A reader asks: “What do you think about Noam Chomsky? I have noticed many Arabs and Muslims adore him, quote him- let him shape their world view.” Thanks so much for that question, and I will try to keep it brief, although Chomsky is, by definition a vast topic.

First of all, I’m not in a position to comment on most of Chomsky’s work as I know nothing about linguistics or the science of cognition. But in general, it’s very clear that Chomsky has a first-rate mind and a truly remarkable ability to absorb and recall data. In the political realm, Chomsky has played many different roles and I think there are two high points to his career as a public intellectual. First was his involvement in the opposition to the Vietnam War, in which he played a singular role in forcing academics, intellectuals and scientists to interrogate their own relationship to the war and to the state structures that were pursuing it. This intervention on the ethical responsibility of intellectuals continues to have an impact and influenced dozens of major public intellectuals, not least of them Edward Said. Second, Chomsky was an early and principled Jewish-American opponent of Israeli policies, especially with regard to the occupation, and a vocal critic at a time when questioning these policies was considered virtually anathema in most Jewish-American circles. Chomsky’s critique opened the space for Jewish Americans and others to think more critically about Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. For these two contributions, if nothing else, he will be remembered in the future as someone who played an important role in American political life in the 20th century.

However, while recognizing these contributions and his extraordinary intellectual capacity, I do have my doubts about Chomsky’s whole political approach. My very strong impression, although I’m not an expert on the subject, is that Chomsky essentially operates out of a classic anarchist model, not very far removed from the 19th century anarchism of Bakunin and Kropotkin. This means that, as a bottom line, Chomsky is fundamentally opposed first and foremost to the accumulation of all forms of political, economic and social power in human relationships. Perhaps this is slightly reductive, but I do think it boils down more or less to that. My impression is that he therefore tends to view political phenomena through the simple formula of asking what outcomes tend to accumulate rather than disperse power. As a consequence, he generally speaking tends to side simply with the less powerful against the more powerful. This explains his otherwise difficult to rationalize position during the first Gulf War, in which he first sided with Kuwait against Iraq, and then with Iraq against the United States — a position that otherwise might seem somewhat inexplicable. Because of this perspective, and some other crucial attitudes, Chomsky tends to take a reflexively anti-establishment and oppositional approach towards the US government and institutions, to my mind often without sufficient reflection on the virtues of the likely outcomes of what is actually at play.

Apart from this general oppositional stance towards American society and institutions, and an ardent rejection of American "imperial" power in the developing world, Chomsky’s main influence on contemporary Arab intellectuals may well be his position on the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. Like many major Jewish-American critics of Israeli policy, Chomsky does not acknowledge the full scope and power the pro-Israel lobby has wielded in shaping American policies towards the Middle East. It is perfectly understandable why some Jewish-American critics of Israeli and US government policies might nonetheless balk at a cold evaluation of the scope of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, given the history of anti-Semitic agitation based on the specter of Jewish power in Western societies. However, as I have observed elsewhere, it is extraordinary that there are Arab-American political scientists who are willing to accept the idea that the pro-Israel lobby is merely convenient veneer for imperial interests that are produced by some sort of mysterious process that has nothing to do with the transparent give-and-take of a myriad of forces and influences in the American political scene that actually does shape policy. Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer got many of the details wrong, but their overall point about the power and influence of the pro-Israel lobby is both obvious and incontrovertible.

On the other hand, Chomsky’s stance on the one-state agenda is extremely sound. He supports it in theory, but recognizes that it is only attainable in the distant future, and by way of a two-state agreement that might, at some future date, give way to some kind of unification mutually agreed upon by Israelis and Palestinians. As for the one-state rhetoric that is currently in vogue on the US and British university campuses, Chomsky has correctly noted that, “Evidently, such stands are of only academic interest unless they are accompanied by programs of action that take into account the real world. If not, they are not advocacy in any serious sense of the term.” Since there has never been a programmatic approach for the advancement or realization of a one-state agenda between Israel and the Palestinians that indeed "takes into account the real world," mainly because it does not correspond to the fundamental national interests of Jewish Israelis as they see them today and will undoubtedly continue to see them for the foreseeable future, Chomsky’s description is absolutely apt: this is not advocacy in any serious sense of the term.

However, Chomsky’s reflexive and, in this case at least, stubbornly wrongheaded oppositional attitude towards virtually anything undertaken by the United States government has led him to completely misread the present attitude of the Obama administration towards Israeli-Palestinian peace. In spite of the President’s extraordinary early efforts to shift US policy and rhetoric, Chomsky has already concluded that, “Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.” This strikes me as unjustifiably pessimistic and thoroughly unfair to an administration that has gone further than anyone seriously expected in shifting the American stance on issues like the settlements and the urgency and centrality of Palestinian statehood. Moreover, Chomsky claims that the President is not serious about his engagement with the Arab Peace Initiative, writing, “Obama has called on the Arab states to proceed with normalization, studiously ignoring, however, the crucial political settlement that is its precondition.” In fact, Obama’s whole strategy is based on both main aspects of the Initiative: peace predicated on Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory and a regional dimension to bolster Palestinian-Israeli peace and expand its scope. Simply put, I think Chomsky is dead wrong about the attitude of the President and his administration regarding peace and Palestinian statehood, as well as the Initiative.

In short, while I respect Chomsky’s intellect and his political contributions, I think those Arab-Americans who regard him as a guru or an oracle are making a mistake on several levels. This assumption that President Obama and his administration are simply not serious about pursuing Middle East peace and Palestinian statehood when they clearly have demonstrated that they are is wrongheaded and leads to political mistakes. Even if it turns out that the new administration is insufficiently committed to overcome obstacles, or that these obstacles simply cannot be overcome no matter what the will in Washington may be, it is still pointless to take the attitude now, in advance, that our government is not serious when it begins to pursue the policies and approaches most Arab-Americans have been strongly advocating for decades. A more sensible attitude would be to recognize, applaud and embrace these changes, and work to extend and consolidate them. Dismissing them has no value whatsoever.

Finally, I think that Chomsky’s fundamentally oppositional attitude to the US government, system and institutions is not useful at all for Arab-Americans. Our community has no options for political empowerment and the pursuit of its objectives other than serious engagement with the political system as it exists in our country today. Giving too much credence to the views of intellectual gadflies, however brilliant, who would steer Arab-Americans away from political engagement and towards the margins of American politics and society is a surefire recipe for maintaining the disempowerment and alienation from which we have been suffering for many decades. Arguments that accept the idea that the pro-Israel lobby has had little to no effect on shaping the fundamental elements of US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians feed into that alienation and self-imposed marginalization. After all, if a lobby as seemingly powerful and effective as the pro-Israel coalition has only a marginal effect and serves mainly as window dressing for other interests, then Arab-American political engagement is essentially pointless. Thankfully, this is absolutely untrue. The fact is that there is nothing stopping us from acquiring more influence in shaping policy other than our own self-defeating resistance to getting involved with the political system and the policy conversation in Washington as they actually exist today on the terms presently available. Insofar as an excessive adherence to the views of Chomsky and similar oppositional public intellectuals steers Arab-Americans away from engagement and encourages their alienation from the political structures in our society, it is to be assiduously avoided. I read Chomsky’s work with interest, but always with ample supplies of salt at hand.

