The Cairo speech
The Christian Science Monitor describes the intent of Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo as an effort “to hold the mirror up to all of the communities with whom he was speaking”. President described the dramatis personae on the Middle Eastern stage; nations, creeds, weapons and peoples — including America — and painted them all in both light and shadow and concluded in essence, that ‘why can’t we all get along’?
Obama’s 55-minute address was heavily promoted by the White House, both in the US and the Middle East. Given its importance, it is almost certain that Obama and his speechwriters considered carefully every phrase, nuance, and emphasis.
In general, the speech appeared to be an effort to get everyone in the region to take a hard look at themselves. Thus he talked about Islamic extremism, Holocaust denial, and the lack of women’s rights in many Middle Eastern countries. But he also talked about Israel’s responsibilities to displaced Palestinians.
“I think the most important thing people should take away from this speech was that the president really tried to hold the mirror up to all of the communities with whom he was speaking,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, in a published analysis of the talk.
And indeed, why not? But Obama’s speech recalled another event that is not mentioned in any of the three monotheistic scriptures. The Greeks tell the story of how, at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, Eris the goddess of Discord, was uninvited, and threw in the midst of the revelers an Apple of Discord, inscribed with the words “for the fairest one”. Metaphorically present at Cairo was Discord in the guise of Obama himself. Woven in and among his suave phrases were the hard and jarring issues that roiled the region: the Arab-Israeli conflict; Iranian (and by implication Israeli) nuclear ambitions, Islamic extremism, despotism, women’s rights and the right to worship freely. By raising these issues and pelting them among the crowd, Obama must have intended to provoke movement. The question is, what kind? Many of these apples have already been snatched up by the guests at the party, each thinking that the “fairest” refers to them. Reuters reports on the reactions to Obama’s speech from the Palestinian President.
“His call for stopping settlement and for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and his reference to the suffering of Palestinians … is a clear message to Israel that a just peace is built on the foundations of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
An Iraqi government spokesman said, “I think there is clear support of a right for a Palestinian state, and their right for a life, but Arabs are waiting for pressure to be exerted on Israel so it can stop its violations in Gaza and the West Bank.” Even the reaction of Republicans has been recorded.
House Minority Leader John Boehner blasted Obama’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian question. “He seemed to … place equal blame on the Israelis and the Palestinians. I have concerns about this,” the Ohio Republican said. “The Israelis have the right to defend themselves.” Boehner’s Republican colleague, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, added that “there was a sense in here of a moral equivalency between those who are driving for a Palestinian state and the state of Israel.”
They can’t all be right. There is the obvious danger that Obama’s speech will provide a source of legitimacy for various contending parties. If even the Devil can quote scripture, all kinds of people can quote Obama. Obama himself acknowledged at the close of his remarks the fact that his speech was not an end, but a beginning. Any student of history who says, “blessed are the peacemakers” knows that it is usually made after, and not before the issues have been settled. Obama said:
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.” The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.” The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
And where must we start on this road? Here is where the stones begin to tug at our feet. With the assurance that “America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam”, even though Sunni and Shia may be at war with each other; that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other” though Hezbollah advances to power in Lebanon behind the shadow of Syrian bayonets; that succor must come to those who “endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation”, meaning Israeli occupation of course; that “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance” — how many of the millions of Filipino contract workers in Saudi Arabia were listening to the President’s words in churches across the kingdom? that “any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” — but has it?
Obama’s speech as rhetoric was musical. But as history it will be judged by whether it starts things off along the right track. Will it facilitate disarming Iran? Will it lead to security for Israel and the Arabs? Can it bring more democracy to the Middle East? Will it dampen the fires of Islamic extremism? A journey is judged both by its end and by its route. A guide is not paid according to his depiction of the glories at the resting well. We shall have peace, but as Obama reminds us, not yet. The golden apple shall be awarded to the fairest but if the ceremony, disturbingly enough must be held in Jerusalem, then who shall weep and who rejoice in that future? In Cairo Obama vouchsafed his audience a glimpse of a shining city on a hill. The practical question that must be asked is whether the guide, having pointed north has not turned directly on his heel and marched south.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
All things to all people = nada to nada. But only a wise man understands that point. “Those Who Care” comprehend nothing but their narrative.
