Soccer Dad

The questionable centrality of palestine

The New York Times asked seven Muslims - from Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Pakistan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - what President Obama's message to the Muslim world should be later this week. I was surprised at the responses.

AHMED al-OMRAN (from Saudi Arabia) - "The masses will not listen to Mr. Obama unless he also addresses the leaders who deny us basic rights."

OMAYMA ABDEL-LATIF (from Lebanon) - "To restore America's credibility in the Muslim world, Mr. Obama should promise that come election time, he will respect the will of voters, even if he does not like the results."

ABDULKAREEM al-ERYANI (from yemen) - "We have helped Washington combat extremism but the United States has not done enough to help us fight poverty, the twin brother of terrorism."

SHAHAN MUFTI (from Pakistan) - "President Obama should speak to those Pakistanis who need so badly to hear that this constitutional experiment is worth a fresh try, even in these testing times; that the Islamic legal tradition is compatible with Western models of democracy; that Islamic and Western conceptions of justice and freedom still might meld in the grand Pakistani experiment."

HOSSAM el-HAMALAWY (from Egypt) - "Our real allies are the human rights groups and unions that will pressure the Obama administration to sever all ties to the Mubarak dictatorship."

AYMAN NOUR (from Egypt) - "But we expect him to demand freedom for all and to restate his conviction that oppressive regimes march on the wrong side of history."

ABDULJALIL ALSINGACE (from Bahrain) - "It would be good if Mr. Obama vowed to support democracy and human rights."

Now I realize that 7 individuals hardly constitute a significant sample of population of one billion, but given the MSM's obsession with President Obama's speech being about the peace process, it's more than a little odd that the Times didn't find a single writer who mentioned "justice for Palestine" as a major point that the President must address.

The prevailing MSM wisdom is expressed here:

Obama was pressed by NPR's Michele Norris and Steve Inskeep about the challenge of developing a new relationship with the Muslim world without demonstrating America's willingness to press Israel harder for changes in its policies. If Israel continues to ignore U.S. demands for an end to settlement activity -- which Obama has called for publicly and privately -- and the U.S. continues to support Israel, how will that enhance American credibility in the Muslim world?

Yesterday Jeff Jacoby published an interview he had with Saad Eddin Ibrahim (who also wrote an op-ed in the WSJ) which had this exchange:

Q: Do you agree with those who say that what Arab leaders want isn't a Palestinian state, but a Palestinian struggle?
A: Yes, there are vested interests in keeping the Palestinian conflict going. So if Obama's speech will really be a breakthrough for peace, it will also be a stepping-stone to genuine democratization. Peace will take away the excuse that the authoritarian regimes use to justify their own hold on power.

In other words, the peace process is a chimera. It's designed to draw attention away from the failings of the dictatorships that make up the Arab world. Presenting a united front and claiming that you stand for freedom while denying it to your own people is an effective cover for despotism.

To what degree the cause of freedom is greater than the cause of Palestine isn't certain. But it's worth asking whether Palestine is the really the central concern of the Muslim world and if pressuring Israel will somehow restore America's standing among the world's Muslims by bringing peace to the Middle East.

UPDATE: from When Egypt was in Gaza - via Instapundit Michael:

Ralph Galloway, an UNRWA official who quit in frustration, observed bitterly: "The Arab states don't want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die."