In an outrageous column in the Washington Times today, Frank Gaffney launches one of the most despicable, dishonest and underhanded attacks on President Obama following his excellent speech in Cairo last week. Many of Gaffney’s fellow ultra-right wing pro-occupation and/or Islamophobic fellow travelers have been piling on the President in a transparent effort to quell his initiative to pressure Israel on settlements as well as the Palestinians on their own Roadmap responsibilities. There has been much talk about an "unprecedented betrayal of Israel," "throwing Israel under the bus," and similar overheated rhetoric from those who would encourage Israel to continue the occupation and the settlements in spite of their own clear interest in achieving a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Gaffney, however, takes the attack a step further by declaring that, “Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president.” Obviously, if President Obama actually were a Muslim, this would not be an attack, and it is not a criticism of anyone to call them a Muslim unless one is proceeding a priori from a perspective of Islamophobic bigotry. However, since the President is a devout Christian, ascribing to him a secret adherence to another faith is indeed an insult since it suggests that President Obama is dishonest, insincere and deceptive about his most deeply held beliefs.

But even this is not enough, since Gaffney feels required to claim that the President is no less than the moral and political equivalent of Adolf Hitler. According to Gaffney, President Obama has engaged in “the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich,” because while he objected to implicitly racist comments from Gaffney’s friends during the campaign that sought to emphasize his middle name as an effort to sow fear and doubts about his Christian faith, he is now pointing to the Muslim heritage in his own family to illustrate to Muslim audiences that Islam and the Muslim identity are not incompatible with American society or values. This, for Gaffney, is Hitlerian.

The invocation of Munich is a standard feature of hysterical pro-occupation rhetoric, with any implication that Israel needs to end its occupation in its own interests and in the interest of the United States being cast as the equivalent of Chamberlain’s shameful capitulation to Hitler’s demand for the reincorporation of the Sudetenland into Germany. But for Gaffney, even this familiar if ludicrous formulation is insufficient, and Obama must be not Chamberlain, but Hitler himself. And he is Hitler because while he objected to bigoted references to his middle name for nefarious purposes during the election, he is now willing to invoke it to improve the image of the United States among Muslims for noble purposes.

And how do we know that President Obama is secretly “a Muslim?” First, Gaffney notes that, “he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia,” as if that is evidence of anything reflecting his religious affiliation. Worse still, “Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to ‘the Holy Koran,’” which, in Gaffney’s mind, is not respectful of his audiences’ sensitivities but rather a sly revelation of his own crypto-Islamic sentiments. Gaffney also claims that, “Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam,” of which there was not only no evidence, but the President’s mangled pronunciations of Arabic terms referring to Muslim practices (i.e., his reference to the hijab as “the hajeeb”) suggests that he has very limited familiarity with Islam and the most basic Islamic terminology, and no familiarity whatsoever with Arabic. Gaffney objects to the fact that President Obama referred to the greatest figures of the three monotheistic faiths with “the term ‘peace be upon them,’” which he claims is a term that, “no believing Christian — certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam — would ever make.” According to Gaffney’s “logic,” to use this Islamic term of respect is to accept the Muslim understanding of Jesus as a prophet rather than “the son of God,” an obviously preposterous leap. The entirety of Gaffney’s case is that Obama had a Muslim father (actually, Obama says his father was essentially an atheist), or at least a father from a Muslim background, that he lived in Indonesia as a child, and that he spoke to a Muslim audience using respectful terms.

It would be an understatement to suggest that Gaffney is waterboarding both the facts and the President’s words to convince an audience he hopes takes a dim view of Islam that the President is, or at least may be, a secret Muslim. Gaffney underscores this point by twice stating, “it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim.” If it is beside the point, why engage in such elaborate political contortions, bending, twisting and mangling the facts and the President’s speech to suggest precisely this ludicrously false conclusion? In fact, Gaffney knows full well that it is not beside the point, especially not for his own intended audience which he obviously trusts is animated by a grave suspicion of Islam and the Muslims, and would be horrified to learn that the United States has actually elected a Muslim president. It is also intended to suggest that President Obama is a liar who has misrepresented not only his history but also his most deeply held religious beliefs. This is a perfectly disgusting effort to play on the very Islamophobic fears that Gaffney himself has done so much to promote and turn them on a political target who is not and never has been a Muslim for cynical ideological purposes.

Moreover, because the President pledged to fight stereotyping and discrimination against Muslim Americans, Gaffney argues he somehow promised, “to promote Islam in America,” which are obviously two completely different things. Gaffney is appalled that President Obama would state that, "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” presumably because this might interfere with the efforts of Gaffney and his friends to promote precisely these negative stereotypes, as he has tirelessly for many years. Gaffney is further enraged that the President, “vowed to ensure that women can cover their heads” (in fact he was speaking of covering their hair), and “pledged to enable Muslims to engage in zakat, their faith’s requirement for tithing.” In other words, a simple commitment to religious accommodation as required by the Constitution and upholding the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of religion is offensive to Gaffney who prefers discrimination over American principles of equality before the law and religious freedom.

The most useful thing about Gaffney’s article is not just that it demonstrates how deranged some of the President’s ultra-right wing detractors have become, but that he also is forthright about his own motivation for condemning the President’s outreach to the Muslim world. Gaffney’s main problem with Obama is that the President is pushing forward with a major initiative to secure a reasonable end-of-conflict agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that involves ending the Israeli occupation. A strong supporter of both the occupation and the settlements, Gaffney derides what he calls “the hallowed two-state solution,” and insists that, “Abu Mazen’s Fatah remain[s] determined to achieve a one-state solution, whereby the Jews will be driven ‘into the sea.’" In English, we call this a lie. Gaffney knows perfectly well that the PLO recognized the state of Israel in the late 1980s, engaged in many agreements with Israel predicated on a two state, and not a one state, principle for peace, and that President Abbas has never wavered from his pursuit of a peace agreement that would allow a Palestinian state to emerge to live alongside Israel in peace and security. It is not Abu Mazen who is opposed to a two state agreement, but Gaffney and his friends who support the occupation. In their frantic anti-peace efforts, they find it necessary to systematically misrepresent the Palestinian position, falsely suggesting that most Palestinians and their national leadership are not seeking an agreement with Israel, but rather its destruction.

Although Gaffney does not mention it, I have no doubt that the line in President Obama’s speech that caused him the most heartburn was his frank statement that, “Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s.” This is precisely what Gaffney has done, what he will continue to do, and what he wishes the United States would do: deny Palestine’s right to exist, and insist on maximalist Israeli ambitions, preferring conflict and occupation over peace and reconciliation. Gaffney is precisely the kind of fanatical extremist – and a deeply cynical and dishonest one at that – who must be marginalized, ignored and dismissed if there is any chance of achieving peace in the Middle East in the interests of the Palestinians, Israel and the United States. President Obama is not a secret Muslim, but Frank Gaffney most certainly is an open and shameless extremist, fanatic and liar.

Most observers welcomed President Obama’s speech in Cairo last week, but some pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian commentators have taken issue with the President’s emphasis on ending Israeli settlement activity and Palestinian violence, respectively, as crucial measures in laying the groundwork for a successful peace agreement. These choices were not arbitrary. They reflect the principal commitments and obligations of both parties under Phase One of the Roadmap. The reason the Roadmap emphasizes early action on settlement activity and violence is that these are the most important elements to the political psychology of both parties and their perceptions of each other’s intentions. Obviously, their effects go far beyond the psychological, and have significant negative political, practical and, in the case of settlements, topographical and infrastructural consequences. However, understanding why both the Roadmap and the President’s speech place such emphasis on these two responsibilities requires honestly evaluating and taking seriously both Palestinian and Israeli perceptions of each other’s intentions.

Some supporters of the settler movement argue simply that any objection to Israeli settlement activity is invalid. David Horowitz sees the entire thing as motivated by anti-Semitism, writing: “The worst aspect of the speech, the remarks about settlements is a bad policy the Obama Administration has been pushing for weeks. If settlements are unacceptable then the 1.2 million Arab Muslims settled in Israel should be removed to the West Bank or Jordan or Gaza. The only reason Jewish settlements are regarded as unacceptable is because the Muslim Arab states are bigoted racist regimes that can’t tolerate non-Arabs and non-Muslims.”