Wasted effort. Spengler was spot on. He should have spoken in New Delhi.
Wretchard, why can’t they all be right? We are talking a Speech by President Obama. Maybe they can be right at different times of the day?
He slighted Anwar Sadat (was that a “carefully considered” omission?). Anward Sadat was a devout Muslim and the President of Egypt. He was murdered by the folks who brought us 9/11. He was a genuine martyr for peace. Yet he is now an Unperson, even at the White House. Sigh.
Also, Sadat addressed the Knesset. Those really great speech writers of President Obama should have found a quote from that speech. Just a suggestion.
Or this (from the Wikis):
Both Sadat and Begin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for creating the treaty. In his acceptance speech, Sadat referred to the long awaited peace desired by both Arabs and Israelis.
“Let us put an end to wars, let us reshape life on the solid basis of equity and truth. And it is this call, which reflected the will of the Egyptian people, of the great majority of the Arab and Israeli peoples, and indeed of millions of men, women, and children around the world that you are today honoring. And these hundreds of millions will judge to what extent every responsible leader in the Middle East has responded to the hopes of mankind”
Bullet met head. We have found a Nobel Peace Prize recipient we can ignore.
Maybe Obama is paying the price for non-stop adulation from the leg-tingling US media. In the US, Obama can pass wind and have excited “reporters” talking about his wonderful speech & the wisdom of his — err — words. In other words, in the US, he gets a pass on this kind of empty-headed stuff.
Now he is out in the world. A world whose legs for the most part do not tingle uncontrollably at the mere sound of his voice. He mouths pablum, and the important parts of his audience notice. Tears before bedtime, I’m afraid.
Atlasshrugs blog has a comprehensive … er … “fisking’, if I understand the usage correctly
It may have played well on the Arab street, but I have been reading today some of the Democrats in Congress are beginning to move away from The Oily One, seeing his stance towards Israel as being too extreme.
Being with all due humility fast out of the gate, I left my reaction to the speech two threads back.
Modestly, LOTM
Obama’s foreign policy can be summed up very simply: !Bush (not Bush) and this is true for good portions of his domestic policy.
While the exact words & phraseology may be difficult the gist is simple — read a Bush speech and just say the opposite. So we are out of the promotion of more humane modes of government. As is noted, that must have been music Hezbolalalalalah’s ears.
I was in & out of sleep this morning, the Empress was up getting ready for work and had the radio on and I heard parts of the speech and caught the part of how Islam saved the West from the Dark Ages. I suppose he may have a point but in his elaboration he missed it. The Islamic invasions of Europe gave rise to Charles Martel and other strong leaders. This is not to rip on Islam because while we were in our Dark Ages they did have a thriving civilization, just that we did not crib ours from them.
Pretty soon President Obama will be aping Mohamar Qadaffi with the nonsense about Sheik Zubir (i.e. William Shakespeare).
The great crime of the political class is their affinity for magical thinking. If you just use the proper Words of Power and employ the right symbols your desires shall be translated into reality. The sorcerers of antiquity employed Words of Power such as “Abraxas” (the origin of Abracadabra) so that their will would be done. Today our sorcerers use Words of Power like “Social Justice.” In essence, if you pretend hard enough what you pretend will come true, which is exactly why I will win the MegaMillions lottery some time in the not too distant future.
And say what you will, but except for a few truly loony-tune countries you can pick out the ruling elites from practically any two nations and they will have a lot more in common with one another than they do with the average citizens of their own countries. Did you fear the idea of the Tranzi’s? Too late–they took over while you were sleeping–or voting as the case may be.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance? I wonder what the Banu Qaraysh would say about that.
Good link to Atlas Shrugs.
“There is the obvious danger that Obama’s speech will provide a source of legitimacy for various contending parties.”
