(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

With Arab opinion like this, Obama needs media advice

The rhetoric of his Cairo speech has soured: the president can only move the debate on with a sea-change in US attitudes

A year ago in Cairo Barack Obama made an impassioned appeal for Arab goodwill and trust. Recognise I am a new type of American, he said in essence, who understands your pain and anger, and respects your culture and religion. "Islam is a part of America," he declared.

"Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable ... They endure the daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation," he said later in the speech. Then, in a powerful sentence he was to repeat to the UN general assembly, he said: "America doesn't accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

No wonder Arabs were delighted. True, Obama made no promises of US sanctions, aid cuts or other action to reverse Israeli settlement activity, but they were willing to give him time to show he meant what he said.

A year later the disappointment is massive. A poll taken in six Arab countries in June and July shows the air has gone from the Obama bubble. The percentage of Arabs with a positive view of the US has sunk since last summer from 45% to 20%, while the negative percentage has risen from 23% to 67%. Only 16% call themselves "hopeful" about US policy.

The survey is conducted annually by Zogby International and Shibley Telhami at the University of Maryland. The countries covered are among the region's least radical – Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and represent the more modern and affluent parts of the so-called Arab street, with 40% of respondents using the internet every day.

The pollsters did not ask why people changed their views so rapidly. But a clue of sorts is in one of its most remarkable findings. On Iran a majority were not convinced by Tehran's denials of having a nuclear weapons programme. The Obama administration will presumably be pleased to learn that 57% think Iran is trying to make a bomb. What will be more troubling for the White House is the finding that only 20% think foreign countries are entitled to put pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear programme and, even more strikingly, that 57% believe it would be positive for the region for Iran to have the bomb.

This is astonishing, at least for anybody who took at face value the Washington line that Iran is perceived as the biggest threat within the region. Bush and Cheney spent years trying to ally Arab states against Iran, including by attempting to make Shia/Sunni differences a major political issue. Iran is of course a Shia country. Obama continued the policy, but it has backfired. With the exception of Lebanon, the countries in the poll not only have huge Sunni majorities, they are the very countries on which Washington has spent most effort to build an anti-Iranian alliance. Their rulers may take the US line, but their people do not.

It's true that support for Iran having nuclear weapons may simply mean "Leave Iran alone". It may also be a message to Obama not to go on falling for Netanyahu's diversionary ruse that resolving Israel's dispute with the Palestinians is a sideshow compared to the issue of Iran getting the bomb. Most Arabs refuse to accept that order of priorities, which is why the poll found 88% of its respondents named Israel as the world's biggest threat, followed by the US at 77%. Only 10% cited Iran.

Since his Cairo speech Obama's Middle Eastern failures have been glaring. US pressure on Mahmoud Abbas to ignore the Goldstone report on suspected war crimes during the Gaza conflict was followed by Obama's refusal to condemn Israeli piracy against the blockade-busting flotilla. A moment of anger with Netanyahu for the announcement of yet more illegal house-building in Arab East Jerusalem was forgotten a few months later when the Israeli prime minister was welcomed to the White House – a frown followed by fence-mending instead of a sustained campaign against Israel's serial violations of international law and significant cuts in the annual aid programme submitted to Congress.

It is easy to blame Obama, as though he alone had the power to crack down on Israel's political elite. It is easy, too, to blame the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for its lobbying against critical US politicians. Just as important is the pressure that pro-Israel campaigners put on the mainstream US media. They warn people off the very word Zionist as though only antisemites use it and demand Israel be treated as a special country whose politics deserve more sympathy than others.

In fact US publishers, editors, and reporters carry the biggest responsibility for the rotten state of US policy in the Middle East. The pro-Israel lobbies are powerful and Obama weak mainly because Americans rarely get an alternative view. On the rare occasions when Obama criticises the Israeli government, newspaper editorials and talk show hosts sometimes support him. How often do they condemn him on the more frequent occasions when he fails to criticise it?

It would be nice if Obama stuck his neck out, but he needs a radical media to start a real debate. The sea-change in US attitudes that the Middle East so urgently needs cannot come from the White House alone.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • DissidentPR DissidentPR

    10 Aug 2010, 8:07PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • PaulLambert PaulLambert

    10 Aug 2010, 8:13PM

    'With the exception of Lebanon, the countries in the poll not only have huge Sunni majorities, they are the very countries on which Washington has spent most effort to build an anti-Iranian alliance. Their rulers may take the US line, but their people do not'.

    '

    Which is why the U.S. isn't very keen on the idea of democracy in the region, and supports via military and economic aid repressive and authoritarian regimes.

  • jgriffin jgriffin

    10 Aug 2010, 8:14PM

    The Arab street would have been pleased if Obama had delivered Israel into the hands of the Palestinians. Failing that Arab sentiment has sank to only 20% approval. Not surprising.

    That the majority would feel comfortable with a nuclear iran. Not surprising this after all a part of the world where Islam is the dominant religion. A place where execution for converting to Christianity is normal where any religious freedom is a dream. What should we expect?

  • VoNguyenGiap VoNguyenGiap

    10 Aug 2010, 8:17PM

    Blaming the media for Obama's betrayals is weak, very weak. Obama is a liar and faker. He has betrayed all the gullible liberals who campaigned for him and all the gullible foreigners who thought he represented a kinder, less murderous America. He is the new front man for the ongoing neocon project. By stubbornly continuing to cheerlead for Obama, the Guardian is making the same sort of mistake as it did by hitching its wagon to the Orwellian nulab project to the bitter end.

  • praha7 praha7

    10 Aug 2010, 8:18PM

    Obama cannot deliver because of the huge pro Israel majority on Capitol hill.No amount of media pressure will have any effect until this changes.

  • pisaColas pisaColas

    10 Aug 2010, 8:19PM

    Americans rarely get an alternative view.

    In other words, the American media generally has too little pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias for the author's taste. If only they could be more balanced like the BBC or The Guardian.

    Here's some advice for Obama: stop worrying about the opinions of our enemies and faux friends in the Arab world, and start worrying about the opinions of Americans.

  • DissidentPR DissidentPR

    10 Aug 2010, 8:21PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • DissidentPR DissidentPR

    10 Aug 2010, 8:26PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Wulfstan Wulfstan

    10 Aug 2010, 8:32PM

    Obama the Oligarch sock puppet.

    Nothing has changed. Still in Iraq, escalated Afghanistan, Guantanamo still open,
    20% unemployment. Health care "reform" a gift to the insurance companies from the taxpayer.

  • hereagain hereagain

    10 Aug 2010, 8:33PM

    Obama, like all other US presidents, doesn't care what the "Arab street" thinks and why should he? He is not their President and does not represent them.

    If there were no oil and no Palestinians neither the left or right in the US or Europe would have any interest what so ever in the Arab world. In reality only oil is of real importance to the world and the Palestinian problem is just a side show. Not to the Palestinians but certainly to the west and the rest of the Muslim world. Lets face it the Muslim world of over 1 billion people has really done sod all to help the Palestinians.

    So saint Obama has had a reality check and has seen there is nothing really to be gained from sticking his neck for the Palestinians. That the Arab street doesn't like this is about as significant as my posting.

  • saywhatusee saywhatusee

    10 Aug 2010, 8:36PM

    Typical Guardian World View speak

    All Israel's fault. Netanyhu's diversionary tactics nothing to do with the fact that each of the countries are run by despots who consistently lie to the populations about Israel and perpetuate anti semetic stereotypes.

    In the authors view as per usual on cif absolve the arabs of all the blame. B/c that's the post modern, post colonial commentators view.

    Say no to group think on cif!

  • EvilTory EvilTory

    10 Aug 2010, 8:37PM

    Jonathan, it is not the US attitude that needs to change. It is the attitude of the Arab nations that support a medievalist barbarity (Sharia law) that needs to change.

    I shall take the views of the 'Arab street' seriously when freedom of religion and expression arises in Arab society. In other words, probably not for the next ten thousand years or so.

  • geof24 geof24

    10 Aug 2010, 8:39PM

    Basically Obama has offered nothing to the Sunni arabs. No democracy. No justice for the Palestinians. No guarantee of secure borders.

    Tolerance or support of Iranian nuclear ambitions is extraordinary, but it is testimony of the incompetence of US diplomacy in the region.