It is hard to know where to begin with any formulation as wrongheaded and mendacious as this. But obviously, it’s preposterous to describe the Palestinian citizens of Israel (who are Christian as well as Muslim, as Horowitz should know) as “settlers” since they are living in their own homes in their own villages in their own country. They have not been brought to Israel by an occupying foreign army in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a mountain of international law. They are the lucky remnants of those Palestinians who escaped the wholesale dispossession experienced by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians in what became Israel during the 1947-1948 war. In the past, Horowitz has argued that Israel should have annexed all the territories conquered in 1967 and expelled its Palestinian inhabitants. Obviously, the idea of further ethnic cleansing in Israel proper continues to carry some kind of twisted appeal for him. Moreover, the spectacle of the proprietor of frontpagemagazine.com daring to describe anyone else as “bigoted racist” is more chutzpah than anyone should be asked to endure.

The actual reasons that Israeli settlements are regarded as unacceptable is first and foremost that they are in absolute violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention’s Article 49 prohibition on the transfer of populations into territories under foreign military occupation. That Israel is indeed a foreign military occupier in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has been established beyond debate by countless UN Security Council resolutions (voted for and many drafted by the United States). The argument advanced by supporters of the settler movement that the use of the word “transfer” in Article 49 implies involuntary resettlement and therefore does not apply to the Israeli settlement project in the occupied territories is completely specious. Other articles in the Convention already prohibit forcible resettlement of populations, making Article 49 redundant and unnecessary if this is its meaning. In fact, it plainly and obviously refers to the practice of foreign occupiers attempting to settle external populations in conquered territory, precisely as Israel has been doing in the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967.

The Fourth Geneva Convention is a human rights instrument that pertains to the rights of civilians in time of war and under military occupation. The reason that the Convention bans settlement activity of the kind that Israel has engaged in is that it inevitably involves the displacement of civilians living under foreign military occupation, the usurpation of land by occupiers and an attempt by occupying forces to consolidate occupation and make it permanent by introducing new populations into the occupied territory (in explicit violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the acquisition of territory by war, as acknowledged in the preamble to UN Security Resolution 242 and numerous other resolutions pertaining to the Israeli occupation). In other words, settlement activity is framed as both a violation of the laws of war and occupation by the Convention, and as a human rights abuse against civilians living under occupation. Therefore, while Palestinians had every right not to be ethnically cleansed and to remain in their homes and villages during the 1947-1948 war, Israel has no right to violate the Convention and introduce Israeli settlers into occupied Palestinian territory. Observing that Israeli settlement activity is illegal, immoral and in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is not anti-Semitic and does not reflect on the rights of Palestinians in Israel to continue to live in their homes and villages as they always have.

Other defenders of the Israeli position make a more complex argument, that has been floated recently by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and many Israeli diplomats, and repeated by their supporters in the United States and elsewhere, to the effect that because some settlements will undoubtedly be retained by Israel in any final status agreement with the Palestinians involving a land swap, concern about settlement expansion is therefore irrelevant. This argument was recently advanced by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post, who argues, “No ‘natural growth’ means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies.” He continues, “why expel people from their homes and turn their towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?” The Washington Post itself made a similar argument in a lead editorial last Sunday.

Apart from this silliness of suggesting that President Obama was saying that Israeli settlers should have “no babies,” this argument fails to recognize the serious political harm settlement expansion of all kinds does to the prospects for peace. It is the single most significant element of Israeli behavior that undermines Palestinian and Arab confidence that the Israelis are interested in any kind of reasonable final status agreement. It raises fears that Israel is simply trying to buy time to increase settlements until the day when Palestinian statehood is no longer a viable prospect. Obviously, every increase in settlements and settlement size makes the final border more difficult to draw. Therefore, it undermines both the credibility and the viability of peace negotiations. This is the political and psychological reality with which Israelis have to contend, whether they like it or not. In addition, settlement activity expands the rather belligerent constituency among Israelis that militates against necessary territorial compromises. This is not to say that all settlers are opposed to peace, but rather that increasing the size of settlements and the power of the ideological, political and financial interests invested in the settlement project makes overcoming resistance to a reasonable agreement within the Israeli society more complicated. Simply put, it is digging the hole deeper rather than moving towards climbing out of a very dangerous situation that puts Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs and all others involved at considerable risk.

The bottom line is that, whether Israelis like it or not, settlements are the main issue on the Palestinian agenda since they strike at the heart of potential Palestinian statehood. For whatever set of reasons, many Israelis and their supporters may prefer to see the issue as “irrelevant” or as a “myth,” but the political realities are quite clear. Continued settlement activity is perceived by Palestinians and other Arabs as quite incompatible with an Israeli intention to achieve a reasonable peace agreement. This is also the perception of the United States government. Secretary of State Clinton has made it quite clear that despite claims to the contrary, the United States government never entered into any “secret agreement” under the Bush administration that Israel could continue settlement activity. Its obligation under the Roadmap is clear, logical and indispensable.

The same significance applies to the question of Palestinian violence, which is likewise dismissed by some pro-Palestinian voices, citing the fact that at almost every stage in history, more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel than vice versa. Generally speaking, this is true, and obviously Palestinians have as much of a right to and an interest in security as Israelis or any other people. However, the political significance of Palestinian violence to Israeli perceptions of Palestinian intentions means that violence and efforts to curb it play the same role for Israel as a litmus test of Palestinian commitment to peace as settlement activity does for the Palestinians.

The reasons for this are not particularly mysterious, but understanding this distinction requires seriously appreciating the political psychology of both parties. Palestinian concerns about Israeli violence are part and parcel of the whole opposition to occupation, which is the principal source and the main context for violence. Violence is an unavoidable and inherent element of any occupation, particularly one that includes ongoing aggressive settlement activity. Resolving the occupation will remove both the context and the need for all varieties of Israeli military violence against Palestinians. Therefore, for Palestinians, a settlement freeze and moving quickly towards an agreement that will end the occupation by definition means moving towards a resolution of Israeli violence against Palestinians.

For Israelis, the perception is somewhat different. For many Israelis, including some who are otherwise well disposed towards ending the occupation, the principal fear is that this will not in fact resolve the conflict, and that Palestinian violent opposition to the continuation of Israel as a Jewish state would continue even after an end-of-conflict agreement is signed and ratified. There are concerns that the Palestinian state would be either unwilling or unable to contain attacks against Israel or Israelis. There is also a deep-seated anxiety that the formation of a Palestinian state would be the first step in a “plan of phases” that would sooner rather than later result in renewed conflict aimed at the eventual elimination of the Israeli state. Therefore, the continuation of Palestinian violence, and perceptions that the Palestinian Authority is doing less than everything it can to quell such violence undermines Israeli confidence that Palestinians really intend to reach a permanent reconciliation with Israel.

