By Adam Morrow
CAIRO, Jun 11 2009 (IPS)

The historic speech U.S. President Barack Obama delivered in Cairo Jun. 4 continues to stir people around the Middle East. Questions are raised what it will mean on the ground in the region.

The speech continues also to divide people, as they pore over Obama's words again and again.

Many Egyptians say the speech was a watershed in U.S. approach to the region, while critics say it provided few indications of bona fide change.

"Obama gave us little aside from a well-planned publicity campaign," wrote Ibrahim Eissa, editor-in-chief of independent daily Al-Dustour. "American policy vis-à-vis the world in general, and the Arab world in particular, remains unchanged."

The first half of Obama's Jun. 4 speech pertained to key regional issues, including the dangers of violent extremism, prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and nuclear weapons proliferation.

On the perennial Israel-Palestine conflict, Obama began by describing the "strong bonds" the U.S. has with Israel, that were "unbreakable." He then pointed to Jewish suffering in the 20th century, reminding his Muslim and Arab listeners that six million Jews had been killed during the Holocaust.

Within the context of Palestinian suffering, however, the U.S. President neglected to mention the more than 1,400 Palestinians – most of them civilians – killed during Israel's three-week onslaught against the Gaza Strip in January.

Reiterating his support for a two-state solution, Obama spoke of his intention "to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires." He said both sides had clearly defined obligations under the 2002 Road Map endorsed by the U.S., the EU, the UN and Russia.

Under the terms of the Road Map, Palestinians are required to acknowledge Israel's legitimacy, recognise prior agreements, and abandon armed resistance against Israel. Israel, meanwhile, is obliged to halt the building of Jewish-only "settlements" on occupied Arab land.

"The U.S. does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," Obama declared. "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

Some Egyptian commentators were cheered by such statements, saying they marked a more even-handed approach to the conflict.

"Obama provided something new in several ways," Emad Gad, senior analyst at the semi-official Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies told IPS. "He promised the establishment of a Palestinian state, noting that this was in the interests of U.S. security, while stating that Israeli settlement- building of all kinds should be frozen.

"This represents a new approach to Israel. Major rifts have already appeared between the Israeli government and the Obama administration as a result."

In the days since Obama's address, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called U.S. demands for a settlement freeze "unreasonable", stating that construction would continue in existing settlements in order to accommodate "natural growth".

But some Arab commentators saw in the speech less cause for optimism. Opposition journalist Abdel-Halim Kandil said the U.S. President's talk of peace in the Middle East amounted to "the same old fare wrapped up in a new package."

"He merely repeated the same mantras mouthed by (former U.S. President Bill) Clinton, (former Israeli prime minister Ehud) Barak and (late Palestinian leader Yasser) Arafat in 2002; mantras like 'peace process,' 'Road Map' etc," Kandil told IPS. "When in reality, Washington – like Israel – doesn't want peace, but rather wants to maintain Israeli supremacy on the ground."

Eissa says the ostensible showdown between Israel's right-wing leadership and the Obama administration was contrived largely for domestic consumption. "We aren't fooled by laughable attempts by the media to portray a falling out between the Obama administration and Israel," he wrote.

Obama spoke of his keenness to bring home troops "if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can." On Iraq, he said the U.S. was committed "to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012."

But on these issues, too, critics have their doubts. "Until now, there has been no real change," said Eissa. "Obama has gone back on his initial promises of quick withdrawal from Iraq, while bolstering the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and supporting a bloody war in the Wadi Swat region of Pakistan."

"Obama might look different from his predecessor (George W.) Bush, but in reality his policies appear to be no different," Kandil added. "Despite all the talk of peace, the region has never been closer to war."

Excerpt: