There was a lot of hype this week about President Obama’s address to the “Muslim world” that he delivered some time Thursday early morning in Cairo. I looked upon this delivery with skepticism – as a Muslim in America, to me the Muslim world is here, not there. Being Muslim is a faith, not a region. As if reading my mind, The White House released the following video.
One of the questions that I did have about President Obama in regards to the Muslim community was how there was a lack of representation in his administration. We all know Israeli army serving Rahm Emanuel is his Chief of Staff, and with that appointment, it was pretty clear that the Palestine-Israeli conflict was not going to be resolved for the next four years. What we see in the video is three prominent Muslims (two of them Desi) serving in the White House administration, yet, it still seems to me that their positions are not high profile enough to influence international and domestic policy.
I’m not totally bashing on the President for his Muslim politics. In fact, Obama’s speech today does take a surprising amount of ownership over the power the United States has inflicted on the “Muslim world.”
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam. [newyorktimes]
His speech is articulate and smart. He continues to talk about his personal relationship with Islam, as well as the intertwined history of Muslims in America.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. T… And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library. [newyorktimes]
To me, the video and the speech are both what I as a Muslim in America wanted to see at minimum come out of Obama’s leadership when I voted for him. His first hundred days plus some have filled me with slight skeptism that he was just another cog in the wheel. His boycott of the United Nation’s Conference on Racism because of language around Israel reinforced this in my mind. Though I realize change can’t happen over night, I do feel like this week he has finally taken the right steps to start building bridges. I guess we’ll just have to see how the rest of the Muslim world accepts his speech and how soon action to words follow.
it is interesting you mention Rahm’s appointment amidst talking about Muslim representation in the US govt. As in look anti-Muslim yes, Muslim no.
You mention that it it is his appointment which means that the Israeli-Pal. conflict can’t get resolved in four years. I’d say the reason it can’t get resolved is that even an American Muslim hates Israel so much as to equate a mere brush with it as anti-Islam.
Excellent post!
First of all, Taz, hang on tightly — the haters on this site will come out in full force. Please moderate the thread like crazy and delete the nut jobs so we can have a decent conversation about Muslims in America without getting it derailed by the Hindu nationalists who litter this site.
“To me, the video and the speech are both what I as a Muslim in America wanted to see at minimum come out of Obama’s leadership: This is a very well put point. I did think the speech was remarkable and moving in remarkable ways. Acknowledging America’s overthrow democratic leaders like Iran’s Mohammed Mosaddeq was reassuring to hear because it is important to acknowledge how the decades of western interference (after colonialism post-50s) in Arab nations, especially during these nations’ postcolonial first steps towards nationhood, have kept many Arabs in essentially colonial grip. Unlike many other postcolonial nations, the old guard was never allowed to change. To hear Obama hint at that was powerful.
I think, though, Obama is trying. He is taking a lot of heat for forcefully demanding a halt to all settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (construction continues and armed rabid settlers continue to terrorize unarmed Palestinians, but Obama is at least publicly criticizing these — something not seen before). So the Muslim community in America needs to send him some encouragement. You’re right that with the like of Rahm in his cabinet not much will get done, but change to Mideast policy will never come from people on the hill. I don’t know about your experiences, but just 10 years ago I could not mention the word Palestinian without getting called antisemitic and labeled a terrorist. Nowadays, one in 10 people stop to ask me more questions. Muslims in America must keep speaking up. This is not about the Occupied Territories; it is about the entire region stuck in colonized mindset.
Thank you for your brave post.
Your attitude toward Rahm Emmanual also made me uncomfortable.
Why should his “Isrealiness” mean that he doesn’t want conflict resolution in the middle east? I think both Israelis and Palestinians would be happy if they could just feel safe.