Many of the Palestinians and their supporters who were critical of President Obama’s speech in Cairo cited his emphasis on Palestinian violence at the exclusion of any consideration of Israeli violence as a major flaw in the address. Writing in the Saudi newspaper the Arab News, Samar Fatany summarized this perspective writing, “Obama lost many of us when he chose to stress that ‘the Palestinians must abandon violence,’ but omitted to show any condemnation of Israeli atrocities and war crimes. Instead he described Palestinians’ legitimate resistance as violence, which he thinks would lead to a dead end… What about Israeli use of lethal weapons and the destruction of Palestinian homes and schools?” Most critics of the speech on all sides took issue with what was supposedly missing in it, although one can hardly mention every possible issue in a 60 minute address. What President Obama was doing, and rightly so, was focusing on the most important political issues. That he placed emphasis on Israeli settlement activity and Palestinian violence was politically and diplomatically appropriate as it addresses the main concerns the two parties have about each other’s behavior

Moreover, Palestinian violence undermines the authority of the PA, and undercuts its ability to govern effectively. This is not to mention its corrosive effect on Palestinian society and culture, which is something to which friends of Palestine ought to give serious consideration. In his recent statements, President Obama has also emphasized the need to combat incitement, and this too goes to the health and well-being of Palestinian society and culture, and the character of the future Palestinian state. In other words, it is in the Palestinian interest to take seriously their commitment to combat violence and curtail incitement. Pointing towards Israeli violence and incitement is, in this context, politically and diplomatically pointless, and changes the subject from what ought to be the principal consideration: what effect are violence and incitement having on the fortunes of the Palestinian national movement and its legitimate ambitions, and the character of Palestinian society?

It is therefore pointless and even counterproductive for Israelis and their supporters to dismiss the settlement issue as irrelevant or a myth. All well-intentioned and serious friends of Israel should recognize the profound political damage done to the long-term future of Israel by settlement activity, not least by making an end-of-conflict agreement with the Palestinians less likely and undermining Palestinian and Arab perceptions of Israeli intentions. All responsible and constructive friends of Palestine should recognize that it is not strategically useful to counter critiques of Palestinian violence by focusing on Israeli violence against Palestinians, or even pointing to the Jewish terrorism that was a significant feature of the struggle for Israeli statehood in the 1940s, and instead think clearly about how Palestinian violence affects Palestinian interests and the perceptions of Israelis about Palestinian intentions.

These are not minor matters, irrelevancies, sideshows or red herrings. They go to the heart of the willingness of both peoples to see the other as sincere, legitimate partners for a peace agreement. This is not a game of one-upsmanship or a debate to be won or lost a scoring rhetorical points. It is a delicate process of balancing the core interests, fundamental requirements and deeply-rooted perceptions of two national societies that have been at odds for at least 100 years. The fact that there are readily available arguments that can be deployed to dismiss or downplay the centrality of settlements and violence is not the point. The only question worth asking is, how does this help us get towards a peace agreement and an end to the conflict and the occupation? Anyone who thinks about these questions in that context, with a due regard for the perceptions and interests of both Israelis and Palestinians, will no longer have to wonder why President Obama emphasized settlements and violence in his Cairo speech, and will not see any utility in dismissing them as irrelevancies or myths.

Lebanese politics invariably gives rise to the most baroque conspiracy theories and the most ludicrous political spin. Yesterday’s election has proven no exception, with both Israelis and Hezbollah-supporters racing to try to flip defeats into victories.

Amir Peretz, who was Israel’s Defense Minister in 2006 during the disastrous Israel-Hezbollah war, preposterously claims that, “The election results in Lebanon mark the culmination of a process that matured with the breakout of the Second Lebanon War." In other words, Peretz is trying to take credit for the Lebanese election, arguing that it is some kind of delayed effect of Israel’s ill-conceived, botched and brutal Lebanon adventure three years ago. Obviously, you can’t blame this guy for trying to find some justification for miscalculations and indefensible actions that visited a tremendous amount of death and devastation on innocent Lebanese, greatly strengthened the political hand of Hezbollah and plainly backfired badly against Israel. But this idea that the 2009 Lebanese election is the culmination of a brilliant strategy put into place by Israel in the summer of 2006 is frankly comical.

As I noted in my posting several days before the election, the whole thing hinged not on Hezbollah’s performance as such, since all its candidates won their seats, but on the performance of its quasi-fascist Maronite allies led by the “eccentric” General Michel Aoun. His party was not able to pull their weight, instead dragging the Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition to defeat.

Some Hezbollah fans in the United States, most notably Assad AbuKhalil of the Hezbollah Support Network of Stanislaus, are trying to spin the March 8 defeat as a deliberate dive. The Angry Idiot had been predicting, along with everyone else, that Hezbollah’s coalition would not do very well in the election, but has been intimating on his blog that this is in fact a deliberate strategy. In the face of the defeat he asks: “So did Hizbullah deliberately work to ensure the defeat of the opposition? If that was the case, I have to say that they have done a magnificant job.” [sic] This has all the qualities of the most maudlin and machista ranchera (“te vas por que yo quiero que te vayas,” so to speak), rationalizing defeat as a kind of self-imposed renunciation. It’s a ludicrous conspiracy theory, especially since all of Hezbollah’s own candidates actually won. But saying, in effect, “we were defeated, because we wanted to lose” (Jose Alfredo Jimenez could not have put it better himself), sounds better than admitting that, “we have been defeated at the polls.”

As in all complex political phenomena, this election result is obviously overdetermined, and can’t be attributed to a simple and discrete set of causes. However, plainly crucial factors included serious overreaching on the part of Hezbollah last summer and their use of their militia for domestic political power which significantly weakened the arguments of its main Maronite allies. In addition, it is likely that many Lebanese voters understood that international isolation would be a disaster for the country and that therefore a Hezbollah-dominated government had to be avoided.

One final thought – one of the most consistent patterns in Lebanese political history is that whenever any organization, sectarian grouping or force gains too much power in the country and threatens to emerge as a defining interest, everyone else gangs up on them and makes sure that they are not able to assert control. The Lebanese, having no majority grouping and defining themselves in terms of a plethora of subnational identity orientations, appeared to possess a political default that ensures that any power that threatens to become dominant in the country is suppressed by coalition of most other forces.

Although this is hardly any kind of “brilliant” Israeli scheme, it’s certainly true that Hezbollah’s demonstration in 2006 that it possessed an independent foreign policy and was able, willing and ready to plunge the country into an avoidable war on its own and for its own purposes was a very important step in convincing many other Lebanese that they had simply acquired too much power. The tipping point, however, was probably its use of its militia for domestic political purposes in the summer of 2008, violating every assurance it had ever even anyone about its arms simply being for the purposes of “the resistance.” Having demonstrated that its militia was now primarily for the enforcement of its domestic political interests, and that its military power was at least equal to that of all other armed forces in the country combined, the eventual coalescing of a strong backlash against this kind of accumulation of domestic political power by one sectarian force was virtually guaranteed. It is further likely that this election is only one element of the backlash and that the process will continue, although as long as Hezbollah remains a major armed power, its extent will be limited to constraining the party’s ability to dominate the Lebanese national scene.

Reuters reports that, “Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon’s pro-Syria alliance lost a parliamentary election on Sunday pitting them against a U.S.-backed coalition, a senior politician close to them said.” If this is true, the Lebanon’s voters have ensured that the country has dodged a bullet here. A clear March 8 coalition victory and a new government that is internationally perceived as dominated by Hezbollah could result in a major degree of international isolation, which the country can ill afford. Every aspect of its economy from tourism to international banking and financial services depends on other economies and remaining engaged with the world. Politically, both from a domestic and, even more significantly, from an international standpoint, a perceived Hezbollah victory would have been disastrous. The result predicted by the Reuters story is not terribly surprising, but for all those with the interests of Lebanon at heart, if it is confirmed it will come as a considerable relief.

For years now, my colleagues and I at the American Task Force on Palestine have been arguing that everyone who believes in a negotiated end-of-conflict agreement in the Middle East that allows for two states, Israel and Palestine, to live side-by-side in peace need to form a real, functioning national coalition to support this goal.

Until now, all such efforts have been limited for numerous reasons. First of all, the most interested parties, specifically Jewish-American friends of Israel and Arab-American supporters of Palestine, have been alienated by decades of mistrust. Historically, most American Jews and Arabs have largely seen each other through the distorted lens of a zero-sum perspective, assuming that what is good for Israel is necessarily bad for the Palestinians and vice versa, and that this extends to their respective supporters in the United States.