  • Bikhair Bikhair

    10 Aug 2010, 8:40PM

    pisaColas,

    "Here's some advice for Obama: stop worrying about the opinions of our enemies and faux friends in the Arab world, and start worrying about the opinions of Americans."

    Now why would Americans want to spend billions and Americans lives liberating enemies from a tyrant? A more cynical person would say that this war was about the needs of others and not the oppressed Iraqi people.

  • TheShermanator TheShermanator

    10 Aug 2010, 8:40PM

    The pro-Israel lobbies are powerful and Obama weak mainly because Americans rarely get an alternative view.

    With this sentence Mr Steele is suggesting that there is a "pro-Israel" lobby, ie Jewish lobby, that controls America's media and foreign policy.

    Whether he intended to or not, Mr Steele is fueling the flames of anti-semitism with this statement.

    Perhaps this is why the American public has a pro-Israel tilt. It seems that most of the people who call for a more "balanced" foreign policy are motivated more by ethnic animus than any genuine desire to improve America's standing in the mideast.

    Incidentally, as far as the US media being blindly pro-Israel, perhaps Mr Steele has never read Time magazine or the NY Times. Both of these mainstream and popular periodicals regularly run articles and editorials harshly critical of Israeli policies.

  • prebender prebender

    10 Aug 2010, 8:40PM

    At last the alcoholics are beginning to rouse themselves from the drunken stupor. Obama has shown that the US cannot be trusted to be fair and balanced in any meaningful fashion.
    What the hell did the Arab world expect? he told them in that speech that the committment of the US to Israel was not in question - i see no reason why his audience expected him to be any different.
    If they needed any proof, the US continues to pump billions worth of weapons into Israel - they have withheld the aid or whatever the hell you call it to Lebanon.
    The saintly Obama told Abbas that he better start direct talks or the aid stream would be terminated. They are even trying to hijack the Flotilla enquiry - wake up people and stop moaning - if you want change, do not wait for the Obama Administration to give it to you

  • Wulfstan Wulfstan

    10 Aug 2010, 8:42PM

    EvilTory
    10 Aug 2010, 8:37PM

    Bush conducting another medieval Christian Crusade has not changed anything for the better either. In fact it has made relations between Christians and Muslims far worse.

  • andrewhoellering andrewhoellering

    10 Aug 2010, 8:45PM

    It is indeed astonishing that 57% in your survey believe that Iran is entitled to the bomb they are in the process of making.
    Presumably this has something to do with fair do’s – if so many other countries have it, why shouldn’t Ahmaninejad?
    But the idea should surely be to eliminate such deadly weapons, not multiply them.
    Our best hope for halting this madman in his nuclear tracks is Turkey, Iran’s closest ally. T
    his is the main reason David Cameron is pressing the EU to accept Turkey’s application to join, and we wish him luck.

  • moishe moishe

    10 Aug 2010, 8:48PM

    The pro-Israel lobbies are powerful and Obama weak mainly because Americans rarely get an alternative view.

    Okay. But how often do the people in the countries you mention above get an 'alternative view"?

  • Raashid Raashid

    10 Aug 2010, 8:50PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • CharleySays CharleySays

    10 Aug 2010, 8:58PM

    This is astonishing, at least for anybody who took at face value the Washington line that Iran is perceived as the biggest threat within the region.

    Does anyone really believe that Iran was, is or will be the biggest threat to peace and stability in the region?!

  • bluehatpa bluehatpa

    10 Aug 2010, 8:58PM

    Mr Steele:

    As usual, you misread the situation. It may not be a politically correct thing to say, but there is not a lot of warmth in the American public for Arabs. Polling in the US has consistently shown considerable antipathy which has only grown since 9/11. The more we are exposed to Muslim culture and Arabs in particular the more repulsed people have become. It once considered an exotic and therefore interesting culture, now it is considered a threat that cannot be ignored. I am neither Jewish nor Christian and I am an Obama supporter but I think we are wasting our time trying to appeal to the Arab street. If they want a fight then lets do it, but lets stop pretending that short of surrendering to them, we will ever appeal to the Arab street. They leave us alone and we leave them alone sounds like the best course of action.

