blog

Things Only Changed to Stay the Same in Egypt

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 05:52:40 +0100

It's hard to believe in change in Egypt these days. The military is using the same lame tactics to derail the democratic process. Using an exaggerated fear of religious war (Muslims against Christians) to deflate attention from deficient leadership. This is sad.

The Arrogance of Rumsfeld and the tactless Al-Jazeera

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:30:17 +0100

I'm not sure what to make of Donald Rumsfeld's recent raucous interview with Al-Jazeera's Washington bureau chief, Abderrahim Foukara. Foukara didn't mince his words and asked Rumsfeld some tough questions about American responsibility in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because "American troops did not properly secure the borders of Iraq." Rumsfeld's answer as Foukara kept insisting on an answer was to tell the reporter that it's in his "being" and nature to be disrespectful "because that's what you people do". I can't believe the arrogance of Rumsfeld, as if nobody, particularly from that part of the world, could ever question his judgment. Foukara should have kept his cool and just reframed the question without slightly raising his voice, but it was a remarkable moment of truth about a man whose reckless war policies and vicious rhetoric many years after the fact had never been submitted to the grinding of a frank journalism interview in American media.

Series on Muslims in Colorado in the Denver Post

Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:19:04 +0100

I'm delighted to see the Denver Post step up its coverage of the Muslim community in Colorado. The 3-day series "Muslims in America" by Eric Gorski chronicles the experience of Somali Muslim refugees in Fort Morgan and the impact of 9/11 a decade after. A quick look at the comments section online validates why this kind of reporting is much warranted. (it's amazing to me how someone can link Roe v. Wade to Somali refugees in Colorado). I believe most DP readers will appreciate the nuanced realities of Muslims in their state. I wish these features could continue throughout the year to lift the veil of secrecy that often shrouds Muslim communities and their places of worship in America. We're excited that the Center for Media, Religion and Culture and the Center for Asian Studies at the University of Colorado will be revealing their website on Muslims in the Mountain West in September. We'll be featuring podcasts, stories, profiles, and a rich archive of old articles on Islam in the West. In the Spring of 2012, we will host a mobile multimedia installation in Denver to showcase the findings of our research through video, audio and text narratives.

Egypt's Jon Stewart to Begin Show in Ramadan

Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:47:06 +0100

Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian heart surgeon turned media celebrity, will begin his new show Al Barnamag (the Show) on private channel On Tv tomorrow, the first day of Ramadan. The Show, a satirical take on news a la Jon Stewart, follows a remarkably successful show on Youtube Youssef hosted in his Cairo apartment in March in which he exposed the hypocrisy of political life and mocked the reaction of celebrities during the revolution. Youssef will have to thread carefully as he attempts to restore the accountability of politics and media in Egypt, but his contribution will certainly make a difference in a society where all ideologies can finally participate (not equally) in the political process.

Arab American Stand-Up Comic's Portrait on AJE

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:04:34 +0100

Arab and Muslim-American stand-up comedy is making some large inroads and AJE's One on One program has just featured one of its most prominent comedians, Ahmed Ahmed. Very interesting broadcast.

Netanyahu's War on Peace

Thu, 26 May 2011 02:47:14 +0100

It was extremely painful to listen to Netanyahu's speech to Congress on Tuesday and see how U.S. representatives and senators eagerly cheered the Israeli prime minister's defiance and political arrogance. His categorical refusal to deal with the Palestinians now that Fatah and Hamas have united is reckless at best. Yes, Hamas is a radical organization that uses violence to achieve its ends, but it does play a critical role in Palestinian society, at times providing better social and economic services than the moderate Fatah. I certainly don't condone Hamas' tactics, but they must be engaged like any other political force and maybe their inclusion in the negotiation process will force them to make compromises. That's how the PLO was brought to the negotiating table. But Netanyahu is not interested in peace as much as he's bent on finding hurdles not to negotiate with Palestinians. This is not the right time to be defiant on this issue, now that the Arab world is erupting from the bottom up. Netanyahu could have extended a peaceful hand but unfortunately chose not to. He came to Washington to flex Israel's muscles in complete disregard of the fate of Palestinians and the hopes of peace for his own people. Both Fatah/Hamas and the Israelis must understand that peace in their land requires fresh thinking much like millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to tell their leaders they must part with their old ways or leave. There was no vision for peace in Netanyahu's declarations and I wonder how he plans to break the stalemate in the negotiation process. This conflict has been bloody enough on both sides and nobody should cheer an official who is clearly fanning the flames of tension and perpetual discord. This is typical of Bibi.

