President Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo on June 5, 2009 to the Muslim world evoked a mixed response in the English-language media across the Middle East which nevertheless demanded he turn words into actions. Newspaper editorials and opinion pieces by columnists swung from adulation to cynicism. Some editorials looked troubled by the respect he showed to Islam and upbraided him for the sympathy he displayed with the plight of Palestinians. Some expressed concern that Obama was not tough enough. Others waxed indignantly at Obama’s criticism of torture or his attempt to change our discourse with Muslims by using the term “violent extremism” instead of their preferred “Muslim terrorists”. Still others expressed outrage at what they termed his “moral equivalency”.
This article reviews the coverage in select channels in the Arab world and English newspapers in several Muslim nations as also the response of the political parties and the public.
Al Jazeera: The coverage from this Qatar-based satellite television network was probably the most positive. After the speech ended, its website featured that photo of Obama, with the caption: “America is not at war with Islam.” Later, though, Al Jazeera published a more ambivalent article, reporting on the mixed response in the Palestinian community. Al Jazeera’s changing tone was typical, with the thrill over the president’s conciliatory gestures giving way to confusion and concern over what he would do to solve the long conflict between Israel and Palestine. On Saturday night, Al Jazeera’s popular programme “Akthar min Ra’i” – the closest thing the Arab world has to “60 Minutes” – will be devoted to reviewing and analysing Obama’s trip to the Middle East. Continued…
Al-Manar: The Beirut-based satellite television station of Hezbollah emphasised the mixed reviews that Obama’s speech received in the Arab world, even as it celebrated Obama’s conciliatory gestures toward Islam. But Al-Manar also represented Obama’s speech as a defeat for Israel. It quoted an anonymous “Zionist authority” (i.e., Israeli politician) who expressed frustration at Obama’s failure to take a clear stand against Iran’s nuclear programme.
Al-Alam: The Arabic-language news station owned and run by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting also interpreted Obama’s speech as a victory for Palestine and a defeat for Israel. The headline of its initial lead story read: “Obama underscores the implementation of a two-state solution.” Certainly, Obama made gestures to the Palestinian cause in his speech; nevertheless, the official Iranian coverage gives one the impression that Obama’s speech was a wholesale denunciation of Israeli policy vis-à-vis Palestine. The Iranian article also emphasised Obama’s willingness to negotiate with Iran “without preconditions.”
Al-Arabiyya: This influential Dubai-based satellite news channel emphasised the political struggles Obama will face at home because of his speech. In the wake of the speech, it ran a lead story with the headline: “Obama engages peace crisis early and confronts the Jewish lobby.” Describing Obama’s message as one of “hard love for both Arabs and Israelis,” the Saudi-controlled network noted that Obama is addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict much earlier in his presidency than his predecessors did. While most of the Arab networks focused on Obama’s international audience (and, in particular, the Arab and Islamic worlds), Al-Arabiyya tried to forecast the domestic reception of Obama’s speech.
Al-Quds Al-Arabi: This independent pan-Arab daily newspaper owned by Palestinian expatriates registered a more ambivalent response to the address. Like Al-Jazeera, it posted its coverage soon after the speech ended, but the London-based newspaper worried that “Obama didn’t offer any new initiative for ending the conflict between Israel and Palestine, an omission that frustrated many.”
Al-Sharq al-Awsat: The online coverage of this London-based, Saudi-owned paper, known for its slogan “International Newspaper of the Arabs,” featured an image of masked Hamas militants watching Obama on a TV set in Gaza. Despite this ominous image, the newspaper’s headline was optimistic: “Obama’s speech… the message arrived.” The newspaper’s main article strikes a positive tone, yet a linked article from its front section gives a much more nuanced and conflicted view. (From the subtitle of the article: “They say that [Obama] spoke as if he were the master of the world… and that he presented Bush’s discourse with new expressions… and that he is colliding against a ‘crisis of Arab trust’.”) As far as I’ve seen, Al-Sharq al-Awsat is the only major news outlet to include women’s rights as among the chief issues addressed by Obama.