If this was ever true, it certainly isn’t now. As President Obama has pointed out, such a peace agreement is Israel’s interest, in Palestine’s interest, in the United States interest, and in the world’s interest. It may seem counterintuitive to some, and certainly runs counter to years of simplistic assumptions, but Israelis and Palestinians need the same thing: a workable peace agreement based on two states. It follows therefore that their supporters in the United States should be able to find common cause in pursuing this goal.

President Obama has put a great deal of his own political credibility and capital on the line in pursuit of this noble aim, clearly and forcefully articulating what all parties must do to build momentum towards the needed peace agreement. He has stated plainly that Palestinians need to move on security measures and combating incitement, that Israel must end settlements and avoid measures that preclude Palestinian statehood, and that the Arab states need to become more involved in the peace process. These important principles and concrete measures to actually implement them on all the parties ought to be supported by everyone who agrees with the goal of peace in the Middle East. It is fine for supporters of Israel to reiterate what is required of the Palestinians and what is needed from the Arab states, but they cannot remain silent about Israel’s commitments. There is no reason for supporters of Palestine to hold back on insisting that Israel live up to its obligations under the roadmap as President Obama is requiring, but they cannot ignore Palestinian responsibilities either. Everyone with ties and relationships to the Arab governments should similarly be pressing them to do everything they can to support the President?s initiative and seize this extraordinary, historic opportunity. We all have a responsibility and a role to play.

Jewish and Arab Americans cannot allow their past differences and historical competition to impede what is plainly become a common imperative in supporting the President’s bold moves on peace. It’s perfectly true that they are used to seeing each other only as competitors and rivals, but these long-standing prejudices and misperceptions need to be jettisoned forthwith if we are to truly play the role we must. No two groups in the United States care more about what happens between Israel and the Palestinians than Jewish and Arab Americans. No one in the United States has deeper ties, more connections, or more sophisticated understandings of the history, realities and perceptions that motivate both parties to the conflict. We cannot leave this to the government alone. We must play our role in civil society, by living up to our responsibilities as citizens in engaging with our own government and those in the Middle East with whom we identify, and doing everything we can to support these extremely positive developments.

To fully live up to this historic opportunity, these two communities need to do everything they can to make common cause on this issue. Now is the time to put aside tribalism, simplistic ethnic identification, and communal defensiveness, and reach out to each other in pursuit of an all-important common interest. Much has been said and done in the past to fuel a sense of rivalry and alienation between the Jewish and Arab American communities. This history has left deep scars, but it needs to be consigned to the past and moved beyond with all dispatch in order to achieve urgent mutual interests. Past actions and statements ought to be properly seen as irrelevant to the present task, and need not be forgotten or forgiven, but must be placed to one side in pursuit of a peace agreement that transcends by far in importance any past differences, slights and transgressions. Sincere, responsible people of goodwill in both communities can demonstrate their constructive intentions first of all by actively combating those among their own brethren who would oppose peace and continue to advocate rejectionism, violence, occupation and conflict.

It is perfectly true that there are many Jewish-Americans who remain suspicious that Arab and Arab-American support for peace based on two states is merely the first step in a “plan of phases,” intended ultimately to lead to the destruction of Israel. Certainly there are many Arab-Americans who have yet to be convinced that Israelis and their supporters who say they who favor peace negotiations are not simply trying to help buy time to build more settlements and consolidate the occupation so that no Palestinian state will ever be possible in the occupied territories. In other words, while most people in both communities say they want the same thing, many do not believe each other. They are sure of their own sincerity, but extremely dubious about the sincerity and intentions of those on the other side of the ethnic divide. However, rather than assuming at the outset that the other party is lying and playing some kind of elaborate game of deception, surely it would make more sense to test the waters and see if it is not possible that, because Israelis and Palestinians need the same thing, their respective friends in the United States also honestly and sincerely wish to work in that direction. Is it inconceivable that Jewish-American friends of Israel and Arab-American supporters of Palestine are actually supportive of the same goal even though they often fail to recognize this reality because it contradicts traditional assumptions and seems, to many people, counterintuitive? We believe that this is in fact the case.

It is necessary, of course, to test each other’s sincerity, but this can only be done through active engagement and a sustained effort to forge a serious alliance based on common interests. But, it is neither necessary nor helpful to try to analyze each other’s motivations, or insist that competing and possibly irreconcilable narratives and political analyses become harmonized. It should be understood from the outset that, just as Israelis and Palestinians require the same peace agreement for their own purposes and not out of any abiding affection for each other, their friends and supporters in the United States will have very differing motivations for joining a national coalition in support of a two-state agreement. One of the greatest virtues of a two-states arrangement, and what makes it plausibly realizable, is that in fact it does not require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile their narratives. Each society can then live in its own state, with internal minority groups, and forge its future according to its own understandings, needs and imperatives.

Jewish and Arab Americans similarly need not agree on the history of the conflict, who did what to whom, how to apportion blame for the present situation, or any other implausible forms of reconciliation. All they need do is agree that it is in the American national interest, and the national interests of their friends in the Middle East, to achieve a reasonable peace agreement based on two states. It is enough to seriously and sincerely agree on this point to build a single-issue coalition in order to pursue that goal. Differently motivated parties pursue the same aims in ad hoc informal coalitions in the American political system all the time. Indeed, that is how most major change is accomplished: differently interested parties agreeing for varying reasons on the same goal.

We should not only be increasing our efforts at outreach and dialogue, since more concrete measures are now called for and the political space opened up by President Obama’s bold moves on peace will require more than tentative steps for support if it is to succeed. Responsible organizations and individuals should be thinking in terms of joint projects, statements and efforts in pursuit of peace and to support the President?s initiatives. It may well be time for the most mainstream and politically significant Arab and Jewish Americans to think about developing a formal statement of principles or some other defining document or coalition that can guide and give shape to a real, effective and powerful national coalition for a two-state agreement in the Middle East. Obviously there are many other parties that can and should be brought into these efforts at the earliest possible date, including church and other religious organizations, other peace oriented organizations, and corporate entities with a stake in Middle East peace. There is a need for such a coalition to be broader than simply a Jewish-Arab American alliance in favor of peace, however cooperation between these two uniquely interested and engaged communities must be the essential backdrop if any serious and sustained effort of this kind is to be successful.

It is now time to stop merely thinking and talking about joint efforts, and actually develop a national coalition for Middle East peace. The urgency and intensity of President Obama’s political and diplomatic emphasis on building momentum towards peace is an extraordinary, possibly unique, and perhaps even final opportunity for Jewish and Arab Americans who both say they want peace in the Middle East based on a two-state agreement to begin seriously working together to achieve this result. The President is doing his part. It is now up to all of us who agree with him to do ours.

Yesterday I noted that opposition to the President’s outstanding speech in Cairo was forming the basis for a new de facto far-right/ultra-left anti-peace coalition that was springing up organically due to shared antipathy on the political extremes to Obama’s efforts to create momentum towards Israeli-Palestinian peace. The phenomenon is interesting and instructive, to a point, but this is getting ridiculous. Some people are going so far that they are almost switching sides, and indeed are openly endorsing extremists on the other side to reinforce their own radicalism in the face of an Obama-driven surge of moderation momentum. Some of the examples below ought to make any sensible person’s head spin and demand some thoughtful analysis.