Why is the Palestinian issue a Muslim issue or an Islamic issue? Shouldn’t it be an Arab issue, since there are many Christian Palestinians in Palestine? Why do desi-Muslims as a group invest so much of their emotions on an Israeli-Arab issue?
hypertree
Are you new to this blog ? Did you not know that hating Israel is very acceptable in this space. You need not have any proof that Rahm has ever been anti Muslim. Just the mere fact that he is Jewish is proof enough. If you ever point to the mountain of evidence that shows Muslim leaders and the common man on the Arab street are anti Jewish, that is concrete proof that you are anti Muslim.
Rahm Emmanuel is a hardline Zionist. He is not just “Jewish.” Nice try, Nara for trying to conflate the legitimate critique of someone who served in the Israeli Occupying Army and whose father is a well known Arab-hating racist. Try a new argument because equating anyone supporting palestinians with antisemitism is so 1980s and old. Boring.
I am also troubled by your comment on Rahm Emanuel and the UN conference. Do you for, example, believe that zionism is a form of racism? Please give a yes or no answer.
Personally, I would have liked Obama to also address the question of islamo-supremacy. There is a widespread belief amongst otherwise decent muslims that islam is inherently superior to other belief traditions. There is also a lack of awareness of the alliance between imperialism and islam that was repeatedly used by medieval kings when invading the “infidels”. Until thinking muslims incorporate these ideas as part of their mental makeup, just as thinking christians have done, it is very hard to have a balanced discussion.
A bit of a digression, but since someone mentioned Arab-Christians, National Geographic has a great article on their current diminishing population:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/arab-christians/belt-text
They are identified as a group which would be a great overlooked resource – as go betweens betweens the east and west in the Holy Land – as they have such close geographic and historical relationship with Arab Muslims,Israelis and Palestinians.
Taz,
you’re going to get asked about this more than once, but:
Rahm Emanuel is not the reason why the question of Palestine is unlikely to be solved. if the implication that a Jew with strong ties to Israel must, as a matter of nature, hamstring any substantive negotiations is actually intended–you’re squarely in anti-semite territory. Now if Obama had appointed John Hagee as his chief of staf…
It was clear a very long time ago that such a problem would not be ‘fixed’ in the near or long term. As much power as you see Obama holding, he can’t unilaterally cause the autocratic rulers of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to behave as if they were worried about the status quo of human rights in their own backyards.
Boycotting the the Durban conference bothers you how? That we refuse to participate in a process and council populated by the worst of all human-rights abusers? That we refuse to legitimize the UN, a body beholden not to immutable morals but it’s pressing need to survive and remain relevant by accomodating nearly every demand made by a recognized gov’t with regards to ‘purely internal’ disputes? Surely your progressive lenses haven’t blinded you to how the noble UN acted wrt to Sri Lanka?
Awesome!!
I will get to read conspiracy theories from “progressive” muslims on how Mossad was behind 9-11 attack. Fun fun.
Taz —
First, Rahm Emannuel never served in the IDF. He was a civilian volounteer in the 1991 Gulf War. Internet smears are ugly, and you shouldn’t propogate them. I think you should correct your post.
Second, Rahm Emmanuel’s personal background and family history should not be used to prejudge his policy views. Please link some policy statements he has made to indicate why you think his presence as Chief of Staff would influence US involvement in the IP confict.
I don’t think the presence of [random Muslim X] in an Obama adminsitration would indicate that Obama will not press for religious freedom in Saudi/Iran/Egypt. The arguments you are making about Emmanuel are the same arguments bigots make about the presence of Muslim Americans in the administration. It’s a bigot’s argument.
Anyway, all that aside, I agree that the “Muslim World” includes California and anywhere else. But you should notice that Obama talked about “Muslim Communities” and never used the phrase “the Muslim World”.
It would be better if you critiqued the speech that was actually given, rather than the one you imagine he gave.
Here’s just one piece of context for Rahm Emanuel, from the Jerusalem Post (a mainstream israeli newspaper): In an interview with Ma’ariv, Emanuel’s father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel. “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,†he was quoted as saying. “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.†The Ma’ariv article also quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently.
