Neocons Jihad against Egyptian Liberal Parties

The Ultimate Divide II

Neocons' Jihad

Against

Liberal Parties

In Egypt

Two weeks ago, I received the strangest call I could imagine. It was from a colleague from a liberal party from Sweden. He asked me what I thought of the Democratic Front Party of Egypt! At first, I did not understand the question. Why would someone from Sweden ask me, a member of another Egyptian liberal party, El Ghad; such a question? In explanation, he sent me a copy of an article which was published in a Swedish Newspaper, in Swedish; together with an English translation. The article accused the Democratic Front Party (DFP) of being anti-Semitic and urged Swedish liberals not to participate in Liberal International's Conference in Cairo hosted by DFP at the end of October. I was then made aware of an email campaign where messages with similar content were dispatched to members of Liberal International (LI) and the International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY). On the first day of Liberal International's conference in Cairo, a piece was published in Wall Street Journal with the title: "Why are Egypt's 'Liberals' Anti-Semitic?". In addition to throwing the racist accusation on DFP, this article now claimed that ALL Liberal Parties in Egypt, El Wafd, El Ghad and DFP are anti-Semitic!

Why would someone, or some institution or a group, exert so much effort in sending emails to members of Liberal International, Members of IFLRY, publishing articles in newspapers in Swedish, English and possibly other languages, to throw such accusations on assumingly fellow liberals? But are they fellow liberals? The accusers, you would assume are Liberals who are trying to safeguard liberal values. But no. The accusers, as it turns out, are self-professed Neocons. So, why would they take such an effort in trying to mend the liberal stream?

If it was just an article, then those could merely be opinions, published in response to allegedly racist comments. But when emails sent to members of Liberal International urging them not participate in LI's conference in Egypt, are followed by an article in Sweden then another in Wall Street Journal which was published at the same time as the conference, we must observe a concerted organizational effort and a Neocon campaign, indeed a crusade, some sort of Jihad against some invented infidels. A political campaign designed to discredit and weaken Egyptian Liberal Parties. Now, who would benefit from such a thing? Who would launch such a campaign and what would be the aim of such an effort? The writers are self-professed Egyptian Neocons, but what does that mean? What does it mean to be an Egyptian Neocon? In their words, it means that they believe that the USA, as a superpower, has the right and the obligation to spread "democracy" and "capitalism", by force if necessary, to other countries all over the world, starting with Muslim-majority Countries. However, here comes the puzzling piece. Whether their strategy was right or wrong, surely thriving Liberal Parties in Egypt, being one of these target countries, must help in achieving their aim, of spreading democracy and freedom in the world. Why then would Neocons exert so much effort in discrediting or weakening these parties? In their unholy Jihad against Egyptian Liberals, assumingly in coordination with some Neocon High Commander in some American institute, enterprise or think tank; Egyptian Neocons have attempted to harm the very cause they claim to promote. Liberal International Conference was held in Cairo as scheduled since none of the member parties took those claims seriously. But the instance showed the divide, between those who believe in peace and dialogue on one hand and those who push for confrontation and prophesize for an Armageddon.

Many Neocons believe that the confrontation is inevitable. That Liberal Parties in places like Egypt only delay such a confrontation and dilute the urgency of the situation. They prefer to see a clear and present danger of Islamist extremists as to justify immediate armed intervention. In a way, extremists on both sides have a common interim goal. They both desire to escalate things so that Armageddon draws near. How did this bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy of an Armageddon infiltrate the minds even of those who are not necessarily religious? Or is there some other hidden motive? Neocons secretly and publicly cheer for terrorist attacks. They may be saddened by the loss of human life of course, but they see in these terrorist attacks a tool to gather public support for their confrontational agenda. Neocons booed when President Obama visited Cairo last June and attempted to build bridges of friendship and reconciliation with Muslims around the world. They prefer escalation and conflict. They believe that efforts of peace and reconciliation will eventually fail and the sooner the US realizes that and gets into military action the better.