How about this one? At Commentary magazine’s blog, Ira Stoll actually disputes President Obama’s claim that, for Palestinians, violence is “a dead end,” arguing instead that Palestinian violence is responsible for positive American policy and rhetorical changes: “sadly, were it not for ongoing terrorist attacks against American and Israeli targets, President Obama would not be in Egypt comparing the Palestinian Arab cause to that of the captive nations of Eastern Europe or American blacks.” Stoll seems to be suggesting that it would therefore be logical for Palestinians to back Hamas and other organizations that argue that violence is indeed the key to moving forward on Palestinian national aims. Obviously this is wrong, but it is indeed amazing, exasperating and depressing to see a committed Zionist (of all people) at Commentary (of all venues) essentially endorsing Hamas’ strategy and tactics.

Professional Islamophobe and supporter of World War II Japanese internment, Michelle Malkin agrees with the Arab ultra-left that Obama’s speech was empty rhetoric that merely hides a continuation of the Bush approach: “For all the hype about fresh starts and new beginnings, Obama embraces the same blind dhimmitude that plagued the Bush adminstration and foggy-headed bureaucrats that infect Foggy Bottom. Same old, same old.” Different starting points, to be sure, but the same conclusion.

The Angry Idiot, Assad AbuKhalil, whose emotional tirade against Obama’s remarks was considered in my earlier examination of the far-right/ultra-left anti-peace coalition, later admitted that “I am rather shocked at the very positive tone of coverage of Obama’s speech in Arab media,” but, on second thought consoles himself and his readers with the extremely weak argument that “the goodwill that met Obama in Egypt is less about him and more about Bush: Bush was so hated and detested in the region, that his successor would enjoy a grace period no matter what." So, nothing to do with the speech then. Just inexplicable, naïve positivity, and relief at the absence of Bush. There is no possibility, one would surmise, of such folks ever considering that everyone else is picking up on serious changes that are real, but that they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge due to political extremism, the fact that they are already on record denouncing Obama in the ripest possible terms and are unwilling to admit any error, or the fact that they are so antagonistic to the American political system that they would never admit that it is actually moving policy in the right direction. AbuKhalil’s favorite term for the President? "Bushobama." Perhaps Malkin will adopt it as well, since she certainly shares the sentiment.

The overgrown juvenile delinquents at Kabobfest, perhaps the most embarrassing site on the entire net (at least for Arab-Americans), chime in with their own inimitable blend of putrid radicalism and infantile nonsense. They underscore their anti-Obama fanaticism with a truly disgusting and repulsive “cartoon” that I will not describe, and I caution readers to think twice before viewing it through this link. As for their “analysis” of the speech itself, it is a rambling diatribe that is striking reminiscent in its style and lack of sophistication to Robert Spencer’s rabidly Islamophobic commentary, but from an Arab ultra-left perspective. It is so ill-informed that it even suggests that John Adams owned slaves. They conclude from the speech that “actual change will be minimal, if not in the wrong direction (as in the case of a fraudulent Palestinian ‘state,’)” language that might have been directly lifted from the most rabid right-wing pro-settler site on the Internet and providing yet another example of how extremists from both sides can easily become indistinguishable when it comes to responsible measures that are required to develop the peace agreement they all oppose.

After all this, its no surprise that the Jewish far-right winger Daniel Pipes also agrees with the Arab ultra-left that Obama’s speech “broke little new ground but raised to new heights the art of sugaring words in ways appealing,” not to Arabs or Muslims, but “to Islamists.” In fact, most Islamist reaction in the Middle East has, of course, been more in line with Pipes’ dismissal of Obama’s initiative than with anything endorsed by the President – indeed, it is the Islamist far-right and elements of the ultra-left that are the main voices of skepticism about Obama’s speech in the Arab media at the moment. But Pipes never sullies his arguments with anything as sordid as the facts.

Pipes is an amazing case study in the extremist mindset. Daniel Luban reports on Jim Lobe’s always interesting blog, that he has actually endorsed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the upcoming Iranian presidential election: “I’m sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad,” Pipes said. The reason, Pipes went on, is that he would “prefer to have an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements.” This, obviously, is the right-wing Zionist equivalent of Ali Abunimah’s outrageous “I hope Avigdor Lieberman wins Israeli election big” and “go Bibi!” comments – which might well have issued directly from Pipes himself.

All of this is a phenomenon well worth tracking and studying. How is it that political extremism drives people on the fringes of competing perspectives (whether ethnic, religious or ideological, or some combination of them) into each other’s camp, in effect, to come to the same (totally wrong) conclusions from diametrically opposed starting points, and begin to articulate each other’s positions and endorse each other’s candidates and strategies? Obviously, a mutual antipathy towards pragmatic and constructive political developments draws even diametrically opposed extremists into a shared opposition to what is reasonable, leading counterintuitively to similar and compatible analyses and conclusions. Therefore, those who are not interested in compromise between Israel and the Palestinians, whether they are driven by sympathy for Israeli or Palestinian maximalist ambitions, will predictably unite, if on nothing else, then at least in opposition to efforts by responsible actors like President Obama to lay the groundwork for a reasonable compromise.

What is more difficult to explain is what drives people like Stoll, Abunimah and Pipes to actually endorse candidates and strategies representing extremism of the opposite variety. Their arguments are clear, and essentially amount to the old Trotskyite idea that one should always "push the contradictions" to the breaking point, and that the worst elements in any given system or society should be strongly encouraged so as to "expose the rot" that supposedly permeates the enemy. By encouraging the other side to act as badly as possible, this logic suggests, one is hastening their defeat and revealing their "true nature." Anti-peace extremists who hope and believe that they can achieve some kind of total victory, whether military or political, over the other side and eradicate either Israel or Palestinian nationalism respectively, and therefore adopt such reckless rhetorical tactics, are playing fast and loose with the lives and futures of millions of people in the Middle East by encouraging the worst elements in each other’s societies and volunteering as cheerleaders for mayhem. This grotesque irresponsibility stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s efforts to make progress, and the well-established commitment of the vast majority of both Palestinians and Israelis to live side-by-side in two states in peace and security.

I have previously observed that it is useful to have opponents that are slightly unhinged, and wishing for the other side to make mistakes and go too far is only human — up to a point. Surely for all reasonable people there has to be a limit to how far this can go. Rationalizing the strategy of suicide bombing, endorsing Lieberman and Amhadinejad, and so forth takes this normal human political impulse to pathological and grossly irresponsible extremes. In other words, such dramatic distortions of judgment may be inevitable byproducts of an extremist political orientation, and perhaps cannot be avoided once extremist attitudes are adopted.

These are only tentative steps in understanding what is really a very strange and counterintuitive process that is taking place among anti-peace extremists on both sides, and I suppose one will have to make additional progress in analyzing it, assuming it continues, in the coming months. A much better outcome, however, would be for the extremists themselves to grow up, cut the crap and start acting like reasonable, responsible human beings rather than egging each other on to ever worse levels of vitriol and, ultimately, violence.

[NOTE: Since original posting this blog entry, I have discovered that Hassan Haidar makes a similar point in today’s edition of al-Hayat about extremists in the Middle East, which is well worth reading.]

Extremists on the far-right and the ultra-left who dislike President Obama, oppose peace, or hate the Islamic world or the United States respectively, joined forces across the Internet today in condemning the President’s outstanding speech in Cairo. It is worth reviewing some of their reactions, as they constitute both some sources of resistance to serious moves towards peace and a de facto coalition for continuing the conflict and generally making things worse.

The right and left wing anti-peace extremists have been extremely hard-pressed to come up with convincing or legitimate grounds for taking issue with President Obama’s approach generally, or even many specifics of what he had to say. The dilemma for many of them was that the very excellence of the President’s performance both increased the need for condemnation while at the same time making it more difficult. As a consequence, most online critiques coming from the anti-peace coalition today have ranged from the preposterous to the pathetic, and almost all of them either focused on what was left unsaid (a tactic that could be deployed against virtually any set of remarks) or, more typically, some fanciful version that the extremist critics imagine that they heard this morning but which was not in fact what the President said. Indeed, one has to wonder what the hell speech Obama’s extremist critics were watching, although I suppose that all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.

