Can Obama Offer Change the Muslim World Can Believe In?

In an indispensable commentary on Obama and the Middle East, Rob Malley and Hussein Agha conclude with some important advice to the President who heads to Cairo this week to address “the Muslim world”:

A window exists, short and subject to abrupt closure, during which President Obama can radically upset Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim preconceptions and make it possible for his future plan, whatever and whenever it might be, to get a fair hearing—for American professions of seriousness to be taken seriously. It won’t be done by repackaging the peace process of years past. It won’t be done by seeking to strengthen those leaders viewed by their own people as at best weak, incompetent, and feckless, at worst irresponsible, careless, and reckless. It won’t be done by perpetuating the bogus and unhelpful distinction between extremists and moderates, by isolating the former, reaching out to the latter, and ending up disconnected from the region’s most relevant actors.

It won’t be done by trying to perform better what was performed before. President Bush’s legacy was, in this sense, doubly harmful: he did the wrong things poorly, which now risks creating the false expectation that, somehow, they can be done well.

Since taking office, President Obama has taken great pains, at least rhetorically, to distinguish himself from President Bush. He has vowed to close the prison camp at Guantanamo and abide by the rule of law in the treatment of detainees; he has vowed to end the war in Iraq; he has declared his intention to reach out for talks with Iran; and he has vowed to revive the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Obama’s openness to engagement and his legacy of opposition to the Iraq war has gone down well in the Middle East, with opinion polls showing the President having a remarkably high approval rating for a U.S. leader. But it’s hardly majority support, and even those who approve of Obama seem to retain a negative view of the United States. Here lies the rub: Obama has actually raised expectations that he will substantially change the policies that have antagonized much of the Middle East and beyond — expectations that, on current indications, he is unlikely to even come close to satisfying.

And that considerably raises the political peril of his planned speech to “the Muslim world” — I use quote marks in deference to the fact that the singularity of that noun may be more a figment of the jihadist imagination than a reality, but I’ll leave that conversation to others. The greater danger lies in the fact that Obama has no new policies to offer in Cairo. As his Deputy National Security Adviser Dennis McDonough told the Wall Street Journal, the Cairo speech will, instead, attempt to “change the conversation”. Said McDonough, “We want to get back on a shared partnership, back in a conversation that focuses on the shared values.”

The problem, of course, is that the breakdown between the U.S. and “the Muslim world” is not a misunderstanding of values, or a communication failure; it’s entirely about U.S. actions and policies, rather than the rhetoric in which they’re wrapped. People in Muslim countries understand American values, or the values America professes to uphold, and many are passionately attached to some of those same values. What they expect of America is that it apply its own values when dealing with the Middle East. They would like very much, for example, the U.S. to act on that basis of Lincoln’s “self evident truth” that Palestinian men and women were created equal to Israeli men and women — an approach Obama’s own Administration has yet to demonstrate, as my friend Rami Khouri notes.

And it’s all very well to proclaim democracy and government reflecting the popular will as American values, but the dominant feature of U.S. dealings over the past six decades with Muslim countries ranging from Indonesia and Iran to Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt and Algeria, has been to stifle the popular will and its free and democratic expression, by backing dictators who are willing to do Washington’s geopolitical bidding. Even now, now it’s far from clear that Obama is willing to accept the outcome of the democratic process in the Palestinian territories, or in Lebanon, or to suggest that a democratic process may be a good idea in Egypt. Indeed, one of the salient features of the Arab world with which Obama is dealing, is the disconnect between its leaders and its people. And currently, it’s with the leaders that Obama is looking to do business — indeed, as former Bush Mideast policy chief Elliot Abrams recently noted, the purpose of Obama’s speech is really to try and create a public climate that makes it easier for those leaders to cooperate with the U.S.