Neocons and extremists on both sides have become more obsessed with the strategy (of violent confrontation) that they have 'forgotten' the original aim of spreading their ideology. In fact, in their Jihad against Liberals and Liberal Parties, Neocons have proved that their idea of liberalism is in fact some form of a fascist 1984-style ideology, where a single view of righteousness is imposed upon the whole world by force and military power. "You are either with us with the terrorists" kind of thinking. Neocons have not learned anything from the failures in Vietnam, from the Soviet failures in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, from US failure in Iraq; where imposing a regime on a nation proved unsustainable. Because for a stable balance to occur, a system of government must come as the product of cultural, social and political interactions of each society. We can help democracy in a certain country to prosper, but no one can impose change by force on the way people think or live. Use of force to impose ideas or lifestyles has only proved counterproductive.

These same Neocons who label Egyptian Liberals as anti-Semitic, label Obama as a communist and a Muslims-appeaser. They have labels for everyone and they use rumors, doubts and fear, but for what aim? If the real aim of the accusers was to mend the Liberal practices in Egypt, you would think they would exert some effort in communicating with their peers in their locales. But their aim appears different. Their aim is to prevent people, particularly liberals, from coming together. Their aim is to sabotage understanding so that the same failed old policies of confrontation and invasion can be promoted.

It is ironic that the day has come when Neocons wear the crosses of liberalism and cry on the altar of anti-racism ! The day has come for Neocons to cry liberalism! It would have been laughable if the aims were not so dangerous. It is not just hypocritical or showy. It is way more organizationally sinister. It is another facet of the Ultimate Divide.

The Writer is a co-founder of El Ghad Liberal Party of Egypt

Hate-Mongers Panic

Obama Presents a Bold

Vision for Change to Come

Wael Nawara
Posted: June 5, 2009 11:20 AM

Obama Presents a Bold Vision for Change to Come

huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wael-nawara/obama-presents-a-bold-vis_b_211811.html


In his historic address to the Islamic World from Cairo, Obama demonstrated that he is more than a charismatic orator. He proved that he is a sensitive courageous world leader who has a vision for making peace and building a better world. Obama extended a steady hand of friendship to Muslims; with dignity, confidence and yet with sincerity and humility. He presented the challenges of having to jointly work together to build such better world. He recognized sources of tension, recent and historical, but he called for moving beyond the past, ending the viscous cycle of suspicion and discord and called for a new beginning. Obama made it clear that he rejected stereotyping against Muslims but he also expected Muslims to drop their stereotyping of the US as an empire which only seeks its self-interest. He cited the great contributions of Islam to human civilization but reminded Muslims with the great achievements of his own country, the United States of America.

As expected, Obama stressed his commitment to fight extremists and to withdraw from Iraq. He vowed to help Pakistan and Afghanistan economically. Obama, however, said things no other president, American or otherwise, has ever dared to say. For instance he spoke of his dream of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. He invited Hamas, an entity which is still on U.S. list of terrorist organizations, to take responsibility in uniting Palestinian people but demanded that it should desert armed resistance seeking just settlement through peaceful struggle. He also invited Iran for a new beginning without preset conditions, recognizing the negative role which the U.S. had played in overthrowing Mosaddegh's democratically elected government in the 50's.

On the issue of freedom of faith, Obama frankly mentioned the disturbing tendency amongst some Muslims to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's and called for upholding religious diversity -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Christian Copts in Egypt. What his eloquent speech did not say but indirectly implied, is that Muslims must pay more attention to what is being taught at their schools, preached at their mosques and communicated in their media. But the same message of tolerance should in fact also go to keen followers of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity; in Israel, the United States and the rest of the world.
Obama made it clear that the United States will not impose any specific form of democracy on countries of the region, but he affirmed his belief that basic human rights and freedoms are universal. He stressed that the United States will support countries which seek modernization and peaceful democratic transformation. He stressed his commitment to women's rights and listed a number of programs to empower women. He finally addressed the issue of economic cooperation and presented several programs designed to foster a spirit of partnership.