The fanatical neocons at the National Review’s notorious “corner” are in predictably full dudgeon. Michael Rubin complains that Obama “abandoned democracy” in the speech, although of course he never did anything remotely of the kind. Marc Thiessen claims the speech was “damaging, wrong, and at times simply shameful” and “echoed al-Qaeda’s calumnies against” US military and intelligence personnel by drawing a distinction with Bush administration policies. To buy into this, one has to believe that any criticism of Bush administration policies is tantamount to a criticism of the entire military and intelligence communities and all who serve in them. Under such circumstances, serious policy debate is scarcely possible. Moreover, this ham-handed attempt to link President Obama to al-Qaeda never seems to lose its appeal to the extremist right, even though it is as transparent as it is nasty and absurd. At any rate, it’s obviously ludicrous to suggest that criticizing wrongheaded policies that had to be carried out by military or security personnel, but were determined by political higher-ups, amounts to “throwing them under the bus.” Another National Review corner-dweller, Andy McCarthy, condemns support for peace in the Middle East by both Obama and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as “blather," which I suppose is not surprising since we’re dealing with what amounts to the pro-war and conflict constituency.

Robert Spencer’s take on the speech could constitute grounds for involuntary committal: comparing the President to Rodney King, alleging that the “humanitarian crisis [in Gaza] is a product of the Palestinian propaganda machine,” asserting that a Palestinian state would only “be used as a base for further jihad attacks against Israel” and arguing that the “idea that Islamic culture was once a beacon of learning and enlightenment is a commonly held myth.” This man is so consumed with blinding hatred that can’t even admit to himself that Muslims have played a significant role in advancing human civilization. As I have noted before, Spencer is among the most passionate Islamophobes in the country, and is deeply committed to a religious struggle on behalf of his version of Christianity against all forms of Islam. I suppose the clinical terms for his condition are paranoia, or possibly phobic obsession, but any reader with psychiatric qualifications should feel free to correct me or elaborate.

Ultra-right wing blogger Hugh Hewitt dismisses the speech as “deeply dishonest in its omissions” and “rhetorically misleading its assumptions,” and imagines that Obama has committed some sort of “profound betrayal of Israel” by suggesting “that Israel has done to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to Jews.” He arrives at this bizarre conclusion because the President had the decency to acknowledge the suffering of both peoples. It goes without saying that in no way did the President make any comparison between Israel and the Nazis, and that no one in his Arab or Muslim audience would understand his words in this way. In a very odd aural hallucination, Hewitt has heard something the President simply has not said.

Erick Erickson of redstate.com makes the same bizarre claim, alleging that President Obama suggested that, “what happened to the Jews the same issue as what is happening to the Palestinians.” Compounding this ludicrous twisting of the President’s words, Erickson demonstrates precisely where he’s coming from: “the Palestinians have been willful terrorists.” Simple as that. Meanwhile, he argues, Palestinians have the power to determine how they are treated by Israel, while Israel does not have any power to affect how it is treated by Arabs, “unless you assume Israel is happy to commit national suicide,” which is apparently his codeword for a reasonable peace agreement.

While the far-right fulminates about “apology tours,” “betrayals of Israel,” and how evil the Palestinians are, the usual suspects among ultra-left Arab-American commentators have stepped forward to speak for those unwilling to take yes for an answer. They seem to be so addicted to condemning American presidents and their remarks that they simply could not resist another opportunity even in the face of an extremely constructive and responsible address.

The Angry Idiot, Assad AbuKhalil, calls the speech “part vapid and part sinister,” (which is actually not a bad description of his own blog). He denies there was anything new, even in Obama’s tone and substance, to the point of asserting that the speech was “compiled together” [sic] from a series of earlier speeches. I suppose this makes it some kind of “Franken-speech,” made from the remains of other, lesser, speeches. This extraordinarily foolish claim is apparently based on the fact that some elements of the speech could be seen as recalling some elements of earlier speeches by American presidents, and is oblivious to the obvious changes in policy, tone and emphasis Obama has introduced. AbuKhalil repeats his earlier claim that, simply on the basis of being the American president, Obama “speaks for the White Man” (whatever that means), in this instance suggesting that the President believes in “White Man standards: that only Israeli lives matter.” Am I the only one to detect something distinctly racist about this attempt to tarnish the first African-American president with the supposed sins and faults of “the White Man,” or to notice how absolutely ridiculous this kind of rhetoric is coming from anyone (as the Angry Idiot and I both are) from Lebanon?

Writing on the Guardian website, Ali Abunimah describes President Obama as nothing less than “a Bush in sheep’s clothing.” Suffering from a similar hearing impairment as Hewitt and Erickson, Abunimah somehow managed to get the impression that Obama “seemed once again to implicate all Muslims as suspect,” in a speech that was replete with gracious overtures to Muslims and included no such sentiments. He was, of course, thoroughly dissatisfied with Obama’s clear-cut calls for a settlement freeze, complaining that the new administration position “focus[es] only on continued construction, not on the existence of the settlements themselves” and predictably condemned Obama’s advocacy of “an unworkable two-state ‘vision.’” The truth is that Abunimah, being categorically opposed to Palestinian independence, would necessarily reject anything Obama or any other president does to pursue that important goal. It’s also the case that Abunimah is more or less locked into an anti-Obama position given the stridency of his opposition to the President during the election campaign. For both reasons, there is really nothing Obama might possibly have said that would have satisfied him, having both a personal and political stake in the President being seen as a failure.

No doubt there are many other objections circulating around the fringes of the blogosphere that attempt to somehow take issue with the President’s remarks, but I think these are the main elements of the critique from the far-right (he somehow betrayed the United States/the military/Israel) and the ultra-left (he is “no better than Bush” and continues to pursue imperialist policies based on racism). What’s remarkable is the way in which these arguments work together in a vain attempt to tarnish a stellar performance that has enhanced American standing in the Middle East and advanced the prospects of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, among other useful things.

The enemies of peace are out there, and they are blogging. Whether they come from the far-right or the ultra-left, they share a mutual antipathy to serious efforts to resolve the conflict and craft a reasonable peace based on two states. Anti-peace forces, both in the Middle East and in the United States, have a common purpose and a de facto alliance, which should be recognized for what it is. They find themselves on the same side attacking President Obama’s speech, for different reasons. But they are nonetheless effectively on the same side. Their attacks are extremist and irreconcilably anti-peace, as well as shamelessly dishonest. These perspectives represent some of the political forces that stand in the way of progress towards peace. Thankfully, they are distinctly marginal. Let us all ensure that they stay that way.

President Obama deservedly received a standing ovation from his audience at Cairo University today, after delivering a pitch-perfect and inspiring speech to the Arab and Muslim peoples.

The President?s words were especially significant, as they should have been, with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bluntly stating ?it is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true,? which is that it is in ?Israel?s interest, Palestine?s interest, American interests and the world?s interests? to achieve an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that allows for the creation of a Palestinian state. Indeed, perhaps the most significant aspect of his speech were his two references to Palestine as a state in the same context as Israel and the United States – an extraordinary step ? adding, “just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s.” It was almost impossible to listen to President Obama’s speech without concluding that the Palestinian state constitutes a fait accompli in his own mind, and in American policy, and that from the point of view of the American President, it is only a matter of time before it is established. No doubt this an important part of what he meant when he pledged that, ?we will say in public what we say in private.?

