US interpretation of Article II of the NPT presented in a US statement to the IAEA:

Article II of the NPT requires the non-nuclear-weapon States not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other explosive nuclear devices. As the United States outlined in its Main Committee I statement, fulfillment of this obligation requires that non-nuclear-weapon States refrain from activities designed to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Furthermore, they should provide transparency into their activities that is sufficient to demonstrate their peaceful intent, and should have in place the necessary laws and regulations to enforce their Article II obligations.

Wait a second. These other "requirements" that states refrain from activities "designed to develop a nuclear weapons capability", and that they go beyond the ratified terms of their agreements to "demonstrate peaceful intent" are just concocted out of thin air. These requirements, after being invented from scratch by creative US lawyers, are then only to be applied to Iran or other countries that attract US disapproval.

This is not an honest mistake, this brazen lying undertaken in the hope that the only people willing to examine the underlying documents are already ideologically sympathetic to the US' strategic concerns, and therefore willing to help mislead less informed parties.

Iran and parties sympathetic to Iran claim that Iran has fulfilled its NPT requirements and is not now in violation. What those parties mean is that Iran has a requirement that it not have a weapon now, and that the fissile material, Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium, in the country's possession are accounted for and are not being assembled into a weapon.

The NPT does not require that a non-weapons treaty party not build weapons at some point in the future or that such a party not have a nuclear weapons capability. In fact, the treaty explicitly indicates that treaty members can leave the treaty with three months notice after which there will be no guarantees of any continuing non-weapons status.

How the NPT works essentially is that countries give a neutral third party enough information that the party can verify that there it has no weapon today, then neighboring and rival countries can also give enough information to make the same verification, knowing that there will be at least three months notice before a country that is currently verified will be able to produce a weapon.

Israel, the US and parties sympathetic to them claim Iran is in violation of its NPT obligations. One way to make this claim is to consider UN Security Council resolutions to be NPT obligations. The Security Council resolutions are demands that Iran take what the IAEA board called "voluntary and non-legally binding confidence building measures". To the degree the Security Council is able to compel any country to take any arbitrary action, these resolutions are binding, but that does not make them NPT obligations. The Security Council has just as much authority to demand Israel ratify and implement the NPT as it does to make mandatory the voluntary measures suggested by the IAEA for Iran.

Another way to make the claim that Iran is in violation of its NPT obligations is to deliberately conflate "nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device" with "nuclear weapons capability" as the US does officially in its presentation to the IAEA.

It is an insult to the intelligence of their audiences that US officials, in formal and informal settings, invent the idea - nowhere in any ratified text - that "nuclear capability" is the same thing as a nuclear weapon, or that refraining from having a nuclear capability is in some way a "responsibility" of non-weapons NPT states (but only ones the US does not like).

The Arab lack of candor: A closer look

There is a story I'm hearing a lot, that supporters of Zionism keep making trips to Arab countries and these supporters of Zionism are told that the Arabs really like Israel and want to ally with Israel against Iran, but this opinion has to be kept secret.

Obama touched on this story in his speech:

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true. [Like how "many" turned into "everyone"?]

We see the story again in a reported interview with Thomas Friedman (who famously always seems to find Zionist taxi drivers in every Muslim country he sets foot in.)

A key part of his message, he said, will be: “Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly.” He then explained: “There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the ‘threat’ from Israel, but won’t admit it.” There are a lot of Israelis, “who recognize that their current path is unsustainable, and they need to make some tough choices on settlements to achieve a two-state solution — that is in their long-term interest — but not enough folks are willing to recognize that publicly.”

This op-ed added so little value. If would have been much better for Friedman to write the story in question/answer format. Friedman relates himself telling a joke that takes more space than all of Obama's reported statements put together. Not necessary. Not useful.

We see this story a lot though, b over at moonofalabama wrote enough of a take-down of this genre of story that I hadn't thought to go back until I see it from the President of the United States.

But we're here. Let's discuss this idea that the Saudis accept that Israel will always be here according to Obama's speech, and believe Iran is a bigger threat than Israel if we believe what Friedman chooses to relate from his interview with Obama, but are not willing to say what they believe publicly. The question that immediately comes to mind is: why are they keeping their belief secret?

One possible way to look at the question is to ask what secrets does the US hold. Which of Obama's beliefs is he not willing to say in public? Possibly the Arabs have similar motives, but even if they do not, we can establish that when parties say one thing in public and another in private there is a reason for that, it is not just to be needlessly coy.