  • pietroilpittore pietroilpittore

    10 Aug 2010, 8:59PM

    A year ago in Cairo Barack Obama made an impassioned appeal for Arab goodwill and trust. Recognise I am a new type of American, he said in essence, who understands your pain and anger, and respects your culture and religion. "Islam is a part of America," he declared.

    Trouble is, there was a section of his audience (not the whole by any means, of course) who will not be happy till America is a part of Islam.

  • Wulfstan Wulfstan

    10 Aug 2010, 9:03PM

    It might have been easier to allow Iraq to split into three separate countries : Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiastan. Then let them sort out their own problems as they see fit.

  • Beckovsky Beckovsky

    10 Aug 2010, 9:04PM

    The strange and sudden rise of Obama in US politics was at least partially driven by an increasingly desperate foreign policy elites trying to ingratiate themselves to the Moslem world - to the only part that matters to them: the wealthy Saudi sheiks and the reluctant (paid for) allies in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, etc... The idea was that with this "daring" personal appointment of a black man (with Islamic roots) there will be a flood of good will and somehow all substantial issues will be forgotten , or at least postponed. This is a common PR move going back in history: change the dynamic with a symbolic personnel change. It usually buys time and solves nothing.

    It didn't work. What now? My guess would be that we are in for increased confrontation and more hostility all around. The card has been played and it turned out to be a dud. Obama is there as a "manager" of basically predetermined policies, he can't change the overall policy of US. The elites and groups that matter would like to have it both ways, but the circle simply can't be squared. So maybe they will decide to blow it up...

  • pietroilpittore pietroilpittore

    10 Aug 2010, 9:05PM

    Pedantic note: unless you want coral to be made of Obama's bones and his eyes changed to pearls, please do not write of "a sea-change" inappropriately.

    Particularly when writing of one of the least sea-oriented parts of the world.

    Yours in the cause of demolition of wonderfully inadequate cliches.

  • millfield millfield

    10 Aug 2010, 9:05PM

    If the Arabs and in particular the Palestinians believed or hoped that Obama was their man to destroy the state of Israel and to hand Israel over to them on a plate they have now learned otherwise.

    Obama may pander to the Arab cause for his own particular reasons but in reality America is still a democracy. The values of the American people are the same as those of the Israelis, and the popularity of Israel amongst Americans still remains at an all time high.

    American values are not Islamic one and if Obama has not learnt this lesson now, and does not change his anti-Israel sentiments quickly he will learn this lesson to his cost in the elections in November for the house of representatives and the senate.

  • constitutionforever constitutionforever

    10 Aug 2010, 9:06PM

    I've asked this before and I never get a striaght answer. How can the US make the Arabs happy without declaring war on Isreal and carpet bombing Tel Aviv? I've asked this before and I've never gotton a striaght answer. becasue I can assure you if this is the only way to make people happy, then I'll accept thier anger becasue nothing is worth the lives of every single Jewish and Christain life in Isreal.

  • raymonddelauney raymonddelauney

    10 Aug 2010, 9:07PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • sarka sarka

    10 Aug 2010, 9:10PM

    It's brutal, I know, but perhaps people could stop deluding themselves that the only reason US or other Western political agendas are not identical with those of the Arab or wider Muslim Street (or various Arab states or peoples or bodies of opinion ) is because of the deformations introduced by intrusive "lobbies" or misunderstandings that could easily be put right if only the will was there...

    Maybe, just maybe, even taking some possible distortions or misunderstandings into account, there is no perfect harmony..Maybe, in terms of both interests and values, agendas and goals, there is no basic compatibility...and we will be left with the usual manouevring, sometimes compromising, sometimes conflictual, that is the stuff of ordinary history.

  • Raashid Raashid

    10 Aug 2010, 9:13PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Sorcey Sorcey

    10 Aug 2010, 9:13PM

    It's interesting - the mere suggestion of peace breaking out in the Middle East or a change in US policy to be less hostile to democracy or Arab states is always presented as the destruction of the state of Israel. I guess if you believe Israel is always right, then you believe peace is war.

    Then you'll go on to completely misquote 1984: freedom is slavery and strength is ignorance...