Let’s not forget that President Bush, and Condi Rice, also went to the Middle East and made lofty speeches about freedom and about how the U.S. was not in conflict with Islam. It was not the rhetoric that failed them; it was the disconnect between the rhetoric and the policies. The same disconnect casts a shadow over Obama’s speech: Despite his changing of the tone, he comes to Cairo as the head of a government that looks likely to keep Guantanamo open for some time yet (his arrival follows days after the news that a Yemeni inmate there committed suicide), while convicting some of its inmates not in courts of law, but in military tribunals — and limiting the probe into torture committed under the Bush Administration. He arrives as the Commander in Chief responsible for two occupations of Muslim countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which looks likely to end any time soon — and in Afghanistan, U.S. involvement looks likely to increase, and with it civilian casualties from U.S. air strikes. The substance of his Iran policy thus far seems to have not shifted substantially from that of Bush, and it remains to be seen just what he intends with Israel and the Palestinians: He has demanded that Israel freeze settlements, and Israel has said no. Israel’s many friends in both parties on Capitol Hill are growing increasingly uneasy, and moving to restrain the Administration from publicly pressing Israel, even on the settlements issue.

Then, there are the worrying signs that he appears to have endorsed a renewed offensive by Palestinian Authority security forces against Hamas. That would be an unmitigated disaster, although the Israelis would love it — by ramping up their own assassination efforts against Hamas operatives in the West Bank, they seem to be trying to goad Hamas into relaunching its suspended rocket offensive in Gaza, knowing that a new security clash will take peace discussions entirely off the agenda.

And the problem here, of course, is that Obama’s key Arab partners — President Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak — for their own domestic political reasons (neither has a democratic mandate, and both would lose free elections to their Islamist challengers), share Israel’s animus towards Hamas, and have been content until now to tacitly back its efforts to destroy the organization. That’s not likely to happen, of course, but it leaves us contemplating a situation in which Obama is trying to build a “peace process” based on the fatally flawed foundations of a decrepit Arab (and Palestinian) political order largely at odds with its own citizenry, and, as Malley and Agha warned, disconnected from the region’s main players. In other words, to borrow from their warning, Obama may be trying to make a better job than Bush did of doing the wrong things.

Like some of his predecessors, Obama may have an exaggerated sense of the power of his own considerable charm to unlock geopolitical stalemates. But he shouldn’t underestimate the impatience of his audience with flowery rhetoric, and their determination to claim their own sovereign voice. What he says in Cairo will make little difference to the way he’s perceived in the Arab world and beyond; he’ll be judged by what he does.

This entry was posted in Situation Report. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Can Obama Offer Change the Muslim World Can Believe In?

  1. Y. Ben-David says:

    Nice peace, but shouldn’t the Islamic world do some soul-searching themselves, instead of only demanding it from the Americans? We keep hearing how, besides the Israeli problem, the Muslim world is unhappy that the US supposedly supports corrupt, repressive dictators throughout the Middle East. But isn’t the fact that so many repressive, anti-democratic regimes in the area due in large part to an internal political culture inherent to these societies. After all, other areas of the world that have strong American influence and econonic interests have healthy democratic regimes. After World War II the US, through the Marshall Plan build stable democracies in Western Europe. In the Far East, in spite of a bloody war with Japan that caused a lot of hard feelings leading to the use of Atomic Bombs, Japan has developed a democratic society. Other formerly authoritarian states under US influence such as South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines have built democracies. In Latin American, where ever since the Monroe Doctrine came out around 1820 the US has claimed hegemony, and where there was a very strong tradition of authoritarianism and “Caudillos”, today, democracy has taken over the whole region practically. Again, here, the US has very strong ecnonomic interests. This shows that the Arab claim that the US interferes with them because of oil leading the US to support supposedly unpopular regimes can not really explain the failure of the Arab/Muslim Middle East to develope socially, politically or economically. Time for some honest introspection there, and not simply throwing all the blame on the US.

  2. f says:

    And what’s about the siege on Gaza?

    John Kerry was shocked to discover that pasta is not allowed in, no? Is this all forgotten?

    Collective punishment of 1.5 million people is ok as long as you talk tough about settlements?

    What is the most urgent right now? Where is it possible to achieve very fast and very real change?