The speech was met with mixed reactions but there was a general consensus that his address was visionary, sincere, frank, fair, balanced and uplifting. He inspired his audience and left the people with hope that change is possible. He did not try to please the audience by only saying things they would like to hear omitting positions or commitments that may be problematic or unpopular. For instance he described U.S. bonds with Israel as unbreakable and accused those who question the Holocaust of being ignorant and hateful. More than 2,500 people present in the domed auditorium interrupted Obama's 55-minute speech thirty times with enthusiastic applauds then finally gave him a stand-up ovation as he was ready to leave the stage. The youth in particular received Obama's address with great enthusiasm. In the middle of the speech one member of the audience shouted, "We love you" and Obama responded spontaneously, "I love you too".

The event, which was co-hosted by Al Azhar and Cairo Universities, was held in the main auditorium of Cairo University. The huge hall which hosts three floors was almost full. The invitations of this event were hand-delivered by messengers acting on behalf of Egypt's Presidential Authority and included flags of the United States and Egypt on both sides of the card with Arabic text printed on one side and English on the other. The audience arrived at 10 a.m. but had to wait for three hours as President Obama's speech started at 1 p.m.!
The audience included Ahmed Nazif, the Prime Minister of Egypt, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Egyptian top officials, actors, celebrities, foreign diplomats, politicians, activists and students from Egypt and other Muslim-majority countries, in addition to staff of the US embassy in Cairo. A large number of Muslim and Christian religious scholars and leaders were seated in the front rows acknowledging the role which faith can play in making peace or promoting conflict in this part of the world where many people are keenly religious. The event received heavy coverage from local and international media organizations and Obama's entire visit was televised on air through several Egyptian TV channels, public and private. For the first time, Egyptian Authorities allowed bloggers to cover an event of this nature online.

Outside Cairo University was a small demonstration where mainly American and European protestors called on Obama to stop supporting Israel's siege of Gaza. This demonstration was obviously tolerated by the security forces in an effort from the Egyptian regime to remind Obama of the order of priorities! Shops and Kiosks in the area surrounding Cairo University were instructed to shut down for the day. Cairo streets, usually crowded with heavy traffic, were largely empty as most businesses and schools took the day off. On why the speech was scheduled for Thursday and not on Friday, which is the weekend holiday in Egypt, some speculated that the reason was to avoid potential angry riots organized by extremist Islamists which could have erupted following Friday's prayers springing out of the security authorities' control.

The audience, mostly Egyptians, loved Obama and admired his charisma. Obama used quotations from the Quran, Bible and Talmud several times. He showed depth in understanding the complex history and problems of the region. "He did not refer to the printed speech not even once!" many people made that remark, funnily enough, to add to Obama's legendary presentation skills. Most of the audience present in the auditorium or following the televised speech from home did not realize that Obama was reading the speech from transparent teleprompters strategically located on both sides in front of the podium. "Afla7 in Sadak" meaning "he will do well if he stays true to his words and delivers on his promises," this was another comment shared by many of those who followed the speech. They loved what Obama said and wished that there was a way to realize these aspirations of peace and prosperity.

His strong commitment for peace and human rights made one of the audience members say that "Obama is just too courageous! He is the bravest U.S. President since Kennedy. I hope he does not meet his tragic fate." Obama, however, stressed that building this desirable future must happen through partnership. That it is a joint responsibility and not a task that he or the United States can bring about alone.