Le Matin du Sahara: The official newspaper of the Moroccan government gave pride of place to Obama’s speech. The headline reads: “The ‘cycle of mistrust’ towards Muslims must end. The American President underlines that Morocco was the first country to recognise the independence of the United States.” While it is true that Morocco was the first country to recognise the independence of the US, I doubt that non-Moroccan observers of Obama’s speech left with this factoid in mind.
SANA: The state-run Syrian Arab News Agency buried the news of Obama’s speech deep on its website, after a number of articles about local and regional matters. The mere placement of the article seems to be a slight. The article, however, is fairly straightforward: “The American President Barack Obama called for an end to the cycle of mistrust between the United States and the Islamic world and the building of trust between the two parties. And Obama indicated… his desire for a new start between America and the Muslim world, emphasising mutual respect and shared work with the Muslim world.”
NEWSPAPERS
“President Barack Obama succeeded in delivering a message of respect to Muslims across the world,” said an editorial in the United Arab Emirates-based Gulf News. “His familiarity with Islam and his ability to quote comfortably from the Qur’an (he did it four times) is bound to resonate in this part of the world.”
It said that he now had the perfect opportunity to “jump start” the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But it added that American words had so far had no impact on Israeli policies and added that the onus is now on him to carry his positive messages forward,” it concluded. “After all, everyone is anxious to see action on the ground.”
The Daily Star in Beirut described the speech as “unprecedented display of rhetorical power”. It said that Mr Obama’s combative, Jewish chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel had allowed him to take on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
It disputed the idea that the speech was just a “show”. “Obama’s speech wasn’t a lightweight declaration of idealistic principles; it represented a country, through its innovative leader, speaking quietly and carrying a big stick,” it said.
Sabria S. Jawhar, writing in the Saudi Gazette, pointed out, “For the first time ever I am beginning to sense that Israel will be held accountable for its actions and its failure to embrace the two-state solution,” wrote “Unlike previous presidents, Obama spoke of ‘Palestine.’ He spoke of Israel’s ‘daily humiliations’ on Palestinians and Israel’s ‘occupation.’ These words can’t be dismissed as rhetoric.”
In Israel, newspaper commentators were clearly nervous over the change in tone from the pro-Israel rhetoric of the Bush administration. The Jerusalem Post called the speech “extraordinary” but added: “Critics will see the speech as incredibly naive.”
For many Arab newspapers, however, Mr Obama did not go far enough. While state-backed papers in the two Arab countries on Mr Obama’s tour, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, were adulatory, Abdel-Beri Atwan, editor-in-chief of the nationalist London-based al-Quds al-Arabi said the speech contained nothing new. Mr Obama should prove he was different by paying compensation to the Iraqi people for the invasion of their country, he wrote in an editorial headlined: “Half an apology is not enough”.
Many newspapers drew the contrast in tone with Mr Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush. But the Jordan Times added: “The way towards statehood is hard and comes with obligations.”
EDITORIALS
Arab News, from Saudi Arabia, in its bylined editorial, Reaching out to the Muslims said: The speech showed a positive shift in US attitude toward the community, but hoped he would follow it through with action.
Reza Asla, writing in The Guardian, with the headline, Speaking frankly in Cairo, pointed out that President Barack Obama’s call for “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; was one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” He had his work cut out for him….
In some ways, Obama did not disappoint. Obama did something practically unheard of for an American president: he told the truth, and frankly. Obama acknowledged that colonialism had denied “rights and opportunities to many Muslims”, that Muslim countries have often been treated as little more than proxies of the West, that Muslims sometimes have cause to view the US and the larger Western world as hostile to Islam, and that the United States has not always lived up to its ideals.
These may be historical facts that most university students are taught in their first year of studies, but they are rarely spoken of with such candour by an American president.
Yet as Obama himself acknowledged, it will take more than words to reframe the perception of America among Muslims. On issues that animate much of the Muslim world, most significantly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, little new was said. But once again it was the frankness with which Obama spoke of the situation, using terms that no American president would dream of using, that caught one’s attention.
Speaking movingly of the daily humiliations of the Palestinians, Obama referred to the situation in the Palestinian territories as “occupation”, a word sure to ripple through both the Muslim world and the United States.