Congress sent the worst message to Palestinians and Arabs at this important historical juncture as they looked in awe of Netanyahu, honoring his speech with 30 standing ovations, a reception the prime minister couldn't dream of back home. The more he insisted on Jerusalem never again falling in the hands of Palestinians, the more applause he got. The applause became even more rapturous when Netanyahu used biblical names (Judea and Samaria) to refer to the West Bank. Jews are not foreign occupiers of Judea and Samaria, he said. Are these words part of the "painful concessions" Israel is willing to make? And how could there be any peace if Netanyahu still thinks that the West Bank is part of Israel? How could there be any hope for peace with no compromise on Jerusalem. Everyone knows Palestinians cannot consider any deals that do not include concessions on Jerusalem. As Carlo Strenger said on Haaretz today, "Netanyahu's win is Israel's loss". Israelis cannot afford more isolation when Palestinians force a vote at the UN in September to welcome an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with the 1967 borders, including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Germany, France and Britain all agree negotiation should be based on 1967 borders with equivalent land swaps. The vote could indeed go through. As Israeli former prime minister and current defense minister Ehud Barak said, "It [the UN vote] is a very dangerous situation, one that requires action...Paralysis, rhetoric, inaction will deepen the isolation of Israel.”And rhetoric is the only thing Netanyahu delivered in Washington.

Israel Is Stuck On Hamas Mode

Mon, 23 May 2011 04:19:39 +0100

Obama's Mideast speech this week has pleased no one, it seems. Some Arab commentators said President Obama should have apologized for the U.S. unwavering backing of the region's most brutal dictators over the years. Israelis had a fairly usual Israeli reaction. "The 1967 borders are indefensible," said Prime Minister Netanyahu on Friday at the White House. Many others said Obama only reacts to changes in the region and has proven unable to change or guide them. "Leadership in the passive voice," as one columnist headlined on Aljazeera English today. Yes, there were things Obama could have said. I found his failure to mention Saudi Arabia, for instance, to be a reckless omission and he should have said that Israel should accept criticism and respect international law. The speech was still minimally courageous and that should be recognized, particularly by Arabs at this juncture in the history of the region. Just listen to Netanyahu on Friday almost pleading with Obama not to take Israel again to the 1967 lines. I can't remember any other time when an American president has explicitly put an Israeli prime minister in this delicate situation and one day before his arrival to Washington.Obama stood firm by his position on the 1967 lines today when he addressed the AIPAC conference, although he emphasized any negotiations should involve land swaps. Let's be clear about this. The principles for negotiation Obama has proposed on Thursday are not new. Going back to the 1967 lines, including East Jerusalem, has been called for by the United Nations (more than 130 countries), the European Union, and many other international organizations, but Israel has always shrugged them off as a non-starter. Palestinians will not give up Jerusalem and no land swaps can be a worthy substitute.

I firmly believe in a two-state solution, but It's hard to understand exactly what Israel wants. Mahmood Abbas has never been a serious negotiating partner for Israelis. He was weakened until Hamas took over Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist organization and should not even be spoken to. Now that Hamas and Fatah have united, then there can be no peace anymore. Will the conditions ever be good enough to negotiate? Even Hamas once accepted to negotiate with Israel if the 1967 lines were acknowledged.

I understand that Palestinians have their part to play, but it's time an American president spoke some sense into the Israeli government. I hope Obama can stay the course and not retreat once the criticism from Israel, the Jewish lobby and the republican party heats on. What I like about Obama's speech on Thursday is that it took away some of the firm grip the Israeli government has had on the framing of this conflict in the United States. It might not be much to some, but I think it's some progress in the right direction. Israel needs to draw some lessons from the tectonic events of the last six months in the region and adopt a different, smarter, and more accommodating policy to resolve this conflict. This generation of young Arabs is amazingly media savvy and if there is anything they've learnt from the spring events is that framing your position well and defending it peacefully through media and street campaigns works better than anything else. Israel is still stuck in Hamas mode, but the ground is changing all around them and all they tell us is we have to watch out for the extremist elements that might emerge out of this transition in the Arab world. This is exactly the Muabarak-Ghaddafi-Ben Ali rhetoric millions of Arabs have revolted against.

Another important change Israelis have to watch for is that young American Jews are much more critical and less willing to adopt an Israel-no-matter-what-support like their parents or grandparents. We saw some of these changes play out around the Gaza assault of 2009. Young Jews are willing to talk and avoid a group think mentality, which is exactly what young Arabs have articulated through their protests recently. I hope President Obama is responding to these changes too by putting some pressure on Israel.

Transcript of Obama's Mideast Speech

Thu, 19 May 2011 23:47:38 +0100

I always find it better to read important speeches like the one President Obama gave today on democracy in the MIddle East and North Africa and the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Here is the transcript:

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please have a seat. Thank you, very much.

I want to begin by thanking Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark: 1 million frequent flyer miles.