His reference to the occupation as “intolerable” was also refreshingly blunt and appropriate, as was his rejection of Israeli settlement activity. Palestinians, he said, deserve, “dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.? The President was also quite right in stressing the need for including a central role for the Arab world in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue, an issue that ought to be vigorously pursued in the coming weeks and months as the Arab states have both an interest and a responsibility to step up to the mark as President Obama himself is. The President was also wise to defend the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and the need for an Israeli state, both of which reflect consensus positions in the United States and will be the basis for much of what the United States can do to secure Israeli cooperation on peace. The same applies to his principled rejection of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and threats to destroy Israel, and his appropriate reminder that, under such circumstances, violence is wrong, does not confer moral authority and does not succeed.

There were other important aspects of the speech, particularly the use of his own personal narrative to illustrate the extent to which Islam is and can be a part of the American story and society, and that there is no contradiction between a Muslim identity and American values and interests. He reiterated his repudiation of torture and determination to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, as well as his commitment to the schedule for troop withdrawals in Iraq. His distinction between the war in Afghanistan, which he is pursuing, and the war in Iraq which he is bringing to an end, was a clear indication of another important distinction between the new administration’s policies and those of its immediate predecessor. The President?s support for the principles of democracy and women’s rights received warm applause, but he was careful to note that the United States would not seek to impose its vision for how states ought to conduct their transition towards democracy and pluralism. He also was right to warn against those who would promote democracy as a tool for getting into power and then oppress others when in power, a clear reference to Islamist extremists who pose as champions of democracy without believing in pluralism or real democracy at all.

Overall, the President’s speech was exactly what was needed and would have been difficult to improve within the context of the responsibilities of that office and the political realities in which he must operate. On a range of issues — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Guantánamo, Iraq, and changing the tone with which the United States addresses the Arab and Muslim worlds — President Obama has done his part in moving quickly to reshape relations between the United States and the Arabs. It is now time for reciprocal gestures. The most important thing, perhaps, that the Arab states can do at this stage is to take concrete, serious and practical steps support his moves on Israeli-Palestinian peace. This means stating clearly and eventually taking practical measures to live up to the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative and demonstrating a willingness to move in the direction of reconciliation within recognition of Israel in the context of serious Israeli steps that will lay the groundwork for a peace agreement with the Palestinians. President Obama today spoke of Palestine as a state that must and will exist, but all parties must play their role in creating the political and diplomatic realities that will allow the Palestinian state to, at long last, emerge from the ashes of dispossession and occupation. The ball is now in the Arab court ? he needs and deserves their help, and they have a vital interest in providing it. Arab governments, organizations and individuals should, in their own interests, move quickly to do everything possible to reciprocate and support the President?s bold gestures.

Tomorrow morning will be all about public diplomacy, which is distinct in many respects from policy. It is unlikely, and possibly unwise, for the President to unveil any dramatic new policy initiatives in such a setting. Indeed, when the history is written of this Middle East trip in the future, it may actually be that today’s meetings with the Saudi government were more important in the long run to US policy and American-Arab relations than the much-anticipated speech in Cairo. This is because President Obama has maneuvered the situation between Israel and the Palestinians to the point where cooperation by the Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, becomes an essential component in progress towards peace. The administration’s firm stance towards Israel on settlements and a two-state solution, and towards the Palestinians on security and incitement, should now be matched with a successful effort to bring the Arab states into the process by beginning to explore ways in which the Arab Peace Initiative could begin to be operationalized by diplomatic overtures short of full recognition in response to concrete Israeli steps such as a settlement freeze, as well as increased practical, financial and diplomatic Arab support for the Palestinian Authority. If President Obama was able to make headway with the Saudis on this issue earlier today, that could well prove more significant in the long run to improving American-Arab relations through significant progress on Middle East peace than anything which is said in Cairo tomorrow.

That said, tomorrow morning?s speech will be exceptionally significant. I don’t agree with those who have suggested that there has been so much hype about the address that it cannot fail to fall short of expectations. President Obama came into office with a number of distinct advantages in appealing to Arab public opinion in a way few American politicians could hope to do. First, the entire world, including the Arabs, were generally impressed with the fact that the United States could transcend its long and bitter history of racial divisions, and indeed racism, and that the white majority in this country could elect an African-American president. That fact alone stood many assumptions about the United States on their heads, and Barack Obama gets a great deal of credit for navigating this extraordinary breakthrough. Second, while Obama has always insisted, of course, that he is a committed Christian, the fact that he has Muslim heritage through his father’s family and lived for a time in Muslim-majority Indonesia, and of course bears the familiar and typically Arab name of Hussein (which no one can doubt is obviously the best name in the world), all give him a set of advantages in beginning the overture to the Arab and broader Muslim worlds that no other national political figure in the United States can match.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that everyone in the Arab or Muslim worlds is in love with President Obama or that his identity and background is sufficient to carry the day with public opinion in that part of the world. The President is going to have to produce. While, as I say, major unexpected policy initiatives are unlikely, and possibly inappropriate, and emphasis on the change in attitudes and tone from the United States under Obama’s leadership in addressing the Arab and Muslim worlds and their fundamental interests is obviously required. Under no circumstances is this, and neither can nor should be, an “apology tour,” as the President’s right wing detractors have been suggesting. But the President can and should emphasize that the United States intends to play its part in beginning to heal the wounds of a very difficult period that has seen ever-increasing alienation between Arab and American societies, while urging the Arabs to do their part as well. The President should make it clear that the United States, under his leadership, intends to operate out of a renewed sense of respect for Arab and Muslim public opinion, national interests, and legitimate sensitivities. He should make it clear that the United States seeks a new relationship of genuine partnership in which the interests of both parties, and not just the global and regional superpower, are seriously reflected.

President Obama has already made it clear that he has no interest in dictating unreasonable terms or making irresponsible demands on governments in the Middle East, and has distanced himself, as the Bush administration had to, from the misguided one-size-fits-all and top-down approach of the ill-fated “Greater Middle East Initiative,” that was drafted without significant Arab input and prepared for presentation at an international multilateral meeting at which Arabs and Muslims were not going to be represented. Certainly the President should and no doubt will emphasize American values and our support, in general terms, for the principles of democracy, transparency and rule of law throughout the world. However, a constructive, reasonable and realistic approach suggests that transition towards a greater adherence to these values cannot be imposed by the United States, and certainly cannot be conceived of as applying in the same way and at the same time to all states in the Middle East.

When it comes to policy, the President can do no better than to emphasize his commitment to the peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that will, at long last, end the occupation and allow a Palestinian state to emerge to live alongside Israel in peace and security. Palestine remains the prism of pain through which the Arabs generally, for better or worse, view all aspects of international relations. His administration’s bold stance on settlements and firm commitment to a two-state agreement that would, indeed, end the occupation is an excellent basis for arguing to Arab public opinion that American policy is changing for the dramatically better and that American interests are indeed fundamentally compatible with the essential needs of the Arab world. A clear restatement of the already elaborated positions of the administration that Israel must end settlement activity, including ?natural growth? and outposts, and that the United States is determined to press forward with peace negotiations that are designed to end the occupation and create a Palestinian state would go a long way to achieving this goal. This would be especially true if the President couched it as a personal commitment to do everything within his power to try to achieve as much progress as humanly and politically possible during his term of office.

If President Obama clearly articulates a change in the tone and attitude adopted by the United States towards the Arab world and its essential and legitimate interests, and strongly and clearly reiterates a change in policy on the issue of settlements and the urgency with which the United States will be pursuing peace based on creating a Palestinian state, his speech in Cairo tomorrow morning should go a long way towards laying the foundations for improved relations between the United States and the Arab world and an enhancement of regard for both the President as a leader and our country in general throughout the Middle East.