Unfortunately, Obama made no mention of the consequences for Israel’s continued defiance of international law. Nor did he have much to offer the barest of platitudes with regard to lack of political rights in the Muslim world. Nevertheless, the few words he did have on the topic of democracy received the loudest and most sustained applause, an indication that this is a topic that Obama cannot afford to ignore.
The speech will launch the “new beginning” that President Obama, and so many Muslims around the world, so desperately seek. But, at the very least, it has gotten the conversation started. And that may be all we could have hoped for.
Gulf News, Dubai, in its editorial, titled Obama must match his words with actions, reacted stating that the United States is aiming to take a “new way forward” in its relationship with the Muslim world. Of this there is no question. Its President Barack Obama succeeded in delivering a message of respect to Muslims across the world through his historic speech. His familiarity with Islam and his ability to quote comfortably from the Qur’an (he did it four times) is bound to resonate in this part of the world.
The speech’s theme was respect and religion. From the start, Obama urged an end to the discord between Islam and the West and called for a new beginning. His message on regional affairs was familiar and he did not introduce any new policies or details. Obama’s take on the ongoing Israeli Palestinian conflict was traditional: he outlined the suffering of both the Israelis and Palestinians. But it is refreshing to hear a US president speak of the Palestinian people’s “intolerable” situation. Moreover, his acknowledgement that Hamas has support amongst Palestinians means he has shifted from his predecessor’s staunch hardline stance against the group. Nevertheless, Obama said that Hamas must put an end to violence and recognise Israel’s right to exist.
It suggested that Obama, having met the leaders of the Arab world’s two most influential nations, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, he has a perfect opportunity to jumpstart the stalled peace process and build on positive points from his trip. …From what we heard yesterday, Obama already understands that without resolving the Palestinian people’s plight, peace and stability in this part of the world cannot be achieved.
The editorial ended stating the “onus is now on him to carry his positive messages forward. After all, everyone is anxious to see action on the ground.”
The News/ Jang, from Pakistan, in its editorial ‘Rhetoric and Reality’ said the speech was a model of its kind, littered with ‘applause points’ and phrases that were crafted with tomorrow’s headlines in mind. No American President has ever gone out of his way to reach out to the Muslim world in the way that President Obama has. We applaud that. But our applause is discreet rather than rapturous for these are as yet mere words. Were we ever to see all – or any – of them transition from rhetoric to reality then the applause would thunder across the world, and bring together the hands of every faith.
There was more to it that a little international grooming when he said, “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” On Israel, the edit said, he really did speak very differently to any of his predecessors… “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”. Followed by, “It is time for these settlements to stop”. It also raised several questions. Is there equivocation in even these seemingly straightforward statements? Does he mean that the building of all settlements will stop and existing settlements be dismantled? And does it mean that America is moving its position regarding the settlements which has for decades been one of veiled ambiguity? Only time – and diplomacy – will tell.
Dawn, another Pakistani newspaper in its editorial, ‘Reaching Out’ said, it wasn’t a speech one could imagine his predecessor delivering; indeed, the very idea of the speech was to change the perception of the US that had built up in Muslim lands during the Bush presidency.
Recalling the calamitous record of President Bush, the editorial argued that President Obama sought to recast relations with the Muslim world.
How did President Obama fare? The president spelt out seven specific issues on which tension between the Muslim world and the US need to be addressed. The first, unsurprisingly, was the need to ‘confront violent extremism in all its forms’. The president was categorical and zeroed in on Al Qaeda as the pre-eminent threat (its activities ‘are not opinions to be debated; [they] are facts to be dealt with’) to American security. So, even while he spoke of his desire to see all American troops leave Iraq by 2012 and Afghanistan at the earliest and having no intention to seek military bases in either country, his message was clear: the US will do what is necessary to protect its security, though he acknowledged it involved more than just a military strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
His strong support for the Palestinians “may not have gone down well with the hawkish Israeli government.” Therein lies the problem: there is little leverage that the Americans have – or are willing to use – against a belligerent Israeli government. If the Israelis continue to try and expand the settlements, nothing will placate its Arab neighbours or the Muslim world – rendering Mr Obama’s words to them empty rhetoric.
Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, it said, the Obama administration treads that tightrope will determine who wins the psychological battle for Muslim hearts and minds.
For the rest, President Obama tried to restate the US’s normative approach to relations with the Muslim world. Democracy will be supported, but it will not be ‘imposed’. Religious freedom, women’s rights and economic development will be promoted and defended by the Obama administration. Indeed, it was a sweeping message that tried to show a softer, gentler side of the US, one that emphasised similarities and opportunities and not divisions with the Muslim world. But as President Obama noted, “No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust.” At the very least though, the speech was yet more evidence that the US has put behind it the roughest edges of the Bush years.
COLUMNISTS
Columnists who were critical missed the point that this President was not posturing, talking at “Muslims”, and was working to engage us in a conversation. Critics missed the contribution of speech that was to create more open space in our discussion of Arab and Muslim issues.
Dr. James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute in the US, in his edit article, in Times of Oman, admits that “it made me so thankful that we have Barack Obama in the White House. No one else could have delivered that speech in Cairo, and no one else would have had the vision of courage to create the space that will allow more political leader to be able to affirm that “two plus two is four”. An early mentor Daniel Bergmen once noted that when saying two plus two equals four becomes an act of courage, you know you are in trouble. And so when President Obama respectfully quoted the Holy Qur’an or used the terms like “dislocated” (to refer to the Palestinian Diaspora) “intolerable” (to describe the conditions of occupation) or Palestine (to refer to the future of the State) and this elicited cheers from friends and scorn from opponents, we know we are in trouble.”
Zogby goes on “Initial responses to Obama’s speech, in which he quoted the Koran, were decidedly positive, if not euphoric.” Outlets like Iran’s state-run Al-Alam and Morocco’s Le Matin du Sahara hailed it as a success. Obama’s speech marked a “new beginning” of American relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds – one characterised by “mutual interest and mutual respect,” in Obama’s words. The insistence with which this phrase made it through the Arab press is a tribute to Obama’s speechwriters’ trans-linguistic ability to create a great sound bite.
But the initial exuberance was soon tempered. A day later, people were calling for “deeds, not words.” Is Obama a visionary – or merely, in the words of one major pan-Arab newspaper, “a speech merchant”? While the speech was appreciated, many Arabs and Muslims are withholding judgment.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, in an edit article headlined “A challenge to Muslims” in Oman Tribune commented that Obama through his speech directly enlisted a religion to build global peace and to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, end nuclear non proliferation and stop terrorism. Obama demolished the phony theory of the “Clash of Civilisations” which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Rauf contends that the most importantly Obama put religion at the core of the peace making process. He further points out that Obama emphasised core similarities among Judaism, Christianity and that Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, but it is an important part of promoting peace”. To Muslims, that was a powerful statement. “Islam is the solution” is the mantra of many Muslims. They believe their religion can and does solve problems. Now they have the leader of the most powerful nation on earth agreeing with them and seeking their help. He is challenging them to live up to Islam’s ideals, just as he insisted that the United States must live up to its own ideals. He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals. The edit article poses a question “Whether Muslim governments and warring factions can embrace the true meaning of Islam.”
Writing in the same vein, Essa bin Mohammed Al Zedjali, in HI, a tabloid, termed Obama’s speech as “a message of love and peace”. He points out that Obama’s popularity is rising in the Arab and Muslim world because of the importance and urgency attached to the Palestinian question and the growing perception that he is sincere about bridging the gap with Arab and Muslim countries.
Obama’s stirring speech must have jogged the thoughts and emotions of everyone worldwide, he says and adds that the road to a new era of distinct relations between the US and the Arab–Muslim world is awfully bumpy and hence tremendous efforts and a high degree of resilience are required from both sides. He urged the US administration to put the words of Obama into practice by crafting realistic and well rounded policies capable of rectifying several wrong concepts and misrepresented facts, not least in terms of the Arab-Israeli conflict, recognising in the process, the inalienable right of the Palestinians to live peacefully in a state of their own.