Barack Obama will not say that Israel has nuclear weapons. Everybody knows it does, I'm sure he admits it off the record, if only to avoid insulting the intelligence of whatever party he is speaking with. Obama mentioned Iran's nuclear program which certainly has not produced a weapon but did not mention Israel's which certainly has. If there is a reason for this lapse in candor, it is part of a fundamental hypocrisy that US policy is that Israel should have a monopoly on nuclear technology in the region, a policy that is indefensible on many different grounds. Not mentioning it prevents Obama and other US officials from having to defend an indefensible policy.

Another lapse in candor. Egypt is more than just an authoritarian dictatorship. Mubarak is more than a dictator who does not succomb to the urge to demagogue the issue of the conflict with Zionism, as Obama said in his recent BBC interview. The Middle East is not a region where the US innocently finds a bunch of dictatorships that it has to tolerate. Abbas hasn't happened to expand his powers beyond Palestinian law when Hamas won the election and he doesn't happen to remain in power, refusing to run for re-election after his legal term in office has expired.

The United States supports dictatorship in the Arab world, and in fact supports them in ways without which they would be unable to survive because if the over 100 million Arabs of the region had democracy, it would be difficult for the fewer than 6 million Jews of the region to maintain the luxury of a political majority in Israel.

Here is a rare moment of candor from prominent US supporter of Israel, MJ Rosenberg - but we'll never see a statement like this from any US official, much less the President:

Personally, I never much cared whether Israel's neighbors were democratic so long as they were willing to live in peace with Israel.

Jordan, for instance, is not a democracy in the western sense but it is precisely the kind of neighbor Israel needs. Egypt is not a democracy but is at peace with Israel. A democratic Egypt probably would not be. So let's lay the democratic crusade aside (which, of course, we do anyway if we don't like the choices made by the voters in these various countries).

So why this lapse in candor on the part of Obama? Because to be candid is to openly contradict the general value system of his society. Obama, when he is less than candid, is not so because he has to hide from the naive stupid naive people he rules over. If he says in public "Israel should be able to threaten its neighbors with nuclear attack but none of its neighbors should be able to threaten Israel" even reasonable Americans will recognize that as ridiculous and unsustainable, to say less of the countries in the region. If Obama says in public "100 million Arabs in authoritarian dictatorships is a small price to pay to ensure Jews have a Jewish-majority state" even reasonable Americans will see that as absurd.

So why do the Saudi not say in public "the Iranians, with whom we have relations, whom we invite to our conferences, are more a threat than Israel" because by Saudi values, that is an indefensible position. By Saudi values. It is not that the Saudis are afraid of their stupid naive "street".

So, with that in mind let's try to figure out what's going on in these meetings. A US official, or even a US journalist - who by Middle East standards is a rabid supporter of Zionism, the type who would describe the connection between the US and Israel as "unbreakable" meets a Saudi or Arab who is somehow connected to some Arab decision-making establishment.

The ruling power structure the Arab is somehow connected to would not be able to remain in place as a dictatorial regime without US support. The Arab, realizing that Israel is very vocally identifying Iran as the most important threat facing Israel, tells his US counterpart: "we hate Iran too, ever since the Shiites split from the Sunnis we've had it in for them. The thing we're most afraid of is their rising to power, but don't tell anyone I said this."

Why this "lack of candor" that Obama is decrying?

The same reason for Obama's lack of candor. Because the statement is absurd by his own value system.

There is another lack of candor. These Arabs never make the obviously true statement: "we oppose Iran at least in some small part because our patrons, Israel and the US, oppose Iran." Same reason. People do not speak candid truths that go against their values.

If we're not deliberately naive, we can see though the lack of candor both in the US side and the Arab side.

Abe Foxman doesn't like Obama's baggage

Ouch.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti- Defamation League and one of America's most ardent Israel supporters, said Obama's remark that Jewish aspirations for a homeland were "rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied" was incorrect and "legitimizes the Arabs who say Israel has no place there."

Foxman said that Obama's views -- among them seeing lessons for Palestinians in the struggles of oppressed blacks and others with a moral high ground -- stem from his biography. "Every individual brings his own baggage," Foxman said. "He's an African American . . . and he has rediscovered his Islamic roots after two years. I don't like it, but I understand it."

Abe Foxman does not want to fight Barack Obama right now and probably wishes he hadn't put his name on that statement.

Good speech

Barack Obama's Cairo speech did not have any major blunders. It was nearly the best defense and explanation of current US policies toward the Muslim world possible. US policies though were established to conform with US sensibilities and do not match nearly as well with the sensibilities of people in the Middle East. Because of that, even a very good explanation and defense of US policies points out the differences in approach, of sympathies and of values.