Great post Taz. I totally agree with you that appointing Rahm Emanuel to such a high level position did make it seem like Obama was going to continue the status quo regarding Israel and Palestine. I don’t think it’s antisemitic to question if someone with such strong ties to one party in the conflict (so strong that he actually served in the Isreali Army) can actually be unbiased regarding the conflict. However, I am very happy to see that Obama is being firm and principled regarding the settlement freeze even if it means upsetting Netenyahu.
I haven’t read his speech yet but from the excerpt you’ve quoted, it sounds really good.
Just finished reading the text. I’m curious why you seem to be be offended by the terminology. Is it Muslims being lumped into a homogenous “Muslim World”? Or “Muslim World” being used to refer to a specific region of the world while ignoring muslim communities in places like the US?
Nom Pakistan
Thanks for the ton of evidence that Rahm Emanuel is a hardline zionist. Are there any other kind of Zionists ? Or is hardline redundant ? Also, should one always refer to the Israeli Army as Israeli Occupying Army ?
The utter emptiness of the term South Asian can be seen on the hysterical responses to the Israeli-Palestinian issue from bangladeshis and pakistanis in North america. Indian muslims and indian muslim americans seem less exercised by the issue.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! And here I had assumed that since Farrakhan endorsed him, he is against the state of Israel. Now I am confused about which side of the slander I should take!
As Ikram said, some statements from Rahm about undivided Israel or any other such thing might maybe have added slightly more factual grounding to your statement, and even that would be tenuous unless you believe that Obama is going to toe Rahm’s pre-whitehouse line (assuming that it was anti Palestine in some way).
I usually enjoy Taz’s posts, and sharing the video is cool. However, the comment about Rahm Emanuel is offensive and distracts from the fact that the President’s speech today was groundbreaking and meaningful.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades. I know everyone has high-expectations of President Obama, but how can you expect him to resolve the conflict in his first term? And to assign the blame for this supposed inaction to Rahm Emanuel is offensive. First, it implies that anyone with an ethnic tie to another country (read: most people who read this blog) somehow cannot extract themselves from that tie to participate in American government with America’s best interests at heart. Second, it’s an insult to Obama’s intelligence–he doesn’t have any other advisors and he’s not smart enough to make his own policy decisions? Third, the comment, intentionally or not, has anti-Jewish undertones–out of line.
Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: Who cares about this conflict. Muslims have far more pressing issues to be fixated on, and yet, we are only fixated on this issue. Moreover, we WANT, at the subconscious level, for the problem to continue perpetually because this give us something to blame our short-comings on.
I am, of course, pro-Peace/pro-Palestinian, and I feel very bad for these big-hearted heros. However, I also feel bad for: 1. The Shias of Pakistan and the Middle East who have been victims of war. 2. The Chechens of South-West Russia who want their homeland. 3. The Muslims of Uighurstan/XinJiang. 4. The Muslima sisters of Pakistan who have absolutely no fair trial for matters of rape. 5. The Muslima sisters, once again, of Southern Asia who are systematically aborted as fetus. This is also happening amongst the Hindus and Sikhs. 6. The Muslims of Darfur. Desi and Arabic Muslims continue to ignore this problem, probably because we are both caste-minded and racist, and so we don’t raise enough noise on this. Or maybe it’s because non-Muslims aren’t to blame on this. 7. The achievement gap between identical ethnic groups split between Muslims and non-Muslims (i.e. Albanian Muslims VS Albanian Non-Muslims; Bosnians VS Croats/Serbians; Palestinian Christians VS Palestinian Muslims; Bengali Muslims VS Bengali Hindus; Punjabi Muslims (of Pakistan) VS Punjabi Sikhs/Hindus; Kashmiri Hindu/Sikh VS Kashmiri Muslim; etc.).
8. Kashmiri issue 9. Talibanization of Pakistan
I can name 72 reasons, but I’ll stop here.
It totally seems to me that we want this problem to exist forever so that we can blame our short-comings on “them”. This perpetuates our victim-mindset that we have.