Precisely. It seems with his speech today that Obama has created, perhaps inadvertently, an intersection over which a traffic signal hangs. Problem is, the traffic signal is now flashing “green” in all four directions.
Need I tell you what the inevitable result will be?
…and caught the part of how Islam saved the West from the Dark Ages. I suppose he may have a point but in his elaboration he missed it. The Islamic invasions of Europe gave rise to Charles Martel and other strong leaders. This is not to rip on Islam because while we were in our Dark Ages they did have a thriving civilization, just that we did not crib ours from them.
I’m sorry–but a lot of what is attributed to Islamic civilization is just a myth. To their credit, they did at least preserve some of the intellectual treasures of the cultures they destroyed. Algebra came from India. Most of the ideas about medicine came from Greece via Byzantium. The Taj Mahal was designed by a Christian Frenchman.
What is puzzling about Islam is how few innovations that culture ever made. For the most part their times of glory consisted of when they conquered another culture, at which point they sucked them dry and destroyed them. When deprived of easy conquests, they rotted away.
In his speech Obama Said:
Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
Was President Obama addressing the Muslim world, or just the guys who don’t take that stuff all that seriously? By their own lights, Islam is suppose to conquer the world and not metaphorically either. Elevating one group of people over the others is at the very center of the religion — and not metaphorically, either. In Islam, unbelievers are subservient to believers. Does Obama think the head tax on Christian and Jews is like taxing the top 2 per cent? The word of two Christians or Jews equals the word of one Muslim in a court of law. Second class citizenship, anyone? And that is a sweet deal compared to the treatment of “idolaters.” I suppose we need some bible quote here, to add balance.
Of course Muslims believe all the above is allowed them. However, it is most definitely not allowed everybody else. The US is not suppose to be above them. They are above the US.
The problem we have with the “The Muslim World” is that they nurse their grievances — grievances among each other but most especially grievances with outsiders. President Obama speaks as if the problems were caused by their low self esteem. But while trying to convince them of their very great self worth (and notice how easily they agree), he is also validating their grievances and leading them to believe he will do something about those grievances (if only the Zionists will let him!).
He said:
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
Do we say that Christianity gave us genetics? (The Father of Genetics was a monk). Or put the sun at the center of the solar system? Or developed Calculus? Physics? Penicillin?
And this business about arches and spires. Allow me to say, huh? What about Rome, O?
Then there is this whole business of “transmission.” It’s like thanking the British for Tandoori Chicken and tea. And we should thank Spain for the Sweet Potato. But only if it came through Granada.
I’m going to bed now.
The mirror image is apt, although it really refers to the man who sees himself everywhere he turns.
wretchard:
What happens to those who don’t want the Apple of Discord? What happens to those who prefer fresh pears off the tree?
It appears to me that Barack Obama will stop at nothing to ensure that he is the center of attention at all times. What will he do next to ensure that the spotlight remain fixed upon himself? Will his desire for constant attention lead him to become more and more bizarre over time?
The American press has become nauseatingly hagiographical when talking about the Obama family, treating each member as a celebrity. It is as if America has become a new kingdom under the House of Obama! Is the United States of America a republic or do we have a “new beginning” as a caliphate?
As for me, the calendar says June 4, 2009 Anno Domini. I do not live in the Year Zero, and I refuse to restart my calendar merely because our dear leader tells me to.
O Cannot be wrong!
He went to Harvard!
Editor of the Harvard Law Review!
Senator!
Community Organizer!
He Means WELL!
He’s Authentically Third-World Ethnic Oppressed Minority!
He’s… uh…
Sorry, that’s all there is…
No! WAIT! He’s married to a really smart Lady with all the same qualifications.
Except she wasn’t Editor of the Law Review.
Well, not at Harvard, anyway.
Princeton!
Yay Tigers!
Orange is so much more VIBRANT than blue.
“Given its importance, it is almost certain that Obama and his speechwriters considered carefully every phrase, nuance, and emphasis.”