    But no, let’s not talk about Gaza.

  3. Pingback: War in Context - NEWS & VIEWS ROUNDUP & EDITOR’S COMMENT: June 3

  4. Nimrod Tal says:

    Notice the unsold Arafat mugs-they outnumber the other mugs by far. I dont think Obama can offer change. The Arab states need perpetual low grade war with Israel to escape accountability and continue corruption. iran needs conflict with Israel to distract from its failing economy and to show superiority of Shiism over Sunni Islam. Obama brings nothing new to this picture

  5. Arie Brand says:

    It was entirely to be expected that YBD would shed the usual Israeli crocodile tears about the lack of democracy among his country’s neighbours.

    Though the most obvious thing that can be said here is that the pot is, once again,calling the kettle black (what about all those subject Palestinians ?) there is something else to be remarked here – something hardly less obvious.

    When did we see in Egypt, to take that as an example, the most open disconnect between its autocratic government and the “men in the street” ? When did the pharaoh’s underlings assemble in great numbers to protest? Exactly, they did so when it came to denouncing their government’s inaction on Israel, its secret animosity against Hamas, its collusion with Israel on the borders.

    Deploring the lack of democracy in that country while secretly relying on it to be able to more easily continue one’s own oppression of subject people is, to take a historical example, like calling your country a democracy and being at the same time pally-pally with apartheid South Africa. Tell me YBD, you who are so good at history, what country did that again?

    Nimrod Tal has found out that all these “Untermenschen” regimes need perpetual “low grade war” with Israel to stay in business. Doesn’t he realise that this is a matter of two hands on one belly? Israel would panic about nothing so much as about the Arab hand being withdrawn. Without the paranoia about an external enemy Nimrod Tal’s countrymen have little else to unite them.

  6. Pingback: Can Obama Take His Cairo Show on the Road to Jerusalem? « Wallwritings

  7. soubhieh says:

    America could pledge to stop using veto power at the UN to protect countries that violate international laws, join the International Court of Justice, genuinely help to reform UN organizations, and act like a member nation–not the grand chess master.

  8. Dave says:

    In November 2007, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that a “two states for two peoples” peace agreement with the Palestinians would require the explicit recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian response was immediate and unequivocal. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian representative, summed it up: “Israel can define itself however it sees fit; and if it wishes to call itself a Jewish state, so be it. But the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity.”

    More recently, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s newly elected Prime Minister, reportedly advised the newly appointed US Middle East envoy George Mitchell that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a fundamental element for any talks between the two parties. And again the Palestinian response was a vociferous rejection.

    Why does recognition of Israel as a Jewish state create such a furor among Palestinians? The answer to this question tells you all you have to know about the prospects for any peace negotiations.

    The term “Jewish state” appeared as far back as 1947 when the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 called for the creation of “Arab and Jewish states” in Mandatory Palestine. This was the resolution rejected by Arab states that instead attempted to militarily destroy the newborn Jewish state of Israel. The attacking nationalist Arab states characterized their unsuccessful efforts as a “jihad” against the Jews.

    From the outset, the Muslim world has refused to formally recognize Israel, the ‘Zionist entity’, for the very reason that it was a Jewish state. It was one thing to tolerate a Lebanon where a carefully crafted balance of power between the Christian and Muslim communities was brokered after World War II based on a population census that has not been updated ever since. (A new census would, of course, reveal that the Muslims far outnumber the Marronite Christians. This is why it is now possible for Hezbollah to be on the way to forcibly creating the Islamic Republic of Lebanon.)

    But to the Muslim Arabs It was another matter entirely to accept the establishment of a Jewish state (i.e., politically and culturally dominated by Jews). That is why despite having signed peace agreements with Israel, both Egypt and Jordan maintain a ‘cold’ peace. (Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president who signed the peace agreement with Israel, paid with his life when Islamists assassinated him.) To this day, the most vitriolic anti-Semitic propaganda drenches the media of both Egypt and Jordan where the populace continues to harbor hatred of Israel and Jews.

    It is only the hard fact of Israel’s military superiority combined with continuous infusions of American cash that guarantee Egyptian and Jordanian honoring of these peace treaties with Israel. If either of these factors were to materially change, it would not be surprising if the condition of the ‘peace’ would change too.

    Neither Egypt nor Jordan, however, had to contend with the knotty question of Palestinian refugees seeking their right to return to the homes in Israel vacated by their parents and grandparents during the tumultuous 1948 war against the fledgling Jewish state. This hot potato was given over to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, now operating under the banner of Palestinian Authority (PA). After all, the existence of a Jewish dominant state is something that the Palestinian would have to live with far more intimately than did the surrounding Arab states.

    And this then is the heart of the matter. If there is one thing that Israeli Jews across the entire political spectrum agree on it is that for peace to be possible there can be no significant Palestinian ‘right of return’ to Israel proper. (Purportedly there are 4 to 5 million Palestinians today, counting those in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the descendants of Palestinians who fled to neighboring Arab states in 1948 – but not counting the more than 1.4 million Israeli Arabs!)

    Israel cannot agree to such a ‘right of return’ for the simple reason that to do so would ineluctably lead to Palestinians swamping the Jews demographically and becoming the dominant culture (i.e., Islamic) much in the way that is now happening in Lebanon.

    In short it would mean the death of the Jewish State of Israel.

    This is precisely why the ‘right of return’ is so important to the Palestinians (and their supporters), as enunciated by the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

    The difference between recognizing the State of Israel and recognizing the Jewish State of Israel is the difference between a false peace and a true one. By recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, the Palestinians would in effect renounce all claims to any part of Israel as defined within the borders that are ultimately agreed upon. This is the very essence of any peace agreement.

    When the Palestinians reject out of hand the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, it is a sure sign that they cynically view any peace agreement as the next step on the way to ultimately retaking ‘Palestine’ from the Jews through a demographic process that will end up making the Jews an ever shrinking (surviving?) minority.

    And even if they can’t get Israel to sign an agreement that leaves open a possible right of return, the Palestinians calculate that they will be able to secure international pressure on Israel to succumb by committing demographic suicide in the name of peace. Why not, it’s a lot less messy than gas chambers.

    The key question is whether the United States will take the position that any solution that risks Jewish demographic dominance in Israel is not a solution. Period. Interestingly, Mitchell’s response was that U.S. policy favors “a two-state solution which will have a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel.”

    Hopefully, the statement by special envoy George Mitchell’s quoted above reflects a firm and absolute American policy that the explicit recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a non-negotiable sine qua non of any peace agreement.

    It would be nice to hear it from the lips of President Obama.

  9. Arie Brand says:

    The requirement that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a “Jewish state” before negotiations even get going was designed to block these – in accordance with the formula of Sharon’s adviser, Dov Weisglass, re putting the peace process in “formaldehyde”. As W. commented proudly on an earlier manoeuvre (the Gaza withdrawal) in the notorious interview with Ari Shavit: “the whole package called the Palestinian state with all that entails has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission — all this with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both Houses of Congress.”

    Olmert, for all his sanctimonious comments on the necessity to come to an agreement, and Livni apparently did not give up this illusion. When they came up with this “Jewish State” stunt they knew there was no hope in hell that the Palestinians would fall for it.

    As William Pfaff commented:

    “The … demand is .. made for propaganda purposes, and is of transparent bad faith… This position is not meant to be taken seriously. It is propaganda to impress foreign public opinion and Jews living in Europe and America: “You see, the Arabs won’t even recognize us as a Jewish state!”

    But why would they seek this recognition anyway from a people whose right to any state they have themselves not acknowledged thus far ? The Palestinians are, in fact, to them just a bunch of guys without any legal position whatsoever. How come that they are suddenly supposed to have the status to grant recognition to, or withdraw it from, another state? It is all make belief.

    Just over three quarters of the population of Israel can now be regarded as Jewish (see CIA factbook). The recognition of the place as a “Jewish state” would make the position of Arab Israelis even more precarious. It would also make negotiations about compensation for stolen and/or destroyed Palestinian property far less viable.

    These would be tangible benefits for Israel if the Palestinians would be mad enough to swallow its demand. But, as said, Israel doesn’t count on this. The whole idea is not to get into negotiations about a two state solution at all. That it is not serious about the proposal as such is also clear from the fact that it has not spelled out what part of Palestine should be recognised as a “Jewish state”. The Israel of the 1947 UN partition plan? Or pre June-1967 Israel with its armistice borders? Or, rather, the continuously evolving “Israel”, that is to say pre-June 1967 Israel with large chunks of the West Bank thrown in ?

    It all doesn’t matter to them because if there will be no talks anyway these things don’t have to be spelled out.

    Dave, whoever he is, comes up with the pious wish that Obama will state that this Israeli demand is non-negotiable. Yes, why not. Dreams come cheap. Now he is at it he might as well wish to win the lottery.

    How can he hope that Obama will fall for this if even Bush accepted the Palestinian position that this demand should be a subject for negotiations, not its precondition?

    Dave’s main worry seems to be that the Jews will lose their “demographic predominance”. If he is that concerned about the possible loss of tribal cosiness he should take note of the fact that, as Akiva Eldar recently reported (Haaretz 4/19/09),the “Arab League meeting last month appended a comment to its closing statement that its initiative does not include the right of return for refugees.” Not the “right of return” – but the demand for just and fair compensation for what happened in 1948 remains, in accordance with UNSC resolution 194, squarely on the table.

    And now just dream on Dave.

  10. DaveS says:

    To my namseake, Dave: You think it reasonable that Palestinians recognize Israel’s right to be a Jewish State? I think that’s absurd.

    Presumably, you are Jewish yourself, but even if I’m wrong, I am, so I’ll speak for myself. In the US, we demand equality of all citizens under the law. Sure, there is lingering racism and ethnic animosity, but there is no official tolerance of it. We would oppose strenuously any effort to distinguish between citizens based on race, religion, ethnic origin, etc. And not just because we are Jews, members of a minority group. We would insist on equality of civil rights and opportunities for all minorities, wouldn’t we, Dave?

    But what about Israel? Equality is anathema to Israel. As a Jewish State, it confers on Jewish citizens a first-class citizenship that non-Jewish citizens, a fifth of the population, do not have. They may have the right to vote and hold office, but no reasonable person would assert that they are equal citizens in a Jewish State. There are all sorts of official discrimination, in the areas of housing, education, marriage, etc. Perhaps biggest of all, there is a “right of return” for Jews whose families have not lived in the region for a couple of thousand years, but no right of return for non-Jews who were forcibly evicted in the 1940’s and 1960’s.

    How can we, as Jews who insist on equality here in the US, turn a blind eye to official discrimination in Israel? In fact, Israeli Arabs not only are unequal to Israeli Jews, they have fewer rights than I (and presumably you) as an American Jew have. I can pick myself up and move to their country and land of their birth and immediately enjoy superior rights, privileges and status. Are you all right with that? I’m not.

    And even if you could fashion an articulate, coherent justification for such doctrinal inequality, how could you possibly expect a single Palestinian to go for it? You couldn’t convince me, and I am a beneficiary of the Jewish State concept.

    Of course, I have not even addressed the far more numerous Palestinians in the territories who have only the “right” to obey the Israeli military without having even a small say in the Israeli government. I’m only talking about Israeli citizens, and the problem I’m addressing will not disappear even with Israeli withdrawal from the territories and creation of a truly viable Palestinian State.

    The demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State, and by necessary consequence, my right as an American Jew to superior citizenship over Israeli Arabs, is clearly a non-starter. It is phrased to sound reasonable, but is a demand that Netanyahu, Olmert, Livni, and everyone else knows will be rejected. The very foundation of Israel is based on preference for Jews over non-Jews, and in the clash between Zionism and the principle of equality, I side with the latter. To me, anything less than true equality is unthinkable, whether here or there. It is shocking to me that the question of equality is barely discussed in this country, especially among Jews who rightfully demand it for themselves.

  11. Murphy says:

    Would Obama be willing to recognise the United States as a ‘white state”?

    If he would not, he has no right whatsoever to demand that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a “Jewish state”.

  12. American says:

    The demand that Israel be ‘recogized’
    as a Jewish state is just more crapola….just trying to backdown and humilate the Arab honor sense….the equivelent of a bully holding a kid down till he cries uncle. It has nothing to do with starting peaces talks, except to delay.

    The psyche of the zionist type jews is they must humilate someone in revenge for and in order to prove they aren’t the weak, powerless victims they always were.

    Problem for them is they can’t exist without the US.

    Obama should pull the plug. As far as at least 70% of the US public is concerned they have maxed out their get out of jail free holocuast card.

  13. Pingback: Obama, the Holocaust and the Palestinians — will to truth


  15. Of course, I have not even addressed the far more numerous Palestinians in the territories who have only the “right” to obey the Israeli military without having even a small say in the Israeli government. I’m only talking about Israeli citizens, and the problem I’m addressing will not disappear even with Israeli withdrawal from the territories and creation of a truly viable Palestinian State.

  16. The demand that Israel be ‘recogized’
    as a Jewish state is just more crapola….just trying to backdown and humilate the Arab honor sense….the equivelent of a bully holding a kid down till he cries uncle. It has nothing to do with starting peaces talks, except to delay.

  17. why it was not appear ?

  18. bana göre filistinin u?rad??? zulmun en onemli sebebi israili yahudi olarak de?erlendirmesi fakat bu siyasi ili?kilere din ve inan?? ?ekli kar??t?r?lmasayd? o zaman daha iyi bir siyasi analiz ç?kard? ortaya ama kim nederse desin obama bana göre ileri görü?lü ak?ll? ve ba?ar?l? bir ba?kan

  19. I think the most important reason for the persecution suffered by the Palestinian in the Israeli Jewish religion and belief in the political relations of this form of assessment, but then you better kar??t?r?lmasayd? pulled out a political analysis, but who say nederse forward-looking intelligent and successful a president obama for me

  20. I think the most important reason for the persecution suffered by the Palestinian Israeli Jewish religion and belief in the political relations as a form of assessment, but it was kar??masa then pulled out a better political analysis, but who say nederse forward-looking intelligent and successful a president obama for me

  21. President of the TRNC and Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias, Dervis Eroglu, which aims to find a solution to the Cyprus problem and continue to be concentrated within the scope of the negotiations came together again.

    UN Secretary General’s Special Representative in the buffer zone in Nicosia, Cyprus leaders meet with Lisa Buttenheim’in residence, will continue to address issues of negotiation.

    The two leaders planned to call outside of today’s meeting, at the end of month in New York with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-mun will do three-way conversation.

    The meeting, UN Secretary General’s Special Adviser for Cyprus Alexander Downer, and are joined by a Special Representative Buttenhaim.

  22. The resulting economic crisis and the current political, social, economic system, since last May, the streets spill the popular movement against the “angry”, Spain’s 60th rally in the city.

    “Unite for Global Change” under the slogan of the capital, Madrid, Spain including the Central Bank collected thousands of Cibeles Square, the Spanish, the politicians and financial bosses in protest, “this crisis, we will not pay the bill” once again gave a message. 6 point, the demonstrators entered the city center, “the merging peoples never invincible”, “The politicians do not represent us”, “an end to domination of markets” in the form of chanted slogans. Large number of people carried banners with slogans carried by the “Save the Banks, the poor play”, not the crisis, robbery “,” Europe of Rights, the goods are not “,” Violence: a monthly salary of 600 euros, “” criminals, should the bill for the crisis “,” Everyone Avrupas?na yes, less euros, no, “” statements, he noted.

    Meanwhile, people of all ages from 7 to 70 participated in demonstrations, answering questions of AA correspondent is currently unemployed, although the 31-year-old chef, Rafael, “I am here for a better future for my child.’s Actions so far is correct, I do not think politicians. This shows useful I believe it is. more and more people attending each time. politicians have no choice now to hear our voice, “he said.

    29-year old political science student and Silvia at the same time the employee “has come to such a crisis that has spread to everyone. But we’re not just here because of the economic crisis. For years, the ongoing policy of Western governments, against the functioning of stock markets and banks are here. The solution is not easy, but this type of peaceful demonstrations are being taken a step forward, slowly disappears hipokrasisi politics, society is becoming more sensitive. By this time, taught us democracy, would like the fact that “assessment made.

    72-year-old retired Arturo said, “I am here because I want to give support to young people without work. In Spain, 40 percent of the unemployed young people between the ages of 20 to 40. This has to change. People are not the future of the markets, people’s representatives in particular. I am more optimistic of the future hope you are fine. I have my grandchildren and my children to help them have the occasional retired maa??m?zdan. can not continue like this, “he said.

    On November 20 before the general elections in Spain by early demonstrations of an important message to politicians, some of the groups “voting” by opening a placard, to protest the Spanish drew attention to the call to vote in the forthcoming elections.

    Showing up late at night in Madrid, which still is expected to continue.

    Conducted more than 60 countries around the world protested, some cities in Europe will continue tomorrow.

  23. The 4th Geneva Convention does not apply to Gaza or the West Bank since at the time of ratification netiehr territory was under the jurisdiction of any state at the time. I am sure you are aware that Gaza was originally under control by Egypt while the West Bank was under Jordan’s control in which both at one point were invaded and occupied by IDF since the territories were used as platforms to launch attacks against Israel by Muslim states. Israel considers itself an authority in Gaza and West Bank as which is granted to an occupying power, is allowed and specified under the 4th Geneva Convention as well.In terms of the Six Day War that was not started by Israel but started by her neighbors. Prior to the conflict Israel was victim from attacks by terrorists it was discovered were being allowed to migrate through Syria. Egypt at first sent troops to the Sinai Peninsula due to an, admittedly, flase report that Israel was going to invade Jordan. Egypt later closed the Straits of Tiran considered an international water way at the time. Egypt then joined in the engagement due to a pact the country had with Jordan and Syria in which all 3 countries had military agreements with each other. Israel did start the fighting with an airstrike but the aggressions that lead up to the war were initiated by her Muslim neighbors. The reason for a lack of self determination by Gaza and West Bank Palestinians is simple, if they stop supporting terrorists and recognize Israel’s right to exist then the violence will stop. The Muslims not only refuse to but even reject any agreement geared to bringing peace to the region.To begin with I suggest you look up a man named Muhammad Amin al-Husseini. He was Yasser Arafat’s uncle and a Muslim cleric who ended up migrating to Germany and got a personal audience with Adlof Hitler. Husseini helped Hitler implement his Final Solution as well as raise Muslim regiments for the Nazis. When Nazi Germany fell he continued his activities helping to create groups like the PLO and Young Egypt Party which was a pro-Nazi organization. Among Young Egypt’s members were future Egyptian Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat.Nazism did not die with the defeat of Hitler but migrated to the Middle East thanks to Husseini in which you see Nazi influences in groups like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood (whose founder Hasan al-Banna was a Nazi sympathizer) and Hizbullah.

  24. Ashley says:

    Algunos fotógrafos se inclinaron hacia la fotografía introspectiva al paso que otros
    lo hicieron hacia el paisajismo el documento

  25. This roofing system can be put on practically any kind off roof
    substratum without roof covering tear-off.

    my weblog dak isoleren west-vlaanderen (

  26. hey says:

    I think that is among the so much important info for me. And i am glad studying your article. However wanna statement on some normal things, The website style is ideal, the articles is actually excellent : D. Just right task, cheers|

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *