By Matthew Ellias

This sentiment appeared early in the President’s speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, and epitomizes the spirit of his oration. For all the pundits eager to chastise Obama for his perceived arrogance and naivety in thinking that he can make foreign policy progress by speaking directly to historical adversaries, this line must have come across like a sobering slap, and a reminder that there is a new sheriff in town- one willing to speak to the American people and the rest of the world like adults. Much like his speech on race, the president’s speech in Cairo faced the immense task of addressing hot button issues to a broad spectrum of listeners, many of whom hold deeply entrenched positions, ideals, and even prejudices. For this reason it seems, very few groups were one hundred percent happy with everything the President said. Nonetheless, Obama’s rhetoric was even handed, and far more nuanced than that to which Americans were accustomed from his predecessor.

Indeed, the fact that ideologues on both sides of many of the more controversial aspects of Obama’s speech responded with outrage is probably a good thing. For example, Conservative pundit Sean Hannity lambasted the president’s speech and went as far as to claim that it was sympathetic to 9/11 and Obama’s way of “faulting the U.S. for the tensions that exist between Americans and Muslims.” The hard line Settlers Council on Israel Radio said “Hussein Obama preferred the false version of the Arabs over the Jewish truth, spoken in a weak and stammering voice.” At the same time, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said: “The essence of the speech was to improve the U.S. image and to placate the Muslims. We don't mind either objective, but we are looking for more than just mere words.”

The reality of many of the most divisive issues in the Arab world, and in the Muslim world at large, is that they cannot be addressed as black and white. A detailed understanding of religion, politics, culture and history is needed, but often not applied. Perhaps this is symptomatic of the fact that we live in a world of twenty four hour news, and public opinion is too often dictated by who can shout the loudest and provide the most incendiary sound bytes. In this light it is not surprising that polarizing ideologues have recently dominated the discussion on Middle-Eastern politics. However, it would seem that Obama’s goal is truly a lasting peace and stability, and not a quick and easy alliance with vocal ideologues on either side of the issues concerning the Muslim world.

That last sentiment is particularly vexing, in that this speech to the “Muslim world,” felt an awful lot like a speech to the “Arab world.” Despite the fact that the majority of the world’s Muslims are not Arabs, the speech was held in Cairo, and dealt primarily with American political interests in the Arab world. It is tempting and dangerous to conflate the words Arab and Muslim, and makes the president’s references to the Maronites and Copts in Lebanon and Egypt respectively all the more significant. However, one must wonder if these subtle references are enough to differentiate Arabs and Muslims to an American audience. While the reference to Maronites and Copts and even to Christians in Palestine are important in their own right, they confirmed that this was indeed a speech about many of the political situations in this Middle East, and less an address to the Muslim world per-se.

Regardless of who the speech was technically addressed to, it contained a great deal of content that set it apart from historical presidential orations on the Middle-East. Particularly notable was the President’s use of clear and accurate language to describe the daily plight of Palestinians. Obama directly addressed “the pain of dislocation…refugee camps in the West Bank, and Gaza… [and] daily humiliations - large and small – that come with occupation.” Such direct language is rarely used by the President of the United States to describe Palestinian life. When taken in context with the fact that Obama declared that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” and demanded that “Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society,” it is tempting to believe that this generation of Americans might actually see a tangible course alteration in American foreign policy in Palestine. At the same time, the use of the language “continued settlements” cleverly skirts the issue of the previously established illegal settlements, which is one of the greatest, if not the greatest impediment to a viable two-state solution.

With the balance of the speech, Obama spoke frankly about the desire to prevent the spread of nuclear weaponry, responsibly apply democratic principles, promote religious tolerance and freedom, advocate for women’s rights, and encourage economic development and opportunity. Each of these topics in and of themselves, and their implications in the Muslim world could have filled a lecture series, but were simply themes in the overture of this President’s forthcoming foreign policy symphony. Without a doubt there was a tremendous amount of rhetoric in Obama’s Cairo address, some of which will likely amount to simply that – rhetoric. However, if Obama is able to deliver on even some of the declarations made in this speech, it will go a long way in dramatically changing the way the United States relates to the a Arab world, and the Muslim world at large. If anything, the Cairo address is reason to hope for change…two themes which certainly have been President Barack Hussein Obama’s bread and butter.

Matthew Ellias served as the New York Field Organizer for the Arab American Institute’s “Yalla Vote!” initiative, and presided as the founding president of Fordham University’s Middle Eastern Cultural Association. Matthew is an Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christian and currently resides in Bay Ridge Brooklyn. He can be reached at mattellias@gmail.com.