I want to go over his six issues.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

I'm taking "violent extremism" as a euphemism for terrorism. I'm not sure why he didn't use the word terrorism - except that by inventing his own phrase he gets to define it however he would like. So while violence intended to provoke terror in a civilian population is a definition that would fit numerous activities of the US and Israel, "violent extremism" can had implicitly has been defined as a phrase that only applies, in practical terms, to terrorism committed by Muslims against non-Muslims.

In Iran at least, with the recent spike in terrorist acts in regions bordering US-held territory, this section will seem very cynical. The resources used to organize and orchestrate the recently increased attacks against Iran come from somewhere, and the US and Israel are the most plausible sources.

Obama early in his campaign for president, promised to hold a conference with Muslim states to discuss the issue of terrorism. The problem that would have posed is that he would have given Muslims a voice in offering alternative definitions, examples and rationales for terrorism that would undercut US policy and go against US beliefs and sensibilities. I thought that promise itself made Obama unelectable at the time. He solved that problem by just forgetting about it.

But the way he frames the terrorism issue goes further in making an unspoken assertion that he or the US will define "violent extremism" in a way that the US finds comfortable and there will be no input from Muslims on the terms of discussion. This works well in Washington DC, but will be picked apart in Cairo and other majority Muslim cities.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

Possibly there is a plan being choreographed here. Possibly the intention is that US will pressure Netanyahu out of office and his successor will freeze settlement growth, after which Abbas will accept some formula on land presented to him by Obama. The Palestinians still have a right to reject the offer presented to Abbas, and there is at least a possibility that they will exercise that right, for the reason that the offer is insufficient to resolve their claims.

Obama insists that there will always be a Jewish state. He proposes that the claims of both Jews and non-Jews can be simultaneously fulfilled by the creation of a Palestinian state. There is at least a possibility that any state offered by the US and Israel to the Palestinians will not, in the opinion of the Palestinians, satisfy their claims. I say at least a possibility, because while Obama probably disagrees with me that it is impossible to both create a Palestinian state with enough sovereignty that Palestinians approve it and protect Israel's security, even he would have to admit that it is possible that such a Palestinian state will not be proposed.

If these claims turn out to be irreconcilable, then one side will have to win and the other lose. Obama proposes that Israel win. There must be a Jewish state and from there we'll do what we can to address Palestinian interests. A US president would be expected to make that proposal. Most people in the Middle East would make the opposite proposal. If it is impossible to respect the rights of the Palestinians and have a Jewish state at the same time in that territory, there should not be a Jewish state in that territory.

This fundamental disagreement between Obama and the US on one side and most Muslims on the other, is the ultimate cause of nearly the entire dispute between the West and the Muslim world and Obama has not, and cannot do anything to remove or resolve that disagreement.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

It is clear to me that Obama is willing to move away from the Bush policy of no domestic uranium enrichment for Iran. Depending on how far he is willing to move from that, this is an issue that can be easily resolved. We will not know what is possible until proposals become public.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

The US' enemies in the Middle East are, on balance, more democratic, and have shown a greater capacity to relinquish power when they lose elections than the US' allies. This just seems like cynical hypocrisy. Just standing in front of the Muslim world and directly lying. Giving the speech in a country run by an unpopular US stooge and beyond making vague flowery pronouncements about how democracy is a god given right, or something, he actually says there are groups that once in office repress the opposition.

Israel calculated the amount of Hamas legistlators it would require to end the Hamas majority and and captured that amount of Palestinian elected politicians, who are now in Israeli jails, for the crime of getting too many votes. Because Israel's security is of paramount importance to the United States, the US under Obama refuses to even acknowledge this affront to the ideal of democracy.

It would have been better not to even give a speech that mentions democracy than to act as if the groups he supports are not the most egregiously anti-democratic forces in the region.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Here Obama comes down on the Muslim side against those in France and Turkey who ban or discourage the wearing of Muslim clothing. That is an unambiguously good thing, but a small thing.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

This is not really a matter of contention between the US and the Muslim world. This section didn't help or hurt much.

Another Question for the Obama administration

3- You've described the Hosni Mubarak dictatorship of Egypt as good for the region. In your words Mubarak does not "demogogue" the Israel/Palestine dispute and you support him for that. Iraq has a democratically elected government whose constitution was written with US oversight. Would you be able to guarantee that the US would not support a coup, or an abandonment of Iraq's constitution if Iraq was to become "less good for the region" than it is today?