Obama in Cairo

On Thursday President Barack Obama gave his much anticipated, much ballyhooed, speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. Prior to the speech the administration attempted to lower expectations by saying that the speech would not propose dramatic policy changes, but rather would address broad principles that could serve as guideposts for policy going forward.
The rhetoric of common roots and common aspirations was, in general, well received in the Arab world and the Muslim world in general. This is a welcome change from the language of “Islami-fascism”, “axis of evil” and “with us or against us” that was the hallmark of the previous American administration.
Even the Israeli government was subdued in their reaction saying publicly “there was nothing new in the speech”. They recognized that there was no upside to publicly confronting an American president who is enormously popular around the world.
In the US, however, conservative Republicans did not feel similarly constrained. Fox News anchorwoman Gretchen Carlson, in discussing Obama’s statement that “the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government”, was astonished that “He apologized for the US role in Iran!” She must feel that it is OK for the US to overthrow democratically elected governments. The Republican Jewish Coalition reacted by saying “President Barack Obama, in his major speech in Cairo this morning, struck a balanced tone with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that's what was wrong with this speech. American policy should not be balanced…”
In the last two days there has been much parsing of every word by pundits of all stripes. It reminds me of my Bible study class where we can spend an hour discussing one short verse.
Nevertheless, since there appear to be some subtle changes in the language being used that may portend policy changes to come, I will take this opportunity to do the same. Rather than saying “Iran must abandon its nuclear program” he said “Iran should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power”. This leaves the door open for an agreement that would allow Iran to retain its enrichment program while agreeing to constraints that would insure that the program is used only for peaceful purposes. This is a change that some of us have recommended for some time.
With respect to relationship to Hamas, he acknowledged that “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians.” He slightly rephrased the standard “conditions” on Hamas from Hamas must "renounce violence, recognize Israel as a Jewish state and abide by previous agreements" to Hamas must "put an end to violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and recognize past agreements". This gives Hamas room to enter into a ceasefire in return for a place at the table, recognize Israel without having to recognize a state with no declared borders and recognize the existence of previous agreements without having to agree to abide by them.
All this gives me some optimism that real policy changes may follow which may actually lead somewhere.