This is really scary. All the careful consideration of the brilliant minds in the White House produces this. God help us.
Other than the drivel about the history of peaceful and tolerant religion, which he will not be able to point to, and which has been addressed enough. There are so many obvious errors in that speech, it is really not funny.
Morocco, which did not even exist in 1776, was the first to recognize the US? Or, maybe he meant another “..my country..”
The Shah of Iran was democratically elected?
And so on…..
And, then we have the ISSUES.
Women’s rights. He talks about upholding the rights of Moslem women in the US, but not about their rights in the Moslem world. Simple things, like driving a car, not being killed if a rapist attacks them. None of that. Just their right to wear their Burka in the US. Well we know women have rights here. How about there?
I still remember listening to a close friend of the family and the head of the “Arab Women Institute” (A Beirut based institute for promoting the rights of women in the Arab world) tell about her experience with Sheikhs from Al-Azhar back in the 80s, when the institute held a convention in Cairo. The head honcho took the stage and began to explain Islamic tolerance for women “Islam was the first to grant women their rights, however if a woman makes a mistake she should be beaten…she should not leave home without a man..she should not hold any job a man can do..etc..”
People slaughtered in Bosnia and Darfur! Easy to speak about, as both are Moslems. How about the Christians being eradicated in Iraq under our noses? How about the mass slaughter of Christians by the Turks last century? How about the ongoing Jihad against Lebanon, since it remains the only country in the region where Christians are not yet Dhimmis? How about those other people the Sudanese Government is slaughtering? Never mind they are only Christians in the south, they do not count.
He barely glosses over religious rights. And, then again screws this up. He compares the Maronites of Lebanon to the Copts in Egypt. The Copts are truly Dhimmis. The Maronites (by the way there are other Christians in Lebanon) still have their full rights and are not Dhimmis. Their reaction was one of horror. They are hoping he was not hinting that he plans to make them the same as the Copts.
What about the other countries in the region, like the evaporating Christians in Jerusalem and Bethlehem?
Why did he not request that Christians be treated in the Saudi Arabia like we treat Moslems in the US? Shouldn’t they allow Christians to have Churches as we allow them to have Mosques?
Saudi Arabia is praised for starting the process of religious dialog. But the result of that is a Mosque in the Vatican and not even the right to own a Bible in Saudi Arabia. Hmm!!
Well, the Moslem Brotherhood attending must have been elated to hear that they do not have to change anything to fit Obama’s definition of tolerance. They just need to work a little harder on making us more tolerant of their Burkas.
The Copts (this was Egypt) on the other hand were not even invited. Oh, sorry they are only Christians. Why should they?
If this is only the beginning, it will get ugly.
Cadmus
Obama’s speech was the waterfall of disinformation tumbling into the chasm of ignorance. A handful of folks will poke around on the internet, hear the reality, and know the score. The rest will say “well wasn’t that nice? Sure was better than that mean old George Bush.”
We are in the midst of the Gramscian apotheosis. Decades of dumbing down the populace crashing against a completely corrupted elite ready to roll the people for everything they’ve got, and then some. And all in the name of the people they are destroying. We can only be glad that dentists don’t use gold fillings anymore, because they’d be coming for those any day.
I don’t much believe in a heaven, but my deepest hope is that there is a hell. I don’t really care if I get my just rewards, as long as these bastards get their just desserts.
Like most first world “progressives,” Obama actively despises third world brown/black-skinned liberals and modernists. Obama offered them no respect, recognition nor hope.
As I read Obama’s speech, I saw him leaving himself all sorts of outs. On Israel-Palestine I noticed the reference to patience. There’s a joke that Obama always talks about the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.
The Obama method will be to refer in subsequent speeches to this one with his favorite narcissistic line “as I’ve said before”. Even with leftist foreign policy instincts, it’s not clear he wants to waste political capital here. He will try to claim brownie points in the Arab world for having made the speech and having publicly criticized Israel. The speech is the concession.