Further, Essa says, “It is high time for Arabs to sink their differences once and for all and adopt a united stance over their issues at her world fora. “Shrinking from this profound responsibility will only spell disaster and will render the inspiring speech of Obama almost powerless or, at best, make it appear as a stream of well intentioned words to be documented and stored at the archives of the foreign ministries worldwide, particularly those of Arab countries which are supposed to help turn Obama’s words into solid support for Arab causes at the international arenas.
In a guest column in the Times, President Shimon Peres praised Obama’s Mideast speech as a historic opportunity. Obama’s journey to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Peres wrote, “reflects both the need for an historic change in the Middle East and a unique chance of achieving it.”
Peres said that the international options that are being discussed – the Saudi peace initiative as well as the so-called “57-state solution” proposed by King Abdullah of Jordan – could create a favourable momentum that would lead to the resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Peres said Obama’s fervent commitment to changing American foreign policy in the Middle East is a rare opportunity.
“The regional leaders have to treat these options seriously – not as another photo-opportunity but in a substantive discussion aimed at opening the door towards comprehensive peace and regional economic development,” he concluded.
REACTIONS OF POLITICAL WINGS
The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition group, said US President Barack Obama’s speech to the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims showed the “cunning of the masters of the Zionist/American project against the sons of the Muslim nation.” The group said it “completely agreed with the general principles of human rights, justice and the need for dialogue based on respect and mutual trust that Obama laid out.”
But the US president’s “deft use of language to win Muslims’ hearts does nothing to give Muslims their rights, whether in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, where blood is shed day and night by the design of successive US administrations,” the statement said.
The Muslim Brotherhood slammed Obama’s expressions of support for “the Zionists in Palestine,” and his “attempts to force the Palestinian people to surrender.” The US president’s “focus on the myth of the Holocaust… does not begin to justify the occupation of Palestine, the ethnic cleansing, genocide, and massacre … of the Palestinian people, or the stifling and lethal blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Obama completely ignored,” the group said.
The Brotherhood statement dismissed Obama’s “attempts to tickle… Muslims” by quoting verses of the Qur’an and praising Islamic values and contributions to society as “a mere change in tactics” that “would not deceive Muslims.” It further criticised Obama’s “brief mention of democracy” while “turning a blind eye to dictatorships and corrupt regimes that oppress their people.”
The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, and its members are routinely arrested, but Brotherhood-affiliated lawmakers hold 20 per cent of the seats in the Egyptian parliament as independents. Members of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc attended the speech at the invitation of al-Azhar University and Cairo University.
Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, said Obama’s speech reflected a change in diplomatic approach different from that of his predecessor George W. Bush. “It is full of courtesies and depends on soft diplomacy,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Hamas rival, welcomed Obama’s words. “The part of Obama’s speech regarding the Palestinian issue is an important step under new beginnings,” his spokesman Nabil Abu Rudainah said. “It shows there is a new and different American policy toward the Palestinian issue.”
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said Obama can end “years of tension and confrontation” between the West and Islam. Obama could also be an “honest broker” in the Middle East peace process, Moussa told BBC radio.
Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement did not comment, but a lawmaker of the group, Hassan Fadlallah, said: “The Islamic world does not need moral or political sermons. It needs a fundamental change in American policy beginning with a halt to complete support for Israeli aggression against the region, especially against Lebanese and Palestinians, an American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and a stop to its interference in the affairs of Islamic countries.”
In Tehran, Mohammad Marandi, head of North American Studies at Tehran University, acknowledged that Obama’s tone on Iran was “significantly more positive” than under Bush, but said talking was not enough.
An Israeli lawmaker from a far-right ultranationalist party sharply criticised the US president’s speech. “His hatred for the people of Israel led him to deliver a most dangerous speech that exposed his pro-Islamic trends, designed to undermine the vision of the people of Israel returning to their homeland,” Michael Ben-Ari said.
A government official said the speech could have been worse for Israel, while a settler spokeswoman called Obama naive and out of touch with reality. A dovish lawmaker said the speech created an important opportunity for peace.
