My general sense of Obama is that you are right in that he likes to act within the status quo, but this neglects that he intends to change the status quo itself, to the point where this allows him to do things which previously would have seemed radical, but when he actually does them they seem normal. His election is itself an example of that. I can’t say what he will actually do for muslims, so it’s hard to judge anything at this point, but I do think we can expect him to pursue a strategy in which the “center” is moved to a position that allows him to do things which will not seem very radical when they happen, but which do indeed represent a significant change from previous policies. In fact, by portraying himself at all times as a centrist, bi-partisan broker who stays within the status quo, he can propose all kinds of things and still have them seen as part of the status quo. This is a strategy of having the mountain come to Mohammed, while he seemingly stays in the same place.

I would observe in closing that I am being extremely *charitable* to Obama in pushing back against tendentious misreadings of his words. If I thought there was any truth to either interpretation, I would not attack them in these terms, but it does no justice to Obama’s record and his stated policy proposals to pretend that he will follow through in a way that will actually satisfy persuadable and non-radicalized Muslim populations. Neocons used to love to talk about all of the interventions they supported that helped Muslim populations (at the expense of their Christian neighbors), which gave them the confidence that they could support attacks on other Muslim populations without being accused of prejudice or vendetta. The last two administrations have used a lot of “respect” rhetoric while perpetuating policies that do not show that respect. Until proven otherwise, I assume that Obama will continue most of those policies while talking a good game about showing respect.

“But these are just words, and what we need now are actions.”

This is what gets the Muslim world excited. You can of course say that Obama doesn’t really intend to back his words up with action, but since he explicitly says he will indeed back these words up with action, you have to call him a liar to suggest his gesture means nothing. Since your critique of Obama has rested on the notion that we really can take him at his word (meaning that he never actually promises to do anything different from the status quo), when he does promise to do something real (though non-specific), don’t we need to assume that he means it?

This means of course that we should expect Obama to actually do something in the realm of action that is different from Bush and the status quo, and that if he doesn’t, we can say that he’s broken his word. So that’s a meaningful difference already.

George Mitchell in this respect was an inspired choice, less immediately for his negotiating capacities than his credibility with European publics and decision-makers. The long-term hope of Palestinian rejectionists rests on an ever growing division btwn the EU and US. His work will thwart the trend in that direction and weaken those arguing that it represents a winning strategy. A more visible, sympathetic engagement also bolsters the Egyptians and others who do not want to encourage Iranian involvement or Palestinian intransigence but who are appalled by the suffering of ordinary Palestinians.

As for Israel, small gestures will induce significant concern. However resilient and resourceful, Israel is keenly aware that its prospects fundamentally depend upon the good will of the outside world. The temperature has to cool only slightly among its stakeholders to consider new positions.

People negotiate most flexibly when they have something to lose as well as something to gain. The President appreciates that a light but perceptible touch is needed to alter the strategies of those we’d like to be bargaining instead of battling.

The expression ‘as if’ if seems to imply that this very thing didn’t happen. Was that a deliberate joke?