Critics, including members of "Kifaya" movement, however, regarded Obama's visit as an attempt to bestow undeserved legitimacy over a repressive regime and saw Obama's speech addressing the Muslim world as no more than a PR stunt designed to deceive Muslims and Arabs. One day before his visit Obama had described Mubarak as a pillar of wisdom and stability in the region. "Kifaya," the word literally means "enough," which seeks to end Mubarak's 28-year authoritarian grip on power, viewed the visit and the address as a gimmick which aimed at distracting Arabs and Muslims from the fact that the United States main interests in the region are to guarantee Israel's security and supremacy and to ensure that the U.S. controls the region's vast oil reserves through oppressive regimes which are merely puppets dancing to US commands. Obama's speech was therefore weak on democracy and human rights by design. Some critics saw that the overwhelming enthusiasm with which Egyptians greeted Obama reflected a deficit in leadership in their own constituency and a longing for a Messiah who can deliver them out of their long suffering.

In the critics' eyes, Obama demanded that Palestinians give up armed struggle without promising any solid policy changes. Obama did not promise for instance to end an unnecessary U.S. tradition of blocking Security Council resolutions whenever the hint of blame was to be placed on Israel. This decades-long unfortunate tradition is seen as an American obstruction of international justice. As for helping to reach the desired end of a 2-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, what Obama had to offer was merely his "patience", thus possibly endorsing endless rounds of fruitless negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Obama confirmed his commitment to strongly oppose illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. This position however, was not accompanied by material policies and consequences should Israel fail to observe international law. The United States placed very stringent regulations on fund raising which may be used to finance extremist Islamist organizations. Obama did not offer or contemplate any remotely similar regulations designed to block fundraising activities in the United States if the funds would be funneled to Israel to finance the building of illegal Israeli settlements. Currently these generous donations from unsuspecting U.S. citizens are used to rebuild even bigger settlements as soon as the Israeli government dismantles some, making a mockery of the American and Israeli administrations' commitment in this regard. Further, Obama did not address the issue of reforming the United Nations, the Security Council structure and its decision-making process or talk about his vision of erecting an effective international justice system at some point in the future.

Critics accuse Obama's speech of being low on substance. Merely a collection of words nicely put together. But words is what speeches are usually made of. Today's address, however, may provide a starting point for a switch of the mindset, a change of heart and a paradigm shift. The dialogue has just started and today's words can provide a new way of thinking our common problems and mutual interests. It may serve as the preamble of an informal collective contract in which each party, Muslims, Arabs, Israelis and Americans must play its role and honor its commitments and obligations.

At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. Everyone will be watching closely for signs of real change in U.S. policy in days and months to come. Muslims will expect results and actions. Only words were released today. Words which signify dreams of a better future. But if these words and dreams are embraced and nurtured, they can grow and blossom. These aspirations can guide a continued dialogue and set a road map for a better future. Actions and policies to follow, however, is what will make these words and dreams more than rhetoric and turn them into design specifications for a truly better world.

Hate-Mongers Panic
As Obama's Sincerity
Touches the Hearts
Of the People

Read Part I .... at Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wael-nawara/obama-presents-a-bold-vis_b_211811.html

Actions and Words

Obama's Speech:

A Public Relations Stunt

Or a Vision

For Real Change

to Come?

As the world's attention is focused on Cairo, in anticipation of Obama's historic visit to Egypt and his address to the Islamic world, Kifaya, the Egyptian Protest movement, earlier today announced its intention to organize a demonstration in Cairo's busiest square tonight in protest of the much publicized visit. The leaders of Kifaya, (the word Kifaya literally means enough in Egyptian), regard the visit as an attempt to bestow undeserved legitimacy over a repressive regime and see Obama's speech addressing the Muslim world as no more than a PR stunt designed to deceive Muslims and Arabs. They view the visit and the address as a gimmick which aims at distracting Arabs and Muslims from the fact that the United States main interest in the region is to guarantee Israel's security and supremacy in addition to ensure that the U.S. controls the region's vast oil reserves through oppressive regimes which are merely puppets serving the US interests. Even in the United States itself, analysts are warning from losing this historic opportunity in rhetoric which does little in dealing with the real issues. The message they give is that actions matter more than words.

It is true that nothing can be said tomorrow, which in itself is capable of bringing about Obama's promise of hope and change. Only actions and policies to follow can do that. All that can be hoped from tomorrow's speech is to set a vision and a road map for the future marking a new phase of U.S.-Muslim relations. The people, however, will be watching out at how this vision is to be turned into actions in the months and years to come.

Tomorrow's speech can provide a starting point for a switch of the mindset, a change of heart and a paradigm shift. It should provide a new way of thinking our common problems and mutual interests. It may serve as the preamble of an informal collective contract in which each party must play its role and honor its commitments and obligations.

On this historic occasion, Obama may ask Muslims to pay more attention to what is being taught at their schools, preached at their mosques and communicated in their media. Incitement of hatred, the attitude of having a total monopoly over the truth, exclusion and self-righteousness when taught to young minds and shared by the elites and the masses on a national level will eventually lead to imminent clash and conflict. The same message of tolerance should be relayed to keen followers of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity; in Israel, the United States and the rest of the world.

Obama must also demand that the regimes adopt a long term approach of modernization and peaceful democratic transformation of Arab and Muslim countries. Reforms that would protect human rights, enshrine equality, create opportunity, celebrate diversity; pluralism and rejoice liberty. A true partnership for prosperity between the United States and countries of the region should see timely implementation of such reforms.

On the other hand, for Obama's speech to become more than a public relations stunt, Obama must also promise change in the American ways of conducting foreign affairs.

For starters, the United States should reverse an unnecessary tradition of blocking Security Council resolutions whenever the hint of blame is to be placed on Israel. This decades-long unfortunate tradition was equal to the United States' blocking of justice since U.N. Security Council is just about the only apparatus man has so far devised for collectively serving international justice. Second, the idea that negotiations alone between the Palestinians and Israelis can bring about a just peace is not realistic and has led to endless rounds of fruitless negotiations. Meanwhile, things on the ground were constantly changing creating even crueler realities for Palestinians. Peace became like an evasive mirage. Third, we are heartened to hear the new administration's commitment to a two-state solution and its strong position against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. This position however, must have material consequences should Israel fail to match its commitments.

For instance, the United States placed very stringent regulations on fund raising which will be used to finance extremist Islamist organizations Similarly, the new Administration must put in place equally strict regulations designed to block fundraising activities in the United States if the funds will be funneled to Israeli for financing building of illegal Israeli settlements. Currently these generous donations from unsuspected U.S. citizens are used to even rebuild bigger settlements as soon as the Israeli government dismantles some, making a mockery of the American and Israeli administrations' commitment in this regard.

At the end, change and global security is not the responsibility of America, Israel, the Arabs and Muslims alone. Obama should demand that all nations must work towards the creation of the better world we all seek, through compassion, economic cooperation and diligent efforts which aim at reforming the United Nations, the Security Council structure and its decision making process, as to finally erect an effective international justice system at some point in the future. A system which will significantly reduce conflict, violence and human suffering as it invests in our common humanity to enhance our common security and world peace at large.

Yes. It is true that actions speak louder than words, but it is words that will be exchanged tomorrow. Words which can create this shift of mindset and set a road map for a better future. Actions and policies to follow, however, is what will make these words more than rhetoric and turn them into design specifications for a truly better world.

By:

Wael Nawara

Actions and Words

Obama's Speech:

A Public Relations Stunt

or A Vision

for Things to Come?