In Somalia, an Islamic group applauded Obama’s words. “Obama’s speech is good and Islam means peace. Obama, let’s follow the verses you quoted from the Quran,” Sheikh Abdulahi Sheikh Abu Yusuf, spokesman of Ahlu Sunna, said. Jordanian opposition and pro-government parliamentarians said Obama was not sincere in efforts to find a solution to the Palestinian problem. “He merely called for the freeze of the settlement activity and did not urge the dismantling of all settlements that were built on Palestinian territories in violation of the relevant UN resolutions,” Ishaq Farhan, secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front, said.
The Taliban said the speech to the Muslim world was full of “deceptive slogans” and did nothing to change relations between America and Muslims. It “had nothing substantial in terms of content in order to reduce the dissonance that has reached its peak between Muslims and America,” the Taliban leadership said in a message posted on Islamist Internet forums and translated by SITE Intelligence Group.
PUBLIC OPINION
An online poll by Maktoob Research for Broadcasting Board of Governors showed that more than 75 per cent of people interviewed in Muslim nations said they viewed the speech positively. The speech had been viewed by 550,000 times on the White House You Tube website and translations of the speech got 10,000 hits for an Arabic version, 25,0000 in Punjabi and 45,0000 in other languages. A further 200 million people in India watched the speech live, according to Denis Mc Donough, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications
Overall views of the US have improved dramatically, with 46 per cent now holding a favourable opinion of America. Indeed, many Muslims admit to being cautiously optimistic that, at the very least, there can be a new tenor in relations between the US and the Muslim world, meaning that expectations for Obama’s speech were extraordinarily high.
While Egyptians have far more confidence in President Obama than in President Bush (38 per cent versus 8 per cent), that is obviously not saying much. In fact, according to polling done by worldpublicopinion.org, there has been little change in Egyptians’ views of American foreign policy. Some 76 per cent still believe that the United States seeks to “weaken and divide” the Muslim world and 80 per cent continue to argue that the US wants to impose “American culture” on Muslims. These numbers are essentially unchanged since the Bush Administration.
The survey results of another poll of 500 Israeli Jews who make up 80 per cent of the population by Jerusalem Post and Smith Research revealed that Israelis increasingly view Barak Obama as pro-Palestinian as Washington began ramping up pressure on the Jewish State to halt settlement.
Six per cent view Obama as pro-Israel, 50 per cent view him pro-Palestinian and 36 per cent view him to be neutral.
The same poll conducted in May before Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first meeting, 31 per cent Israelis said he was pro-Israel and 14 per cent Israelis viewed him as pro-Palestine. In the months between two surveys, Obama delivered the major address in Cairo in which he advocated a two-state solution.
The poll found over 50 per cent Israelis support removing the wild cat outpost settlements that are considered illegal under Israeli law and freezing growth of smaller, far flung settlements. But 69 per cent are against freezing the growth of major built up settlement blocks, with only 27 per cent in favour and 4 per cent expressing no opinion
430,000 Israeli Jews live in more than 100 settlements scattered across the occupied West Bank including annexed East Jerusalem. The survey had a margin error of 4.5 per cent
CONCLUSION
Editorials and columnists varied in their views veering round the consensus that the words should be translated into actions while some saw the speech challenging the Muslim nations to live up to their ideals.
As for the reactions of political wings, the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition group, slammed President Barack Obama’s speech for its support to “the Zionists in Palestine,” and his “attempts to force the Palestinian people to surrender” but “completely agreed with the general principles of human rights, justice and the need for dialogue based on respect and mutual trust that Obama laid out.”
Hamas, said the speech reflected a change in diplomatic approach different from that of his predecessor George W. Bush. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Hamas rival, welcomed Obama’s words.
Obama’s speech has had a positive impact on public opinion and Muslims admit to being cautiously optimistic and see a new tenor in US-Arab/Muslim relations. On expected lines, Israelis view Barak Obama as pro-Palestinian as he advocated the two-state solution.
[Dr. K.Stevenson, Associate Professor, is currently working at the Department of Communication, College of Applied Sciences, under the Ministry of Higher Education, Sultanate of Oman. He was the Head and Chairman, Board of Studies, Department of Communication & Journalism Osmania University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. Also, he was In Charge Director, Educational Multi Media Research Centre, Osmania University]