Furthermore, Begum Taz, I’m saying this as a brother and with love. I also get the feeling that we get FAR MORE angry, vocal, and energized when a non-Muslim impacts negatively our community rather than when we kill 1,000,000 of our own people (like when the Western Pakistanis killed/raped lakhs of Eastern Pakistanis). So another words: A Muslim community would get more enraged if one of its member was slighted by a non-Muslim rather than if one Muslim group practiced systematic genocide against another Muslim group.
i see rahm’s appointment and the boycott of the racist conference as part of obama’s new beginning, without which his olive branches risk tranforming him into a randall terry character: an apologist for terror. He needs to find a way to address grievances with US foreign policy without enabling the bigotry at the heart of the crises, especially the persecution complex so common to hate groups. for example, by drawing the line where he finds muslim behavior unacceptable, he makes it easier to take a hardline on the settlers.
i understand the progressive disappointment with obama, but he didn’t promise a progressive path, rather a nuanced, post ideological and bipartisan one. apparently, he meant it b/c this really was a cahnge. i can’t imagine any other politician being able to do this, certainly not bush and cheney (though cheney could certainly do it on gay rights better than obamam), not even clinton even if she wanted to (and that debatable given that she voted for the war and ran to the right of obama (3am ad), and not the far left like kucinich, for the nevelle chamberalinish reasons i gave above.
i’m not endorsing this strategy but i appreciate the boldness and don’t see much downside. its certainly worth a shot.
Boston-mahesh,
This Israel-Palestinian ‘opium” was written eloquently by the Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy (hope I spelled her name right)
http://www.monaeltahawy.com/blog/?p=94
One thing she writes in that article —
Talking about Hizbollah and unwise leaders, has Hassan Nasrallah forgotten that while he rails against Egypt for aiding the blockade of Gaza that he lives in a country, Lebanon, keeps generations of Palestinian refugees in camps that serve as virtual jails?
And the demonstrators in Jordan and Lebanon? Who reminds them that in 1970, Jordan killed tens of thousands as it tried to control Palestinian groups based there, forcing the Palestine Liberation Army into Lebanon where in 1982, the Phalangists, Christian Lebanese militiamen, slaughtered 3,000 Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camp?
Not a single Phalangist has been held accountable for that massacre. An Israeli state inquiry in 1983 found Ariel Sharon, then defense minister, indirectly responsible for the killings at the refugee camps during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. But don’t hold your breath for an Arab inquiry. It is Israel that gives sense to our victimhood. The horrors we visit upon each other are irrelevant.
I see an excellent start for a decent conversation here. 🙂
this is the standard obama speech template.
start with “i feel you” – whether it is red america/i-bankers/white males/other such persecuted and oppressed groups soften them up with “i lived you” – get the biography and personal engagement in action continue with “i scold you” – can’t you just be responsible about killing/cheating/bigotry/whatever? segue to “you are part of a bigger tapestry” – we all have problems but together can’t we all live a better world end by calling upon God to bless and fix everything.
bye bye.
rahul: i can’t believe after all these years you have yet to grasp my central lesson: never underestimate Oprah and her disciples. the tide of history is against you, as fukuyama explained. you don’t spit into to the wind or tug on superman’s cape.
Why should Muslims be given high positions in his office? Because America happens to be at war with Islamic ideology? Muslims are less than 1% of the population, but they should make up a number of core positions in his staff?
Even if he made a Muslim his VP, it still wouldnt stop Muslim extremist from wanting to kill people. In fact extremist seem to target other Muslims more often than non-Muslims, so I dont think that this would change any extremist’s mind.
Obama’s Cairo speech is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlqLwCKkeY
Hey, not knocking, just observing. If people are buying what he’s selling, it must be good product, right? That is the central lesson of capitalism, innit?
I’ve watched Obama’s speech on the NYT website and read around it a little. I think his speech was very fair and balanced. He clearly said that Israel is a special ally of the US, but he also clearly stated that the settlements are illegitimate and Israel must respect the two state solution. He also called on the Palestinians and Arabs to reject violence. I thought it was especially interesting how he compared the Palestinian struggle to the African-American one.