Let’s also look at the Obama use of the word “must”. As in: “North Korea must stop developing its nuclear weapons program”. I have seen no evidence that must means anything other than “should”, so a speech that states Palestinians “must” refrain from violence and Israel “must” stop settlement construction.
Obama plays basketball for recreation, and knows all about the ball fake and the head fake. When playing defense, you watch the stomach of the guy with the ball because his legs and arms are not going any place that the stomach isn’t going. I’m starting to think that his speeches are actually head fakes for his drives.
We’ve had big speeches about race, allies, the Islamic world. Meanwhile, GM has become a joint venture of the U.S., Canada and the UAW. GM shareholders (predictably) and bondholders (unusually) are being wiped out. For better or worse we have had massive expansions of the balance sheet. Without getting into the merits of his economic policy, we have already become used to it. So when he creates the pseudo-crisis of a speech to Islam or to the Iranian people and it all turns out to be not a big deal, we all give a sigh of relief that it wasn’t worse and go to bed. And his big domestic projects move inexorably forward.
But what about the effects on public discourse to have rhetoric and action become so totally divorced? Indeed, what of it?
I think President Obama’s speech may undermine any attempts at peace in the future. Why? That’s because he basically told his audience that he’s a Muslim. He used the phrase “The Holy Quran” and he referred to his Muslim father. To the minds of Arab chauvinists, not even an American convert to Islam would ever measure up to his pedigree. (And even Barack Obama’s pedigree would be seen as third rate…) So, the question is, why bother? Why bother reaching out to Muslims when they don’t want to hear from anybody but someone thoroughly immersed in their culture from childhood?
Barack Obama is far from the first American president to ever recognize Muslim grievances, coddle dictators, or even confront Israel. He is the American president who is a son of a Muslim father, however. Future American leaders will be told, “Why can’t you be as good as Barack Obama?” Such a comment will really be a racial insult because any non-Muslim who says the same speech as Barack Obama won’t sound as good as Barack Obama to a Muslim chauvinist merely because he has a Muslim father and the non-Muslim won’t.
Muslim chauvinists may become accustomed to Obama’s obsequiousness and take his flattery for granted, seeing it as their due. The cultural chauvinism of Muslims insisting upon interlocutors who have been immersed in Muslim culture and Muslim madrassas while pointedly ignoring any interlocutor with a more conventional American upbringing is one that may become a major source of friction in the future.
When President Obama plays to a Cairo audience, Muslims aren’t the only ones listening. Russians listen. Indians listen. Bulgarians listen. Romanians listen. Serbs listen. Israelis listen. Ethiopians listen. Thais listen. They will make their decisions according to their own national interests, which may not necessarily coincide with Barack Obama’s grandiose plans. Why doesn’t Obama reach out to the “Orthodox World”? The “Hindu World”? The “Buddhist World”? If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, why should we assume that the squeaky wheel must always be a Muslim wheel?
The smart and informed leaders of these other countries know that it is best to watch what he does, and to not expect what he says to carry a lot of weight. They know he has already lied to his own people, who should they expect greater honesty extended to them?
It’s been said of Buraq’s leftist supporters that they don’t mind when he wraps his marxist plans in conservative rhetoric. They know it’s a form of leftist taqiyya. An artful dodge.
So when Buraq Hussein wraps this speech in a kind of ” Why can’t we all get along” happy talk, can’t the same thing be said of muslims? They invented taqiyya after all. If muslims were true to their faith and Buraq was actually a good practicing Christian speaking at a place of Islamic learning, shouldn’t there have been death threats because of Buraq’s apostate muslim status? But there were none.
But deep down, muslims know taqiyya and a fellow muslim when they see it. Sprinkled throughout his speech were concessions to Islam on one hand , while on the other, there no tough admonitions of Islam’s brutality. To the O, it’s like the Islamists haven’t brutally murdered and hacked to death tens of thousands of innocents at all.
“Given its importance, it is almost certain that Obama and his speechwriters considered carefully every phrase, nuance, and emphasis.” This is really scary. All the careful consideration of the brilliant minds in the White House produces this. God help us.