As the world's attention is focused on Cairo, in anticipation of Obama's historic visit to Egypt and his address to the Islamic world, Kifaya, the Egyptian Protest movement, earlier today announced its intention to organize a demonstration in Cairo's busiest square tonight in protest of the much publicized visit. The leaders of Kifaya, (the word Kifaya literally means enough in Egyptian), regard the visit as an attempt to bestow undeserved legitimacy over a repressive regime and see Obama's speech addressing the Muslim world as no more than a PR stunt designed to deceive Muslims and Arabs. They view the visit and the address as a gimmick which aims at distracting Arabs and Muslims from the fact that the United States main interest in the region is to guarantee Israel's security and supremacy in addition to ensure that the U.S. controls the region's vast oil reserves through oppressive regimes which are merely puppets serving the US interests. Even in the United States itself, analysts are warning from losing this historic opportunity in rhetoric which does little in dealing with the real issues. The message they give is that actions matter more than words.

It is true that nothing can be said tomorrow, which in itself is capable of bringing about Obama's promise of hope and change. Only actions and policies to follow can do that. All that can be hoped from tomorrow's speech is to set a vision and a road map for the future marking a new phase of U.S.-Muslim relations. The people, however, will be watching out at how this vision is to be turned into actions in the months and years to come.

Tomorrow's speech can provide a starting point for a switch of the mindset, a change of heart and a paradigm shift. It should provide a new way of thinking our common problems and mutual interests. It may serve as the preamble of an informal collective contract in which each party must play its role and honor its commitments and obligations.

On this historic occasion, Obama may ask Muslims to pay more attention to what is being taught at their schools, preached at their mosques and communicated in their media. Incitement of hatred, the attitude of having a total monopoly over the truth, exclusion and self-righteousness when taught to young minds and shared by the elites and the masses on a national level will eventually lead to imminent clash and conflict. The same message of tolerance should be relayed to keen followers of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity; in Israel, the United States and the rest of the world.

Obama must also demand that the regimes adopt a long term approach of modernization and peaceful democratic transformation of Arab and Muslim countries. Reforms that would protect human rights, enshrine equality, create opportunity, celebrate diversity; pluralism and rejoice liberty. A true partnership for prosperity between the United States and countries of the region should see timely implementation of such reforms.

On the other hand, for Obama's speech to become more than a public relations stunt, Obama must also promise change in the American ways of conducting foreign affairs.

For starters, the United States should reverse an unnecessary tradition of blocking Security Council resolutions whenever the hint of blame is to be placed on Israel. This decades-long unfortunate tradition was equal to the United States' blocking of justice since U.N. Security Council is just about the only apparatus man has so far devised for collectively serving international justice. Second, the idea that negotiations alone between the Palestinians and Israelis can bring about a just peace is not realistic and has led to endless rounds of fruitless negotiations. Meanwhile, things on the ground were constantly changing creating even crueler realities for Palestinians. Peace became like an evasive mirage. Third, we are heartened to hear the new administration's commitment to a two-state solution and its strong position against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. This position however, must have material consequences should Israel fail to match its commitments.

For instance, the United States placed very stringent regulations on fund raising which will be used to finance extremist Islamist organizations Similarly, the new Administration must put in place equally strict regulations designed to block fundraising activities in the United States if the funds will be funneled to Israeli for financing building of illegal Israeli settlements. Currently these generous donations from unsuspected U.S. citizens are used to even rebuild bigger settlements as soon as the Israeli government dismantles some, making a mockery of the American and Israeli administrations' commitment in this regard.

At the end, change and global security is not the responsibility of America, Israel, the Arabs and Muslims alone. Obama should demand that all nations must work towards the creation of the better world we all seek, through compassion, economic cooperation and diligent efforts which aim at reforming the United Nations, the Security Council structure and its decision making process, as to finally erect an effective international justice system at some point in the future. A system which will significantly reduce conflict, violence and human suffering as it invests in our common humanity to enhance our common security and world peace at large.

Yes. It is true that actions speak louder than words, but it is words that will be exchanged tomorrow. Words which can create this shift of mindset and set a road map for a better future. Actions and policies to follow, however, is what will make these words more than rhetoric and turn them into design specifications for a truly better world.

By

Wael Nawara

Obama vs. Obama

Obama Egypt Speech:

Will Obama The Man Keep Up With Obama The Legend?

Read this in Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/obama-egypt-speech-will-o_n_209932.html

Obama vs. Obama

During his visit to Cairo, Obama can write a new chapter in history. The idea that the American President will address Islamic Nations from Cairo, capital of Egypt and home to Al Azhar University carries a symbolic gesture that can open the door for a new era of dialogue and understanding between the West and Muslims. For decades, Muslims have been accumulating negative feelings of victimization and accusing the U.S. of using double standards especially as a result of the lingering Palestinian suffering. Muslims blame the U.S. for its blind support to Israel shielding it from Security Council resolutions and international justice. During the last 8 years, the curve of the relationship dived to its lowest levels ever, with President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and his “War on Terror” which Muslims saw as being mainly directed against them.

The war against extremism and violence, however, is a war of minds and hearts. Hearts that could never be won through use of military power or invasion. With every civilian casualty falling in the crossfire in Iraq for instance, the U.S. would acquire new enemies and lose potential friends. The war against fanaticism should have been fought against injustice, intolerance, poverty and oppression. It should have been fought through creation of opportunity, hope and change of dire circumstances leading to frustration and despair. This gesture to address Muslim grievances comes at a critical hour in the history of our world. This opportunity may not come again.

The war against extremism, hatred and exclusion is everyone’s war. Obama should engage Muslims everywhere to side with peace, freedom and tolerance. During his campaign, Obama enjoyed tremendous support in this part of the world. People placed very high hopes on Obama to deliver the change he promised and fix what they saw as decades-long problems. Upon his historic victory, most Muslims cheered and celebrated. The biggest challenge facing the American President is this image of a Superhero-Obama who can fix all problems and solve all complex issues. Obama must therefore walk on very thin ice in trying to balance between aspirations and realities. Between promises and policies. Between what is said now and what can practically be implemented during his term or terms as a President. For instance he must try to balance between Israel’s security and Palestinian rights. Between amicable relations with existing regimes ruling Muslim countries and long-term friendship with the people who regard these regimes as oppressive and corrupt. Between regional stability and demands for reform and democracy.

Some pessimists regard the choice of Cairo as the venue for this historic address as blow which undermines U.S. commitment to democracy and human rights. Supporters of neocon hard-line confrontational approaches are now saying “we told you so”, pointing out that this choice of venue gives a blank check to oppressive regimes and shows that the new administration’s support for democracy in the Middle East has waned. Aly Eddin Helal, a senior ranking member of the ruling NDP party in Egypt, in an interview with Al Ahram Daily paper last Friday, saw the visit as a signal that critics of the Egyptian regime who had been calling for democracy, reform and respect of human rights have lost their bets. Optimists, on the other hand, believe that Obama’s policy of using soft power, with publicized friendly gestures towards governments carries a less visible side within. They believe that tough diplomacy demanding progress and reform behind closed doors has been much more effective than Bush’s blunt rhetoric which was ill-received and produced negative reactions from old stubborn leaders in an area of the world where public scolding leads to losing face.

The stakes are high and so are the expectations. Muslims will listen to Obama and he has a chance to get to their hearts and minds. He can frankly tell Muslims that they need to change their ways. But he has to provide them with alternative means of getting their justice. The United Nations and the structure of the Security Council have both failed to justly address Muslim issues. This contributed to rise of terrorism and political advances enjoyed by extremist political factions. Obama now has what no other Western leader have ever had, a feeling amongst people in this part of the world that they can relate to him. That he in turn can relate to them and understand suffering of the weak and the marginalized. That their pleas can find sympathetic ears from someone who managed to move through the ranks and achieve what was once considered an impossible accomplishment. Obama remains hero of the people. And that is a tough place to be. Obama the man has to try hard to keep up with Obama the legend. This is the challenge before Obama.

Written By
Ayman Nour
&
Wael Nawara