Most commenters on the NYT’s blogs seem to be impressed with the speech. It’s especially interesting to read the response from young Arab students in Egypt and Jordan (on the Lede blog).
On a more serious note, the entire notion of a “Muslim world” which is simultaneously affected by words or deeds towards individual Muslims is extremely troublesome. The adherence to the concept of the ummah is problematic for the integration of Muslims into non-Muslim majority societies, and vice versa. (Sadly, this idea of unity does not seem to translate towards ending internecine rivalry between Muslim groups).
Not that I think this specifically is an issue Obama can or needs to address, but it is something that will affect how grievances are nursed and handled by the community.
right. unless he’s a black swan.
I don’t understand the title. Yes, Muslims (~7million according to Obama’s speech) form a part of the tapestry that is the USA, but it is not a Muslim world. Obama only talked about Muslim communities, although the mainstream media has been calling his speech as one towards the Muslim world, which I guess would consist of the countries that are a part of the OIC. He addressed a number of issues, the first of which was on Af-Pak (which is only tangential to the Cairo audience in the Arab world) and yet that doesn’t merit any mention in this writeup addressed to a primarily desi audience. Obama did have pretensions of addressing the Muslim world and should have ideally picked the center of the Muslim word, namely Mecca. But as a non-Muslim, he would not be even allowed to set foot in Mecca, let alone address a speech to the Muslims in a restrictive dictatorship like Saudi Arabia and hence his choice of cosmopolitan Cairo. Obama addressed other issues including Iraq, extremism, status of women in Muslim societies as well the Israel-Palestine issue, yet that is the only one that is covered in this writeup? I sense a severe sense of misplaced priorities among desi-muslim-american activists.
Yeah, why is that POTUS giving a speech in Cairo, Egypt with 90% Muslims called as an address to the Muslim world. Will he similarly address the Buddhist world in Beijing, China and Hindu world in Delhi, India with 80% Hindus. I wonder if his speeches in Washington D.C, US can be called as an address to the Christian world.
Just because there are X amount of Muslims here doesnt change the fact that the character of America is Protestant at heart. Now if the protestant character of America starts a protestant movement in Islam than it would be news.
I find your argument a bit flawed on two counts. First, just because Rahm Emanuel is Israeli doesn’t mean he(or Obama) are zionists, or that the president can’t approach the issue objectively. You presume. Second, there are a lot of issues on the foreign policy agenda pertaining to many different regions/countries. Do you necessarily need people from each race, nationality, ethnicity to hold cabinet posts to handle these issues effectively?
I usually find your posts interesting, but some of your statements here really diminish your credibility. Unfortunate and disappointing.
this whining about obama addressing the muslim world as one has got to stop, and i was very upset to see paul wolfowitz get in on the act. apologists have long tried to hyper-contextualize every islamic terrorist act in order to deny the international scope of the problem. seeing a jewish center get attacked in mumbai should’ve woken everyone up. bin laden is from saudi arabia, al-Zawahiri from egypt, and so on. Al-Qaeda knows how to tap into this pan-islamic identity and actively encourages muslims everywhere to adopt grievances from all over the world.
this collective muslim consciousness already exists and thus obama should address them as one in order to win hearts and minds. when he decides its time to divide and conquer he can take another tact.
Taz – “We all know Israeli army serving Rahm Emanuel is his Chief of Staff, and with that appointment, it was pretty clear that the Palestine-Israeli conflict was not going to be resolved for the next four years. What we see in the video is three prominent Muslims (two of them Desi) serving in the White House administration, yet, it still seems to me that their positions are not high profile enough to influence international and domestic policy.”
As an Indian Jew I find your statement above, based on malicious internet rumors, repugnant. I am sick and tired of South Asian Muslims blaming everthing on the Jews.