  • bluehatpa bluehatpa

    10 Aug 2010, 9:16PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • constitutionforever constitutionforever

    10 Aug 2010, 9:16PM

    Sorcey-I guess if you believe Israel is always right, then you believe peace is war.

    You can say the samething if you believe the Arabs are always right. What is wrong with Muslims, Jews, and Christians all living together peacefully in Isreal and Palestine?

  • exArmy exArmy

    10 Aug 2010, 9:18PM

    constitutionforever

    wrote

    "I've asked this before and I never get a striaght answer"

    Ive noticed you ask the same qestions an they always come across as very naive.

    How about asking real questions, how can America square its support for israel with the role it wants to play with the Arab states.

    You see thats the problem you hate criticism of the US. But a countrys biggest critics should be its own citizens. Just as your biggest critic should be you.

    Ask your self should America have a role in the Middle East.

    Like I said ask a straight question grounded in reality an you will get a straight awnser.

  • Sorcey Sorcey

    10 Aug 2010, 9:18PM

    constitutionforever:

    What is wrong with Muslims, Jews, and Christians all living together peacefully in Isreal and Palestine?

    Absolutely nothing, in my book. It's all the Israel firsters above that equate peace to destruction that you need to convince. Good luck trying.

  • Raashid Raashid

    10 Aug 2010, 9:19PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • bluehatpa bluehatpa

    10 Aug 2010, 9:21PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • exArmy exArmy

    10 Aug 2010, 9:22PM

    EvilTory

    wrote

    "Jonathan, it is not the US attitude that needs to change. It is the attitude of the Arab nations that support a medievalist barbarity (Sharia law) that needs to change. "

    But the US want to get into bed with these Arab states. Hell come on your a realist as long as we got someone in power we can work with we dont give a sod what they do to there people.

  • millfield millfield

    10 Aug 2010, 9:24PM

    Sorcery

    Absolutely nothing, in my book. It's all the Israel firsters above that equate peace to destruction that you need to convince. Good luck trying.

    So you read from the same book as Yassar Arafat.

    He had a name for this concept of peace

    "The peace of the brave"

    Meaning the destruction of Israel piece by piece

  • SackTheJuggler SackTheJuggler

    10 Aug 2010, 9:24PM

    "In fact US publishers, editors, and reporters carry the biggest responsibility for the rotten state of US policy in the Middle East. The pro-Israel lobbies are powerful and Obama weak mainly because Americans rarely get an alternative view."

    The US is probably among the most internet enabled societies on earth. Numerous Americans visit this site. There are a terrific number of viewpoints available to Americans. In contrast, the 'Arab Street' largely gets told what it gets told, unless the editors want to go to jail, but you don't seem to feel that this is a problem. Why should the US President shape his policy to match the views of some of the world's least well-informed populations in the face of the opposition of what is one of its best?

  • maxsceptic1 maxsceptic1

    10 Aug 2010, 9:26PM

    Raashid
    10 Aug 2010, 9:19PM

    The great US should really be rethinking whether Israel's existence is viable anymore. Their little experiment in trying to recreate a state based on a belief in a divine promise from 3,000 years ago appears to be too costly to maintain.

    Of course we all forgot that the whole of the middle east (and many other places too) are all 'Dar al Islam'.

    I guess 'devine promises' from 1,300 years ago are truer than those from 3,000 years ago...

  • Raashid Raashid

    10 Aug 2010, 9:28PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Raashid Raashid

    10 Aug 2010, 9:31PM

    maxsceptic1
    I guess 'devine promises' from 1,300 years ago are truer than those from 3,000 years ago...

    You hit the nail on the head as to the intractability of this conflict. The thing is, one side claims that it is modern, Western and free of religious mumbo-jumbo, despite the very basis of its existence being steeped in theocracy.

  • raymonddelauney raymonddelauney

    10 Aug 2010, 9:33PM

    millfield

    So you read from the same book as Yassar Arafat.

    He had a name for this concept of peace

    "The peace of the brave"

    Meaning the destruction of Israel piece by piece

    To look at it it another way..

    The redaction of the jigsaw that was Palestine, piece-by-peace talks.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest posts

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed