Obama, Settlements, and the Missing Two-State-Solutions

President Barack Obama’s long-awaited speech to the Muslim World in Cairo had some important, positive elements in it. He is to be commended for that. Among other things, he spelled out the need for Arabs and other Muslims to get a handle on their own extremists; defined, then stressed, the importance of true democracy while speaking in a nation run by modern-day Pharaohs; emphasized the importance of equal rights for women; and so forth.

---

When speaking of the need for all peoples to get along, the President even dared to speak the word “Copt”–once...then dropped it like a hot potato. But this, too, was sort of courageous–if short-lasting–given the extreme touchiness of the subject. After all, this wasn’t Israel he was speaking in–nor poor Arabs–er Palestinians–he was crying about. The Copts, after all, were/are the millions of native people who were conquered and forcibly Arabized–like much of the rest of the Middle East–after the Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions. Unlike Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-”Peoples of the Book(primarily Christians and Jews),” Copts were not given an ultimatum to convert to Islam en masse or die (yet many, indeed, have been murdered). The latter Ahl al-Kitab above were allowed to live as long as they accepted their subjugated status as dhimmis–”protected” people…that is, as long as they paid their special taxes and such to their Arab Muslim masters. Know your place, and it was possible to prosper. The Uncle Tom Copt supreme, the late President Sadat’s Foreign Minister and later Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, offered that Israel must consent to the same Arabization if it wanted to be accepted in the “Arab World.” I don’t think you want to know my feelings about such “acceptance.” Now, of course, this all begs the question–or at least should… Why was there only one brief word by our President about Copts–without defining their plight or saying anything else about them–but, unabashedly later, he felt free to lead the Arab choir in taking Israel to task about the plight of the “Palestinians (mostly Arabs whose families came from somewhere else–despite their taqiyyah, legitimate lying to the Infidel–tales of woe)? There are more native Copts in Egypt than Palestinian (however you define that) Arabs. I understand the Arabs’ demand that virtually the whole region be seen as just their own–purely Arab patrimony as they tell it. But why does an American President have to play along with this subjugating mindset ? He mentioned the word “Darfur” also. Does he also not know who the perpetrators of the Sudan’s genocidal actions are? But, again, one word…and dropped–like Copt–like a hot potato. While it was nice to hear the President lecture the Muslim world about the Holocaust, he played right into their hands once again–at least those, unlike Ahmadinejad of Iran and the President’s good buddy, Mahmoud Abbas, who do not deny that it ever happened. The Arab believers’ typical answer is, why should we have to pay for the sins of Europe? Now, there was a way that Mr. Obama could have handled the subject correctly that would have been light years better–if he had really wanted to. But that’s another point where his attempt at courage failed him. Gerald A. Honigman, geraldahonigman.com is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs, created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and have publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. Gerald’s articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. Gerald can be reached at jerry@geraldahonigman.com

---