I count on Hillary every single day. And I believe that she will go down as one of the finest secretaries of state in our nation's history.

You know, the State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy.

For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow.

And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith.

Today I want to talk about this change, the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security.

Now, already we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts.

After years of war in Iraq, we've removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we've broken the Taliban's momentum. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead.

And after years of war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, we have dealt al-Qaida a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate, an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change.

He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism. His agenda focused on what he could destroy, not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents, but even before his death al-Qaida was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life.

By the time we found bin Laden, al-Qaida's agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On [Dec. 17], a young vendor, named Mohamed Bouazizi, was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart.

This was not unique. It was the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world, the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity.

Only this time, something different happened: After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel and lit himself on fire.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movement for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years.

In America think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a king, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat.

So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor's act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets they refused to go home, day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution and ones that followed should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not; in too many countries power has been concentrated in the hands of a few; in too many countries a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn, no honest judiciary to hear his case, no independent media to give him voice, no credible political party to present his views, no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

And this lack of self-determination, the chance to make your life what you will, has applied to the region's economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth and oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground, nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people's grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression.

Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding onto power or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world, a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. And so a new generation has emerged, and their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo we heard the voice of the young mother who said, "It's like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time."

In Sanaa, [Yemen,] we heard the students who chanted, "The night must come to an end."

In Benghazi, [Libya,] we heard the engineer who said, "Our words are free now. It's a feeling you can't explain."

In Damascus, [Syria,] we heard the young man who said, "After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity."

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age, a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication, people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks.

But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days and there will be bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual.

And as we've already seen, calls for change may give way in some cases to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is, what role America will play as this story unfolds.

For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region. Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Securing the free flow of commerce and safeguarding the security of the region. Standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things with the firm belief that America's interests are not hostile to people's hopes, they're essential to them.

We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region or al-Qaida's brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cutoff in energy supplies.

As we did in the gulf war, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.

Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense.

Given that this mistrust runs both ways, as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens, a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world. And that's why two years ago in Cairo I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then, and I believe now, that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.

The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they're built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face a historic opportunity: We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.

There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity.

Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It's not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo. It was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it is people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.

Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy. And there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region.

But we can and we will speak out for a set of core principles, principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months

The United States opposes the use of violence or repression against the people of the region.

The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders, whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today, I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific.

First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy. That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high, as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world's largest nation.

Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership.

But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence.

The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gadhafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats.

As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action and heard the Libyan people's call for help.

Had we not acted, along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: Keep power by killing as many people as it takes.

Now, time is working against Gadhafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible interim council. And when Gadhafi inevitably leaves, or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it's not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power.

Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens.

The United States has condemned these actions and, working with the international community, we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime, including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy, and President [Bashar] Assad now has a choice. He can lead that transition or get out of the way.

The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Daraa and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.

Otherwise President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad.

So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stands for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home.

Let's remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail.

We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change with change that's consistent with the principles that I've outlined today.

That's true in Yemen, where President [Ali Abdullah] Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power.

And that's true today in Bahrain. Bahrain is a longstanding partner and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.

Nevertheless, we have insisted, both publicly and privately, that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens. And we will -- and that such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away.

The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue. And you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.

The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict.

In Iraq we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they've taken full responsibility for their own security.

Of course, like all new democracies they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in with friend and foe alike.

Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States.

We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites so that we reach the people who will shape the future, particularly young people.

We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease.

Across the region we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with and listen to the voices of the people.

For the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts, we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet and the right of journalists to be heard, whether it's a big news organization or a lone blogger.

In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important, even if what is said does not square with our worldview.

Let me be clear: America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy.

What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others and to hold power through coercion and not consent.

Because democracy depends not only on elections but also strong and accountable institutions and the respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion.

In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant "Muslims, Christians, we are one." America will work to see that this spirit prevails, that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them.

In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as [Shiites] must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. And that's why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men, by focusing assistance on child and maternal health, by helping women to teach or start a business, by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard and to run for office.

The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.

Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can't stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family.

Too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people.

In the recent protests we see that talent on display as people harness technology to move the world. It's no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google.

That energy now needs to be channeled in country after country so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. For just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

So drawing from what we've learned around the world, we think it's important to focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness and the reins of commerce pass from the few to the many and the economy generates jobs for the young.

America's support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy. And we're going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we've asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's [Group of Eight] summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt.

Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship.

We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation.

And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we're working with Congress to create enterprise funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. And these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

[The Overseas Private Investment Corporation] will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa.

If you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement.

And, just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress: the corruption of elites who steal from their people, the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business, the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect.

We will help governments meet international obligations and invest efforts at anti-corruption, by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable.

Politics and human rights, economic reform.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation and never living in a nation of their own.

Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations.

Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on and sees nothing but stalemate.

Indeed, there are those who argue that, with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree.

At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.

That's certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable and we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.

But precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel, too, must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism, in which millions of people, not just one or two leaders, must believe peace is possible.

The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, not by the United States, not by anybody else. But endless delay won't make the problem go away.

What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows: A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples, Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense and Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.

The full and phased withdrawal of Israel military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state. Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.

I am aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provide -- provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table.

In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.

Meanwhile, the United States, our quartet partners and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I'm convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past.

We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones.

That father said, "I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict."

We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza.

"I have the right to feel angry," he said. "So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope," he said, "for tomorrow."

That is the choice that must be made, not simply in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region: a choice between hate and hope, between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future.

It's a choice that must be made by leaders and by people. And it's a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful.

In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, "Peaceful. Peaceful."

In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square, where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known.

Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar.

Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved.

And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union, organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa, words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

It will not be easy, there is no straight line to progress and hardship always accompanies a season of hope.

But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable and more just.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you. Thank you.

Egypt's Cannes Film Entry

Tue, 17 May 2011 15:31:46 +0100

It was just a matter of days before Egyptian filmmakers turned the revolution in their country into a film. Tamantahsar Yom (18 Days) is a collection of 10 shorts chronicling the events leading up to the removal of Mubarak's regime. The film is being shown at the Cannes Film Festival where Egypt has been invited as a "country guest" to celebrate its landmark revolution. There is already some controversy surrounding two filmmakers in this project who are accused of working too closely with the old regime. Another film to watch is La Sources des Femmes (the Source) a comedy by Radu Mihaileanu is set in rural Morocco and is about a group of women who refuse to please their men until they get justice. You can watch both trailers below.

Can Bin Laden's Death Be the Beginning of a New American Mideast Policy?

Mon, 09 May 2011 03:02:42 +0100

As I said in my last post, you will see no ambivalence on this blog about the death of bin Laden. The questions I still have are not about the legitimacy of this surgical strike, but about why it took so long to take him out and why thousands of American soldiers and scores of Iraqis and Afghans had to die for something that could have been achieved right after 9/11. Arab (not only Pakistani or Afghani) regimes should also share the blame in this vicious negligence. Bin Laden's evil rhetoric and actions have been a cancer for all Muslims, despite the fact that they appealed only to a fringe group who unfortunately expressed their paranoia in spectacularly destructive ways. And there can be no wavering in the face of destruction and indiscriminate killing. Focusing on these questions, however, is not the most productive thing to do now. Bin Laden's demise presents the United States with a golden opportunity to rethink its Middle East-North Africa policy, particularly as the region itself is going through a remarkable moment of political and social renewal. The most urgent question now is can bin Laden's death usher in a new era in dealing with the Middle East?

The recent pictures released this weekend of bin Laden watching his own tapes on an old small tv screen cluttered with cables made me think of what went through his mind as he was watching millions of Arabs in the street clamoring for social parity, gender equality, democracy; not really his own ideals. It must have been maddening for him to see that no placard or chant mentioned his name. The fact that he hid in a villa in Pakistan all these years is quite symbolic of his isolation from the larger Arab/Muslim public who never bought into his rhetoric. Yes, Americans are still baffled by his hiding skills, but the leader of Al-Qaeda was also hiding from the bitter reality of the Arab street, and the recent uprisings in many countries not only upstaged him but eerily confirmed his own irrelevance and lack of legitimacy. This is what the Obama administration should take away from the recent turn of events in the Middle East. I hope that the decision to finally get serious about the elimination of bin Laden marks also the deliberate severing of an old patronizing and Orientalist American intervention in the region. Arabs too crave free speech, fair elections, and accountable leadership and they don't want to be bombed into acquiring them. We saw how that story went in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the time to turn the page and heat up the rhetoric against dictatorships including those of cozy allies in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, without intervening with military force. This will involve risks and maybe even some short-term chaos as is the case in Egypt, Libya and Syria, but the long-term benefits of a democratic Middle East/North Africa are worth the trouble.

Obama's administration needs to instrumentalize bin Laden's death not only to score political points for 2012, but also to help stabilize a region which has suffered too much from cultural stagnation, political paralysis and international oil greed. The people demonstrating in Arab streets today have already shown a remarkable political maturity and a willingness to build and lead. This is the best blow to deal bin Laden and his politics of fanaticism. They should be strategically cultivated into the partners of tomorrow, if we are serious about a fundamental change in the region. Both the Arab Spring and Obama's military action in Abottabad are only milestones in the fight to puncture what remains of the aura of bin Ladenism, but most importantly, they are milestones in the long path toward real and meaningful change in the Muslim world.