When the Punjabi [Sunni Muslim] Pakistanis were killing their Bengali Muslim and Hindu compatriots by the hundreds of thousands [compare to the total number of Palestinians killed by Israelis to date], was it the Jew’s fault? When the Pakistani and the Bangladeshi Army was over throwing democratically corrupt government’s of their respective nations, was it the Zionist’s pulling the strings? When a woman is condemned to death for a trumped up charge of “immorality” in Pakistan, it must be those dastardly Jews. Or, when Hindus are killed by the hundreds in Bangladesh, let’s blame these Jews.
“We all know Israeli army serving Rahm Emanuel is his Chief of Staff, and with that appointment, it was pretty clear that the Palestine-Israeli conflict was not going to be resolved for the next four years.”
Funny, this statement seems to imply that because RE is in Obama’s administration, that there is a pro-Israeli and anti Palestinian and anti Muslim agenda in the administration. While right wing conservatives slander Obama day and night that he is some closet Muslim liar bowing to the Saudi King. Slammed on two sides. I do not think either view is fair at all.
I think it may take more than four years to solve this, but not because of RE. This conflict in the middle east is long, especially because even after the partition of the Palestinian region into two states in 1922 the two sides are still fighting http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm, http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict.asp
whom are you kidding, chanakya? you are a troll that’s posted before on this site, not an indian jew.
Well, one can only hope for this great day under dear leaders modi and varun… 🙂
In defense of Rahm Emanuel, check out the panic that he and Obama are causing in the right-wing politics of Israel:
…quoted Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel telling an unnamed Jewish leader: “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent-status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister [of Israel].”
ezekiel – unless you are going to verify every commenter’s identity, i fail to see why it should matter whether i really am an indian jew. “ezekiel” is a jewish name; are you jewish?
p.s. if the owner of the blog is really interested, i can easily prove that i am who i claim.
chanakya, you claimed to be one, in some belief that it would add to the power of your comment, which is the only reason i called you out on it.
chanakya, no, i am not. but i used it because he is.
The point with clever speeches like these is to create space: space for difficult diplomatic actions that will make everyone uncomfortable to some extent, but are necessary. It’s also a much cheaper way to achieve long-term strategic objectives for the US. Whether any of this happens is up in the air, but displaying humility and respect (in a way that he can and seem genuine just because of who he is) can be very disarming. And that’s a start.
It’s not like ‘bombing “them” into freedom’ exactly worked..
“Muslim World is Here, Not There”
I see your point Taz, but I’m sure president obama is heading in the right direction. This is like taking baby steps. For some non-muslim americans to embrace american muslims as fellow citizens they have to be comfortable with their country of origin. As of now many muslim dominant countries do not consider the U.S. a “brotha” or vice versa. This is like the hostility towards Japanese Americans during WWII. Now that the U.S. and Japan are not in any conflict, nobody does that anymore. I know I know this kind of discrimination should not occur in the first place, but unfortunately not everyone in the world thinks like us. :[
To add to Manju’s very interesting point about the “Muslim world” scope of his remarks: Those protesting either from the right or the left don’t seem to really believe their own rationale for protest: I get the sense it’s more of rhetorical ploys to harp on Obama.
Does a neocon like Wolfowitz really not think in terms of the “Muslim world”?
Is the author of the post really indignant about “the Muslim world being here not there”, why would she then dwell on collective Muslim consciousness grievances regarding Israel (why is a person with connection to Israel the chief of Staff, why boycott a UN conference that was merely unfair towards Israel)
For a desi angle to the Cairo address by Obama, look no further than Reena Ninan on Fox News🙂
So the only way to broker peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to systematically ignore the opinions of anyone who sympathizes with Israel?
Color me skeptical.
“So the only way to broker peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to systematically ignore the opinions of anyone who sympathizes with Israel?”
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the US should systematically ignore the opinions of those who sympathize with Israel. However for the peace process to work, the US needs to be (or at least be seen as) an honest broker, which frankly it has not been in the past. Appointing someone with such strong ties to Israel to such an important position, together with the context of past US-Israeli-Palestinian relations seemed to be supporting the status quo. Thankfully, Obama’s subsequent steps show that he is willing to change this status quo in pursuit of peace.