I think the key to understanding Obama’s Cairo address is to see it as a curtain raiser; a stage setter. The speech is a Rosetta Stone, a lens through which his admirers in the press can see and interpret subsequent events. He introduces the different characters. The dutiful Muslim, the American, bigoted and fearful but fundamentally decent, the sly misguided Jihadis hiding in caves looking strangely like the old engravings of Shylock; the pluglike porcine Israeli hardliner (insert picture of Netanyahu here); the Muslim woman looking wistfully out the window — then back toward her loving family, torn between modernity and duty; the mountains of dead Jews (in black and white because in the past) to which the world owes some vague consideration; then in full color, teeming thousands of Palestinians under the lash of an unseen (but imagined) overseer. And of course the hero. Here, the rhetorical camera focuses on himself in the Third Person. And then the audience moves away from the words to the presence, there on the stage, tall, handsome, well-spoken. It is He! And above this cast of characters glows the heavenly chalice of reconciliation and peace, which none of the squabbling lesser parties can think to reach. But — here we pause for dramatic effect — if they were to form a human ladder then …
Here He stops and intones the Holy Words, then modestly leaves the stage. The drama we know, is over for now. But it will continue. As policy it is nonsense. As theater is corny and hackneyed. As talking points the speech is brilliant. We know how the story will unfold from this point onward. If there are checks, we know who the villains are. If there are ordinary heroes and heroines, we know who those will be too. And if the stated goal is snatched away by catastrophe, then more’s the suspense! Will they win out? Or will the pluglike hardliner or crazed bigot momentarily prevail. It looks like happening, but oh! Have faith! Yet of the name of the Hero there is no doubt. And that’s the whole point.
Obama’s speech OK’d Iran’s nuclear weapons while urging American disarmament.
Not only Israel was thrown under the bus, the first Muslim President practically begged (unsurprising since he is both a Muslim who hates America and a Black guy who hates America and Whites in general) AQ and the rest to nuke America.
He’ll get his wish. But his problem is that his forces are simply not strong enough to force a surrender. His non-Whites allied in hatred of Whites are not big enough demographically yet, and his White female support melts away when confronted by actual, real, physical threats. Oh women will be like that Dutch Journalist who kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the Taliban praised them and condemned the US and the Netherlands. But they won’t have the power.
What Obama does not realize is that nukes are the great equalizer, and now the Taliban, AQ, and every other jumped up Jihad hoping to build an exile Army (like Mohammed the role model) has painted a big fat nuclear target on the US.
Meanwhile Israel knows it must nuke first, nuke hard, and not care about Obama. He can’t betray them any further, they all know he’s a Muslim, hates them all, and wants them dead. They have no reason to do anything with him anyway. They are alone, as they knew they would be the second GWB left office.
Please there is no stage setter or Rosetta Stone. This is a Muslim man inviting enemies to attack the “kingdom” he rules so that he may impose Sharia on it’s non-Muslim inhabitants.
He was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim, and as a Muslim hates America and it’s non-polygamous ways the way nearly all Muslims do. Add his racial hatred for Whites (Al Sharpton is a frequent guest of his) and it’s very clear.
“I think the key to understanding Obama’s Cairo address is to see it as a curtain raiser; a stage setter. The speech is a Rosetta Stone…,”
Saying the same thing to three different and distinct parties, first the “Muslum world”, which replaces the Arab Street, second the Muslum extremes which are not the Muslum World but are not the Arab Street either (is everyone perfectly clear on that?), and finally the Western World, which includes Israel and the 76 nations that are part of the coalition in Afghanistan (but not Iraq).
Former British PM Tony Blair and George Mitchel have been busy in the last 18 months improving the civil structure among the Palestinian populations. Their work in laying the foundation for a democratic republic of sorts, if not for tolerance is one positive light in the area.
Unless those efforts prove to be successful, the whole thrust of president Obama’s speech is for naught. For president Obama has placed upon the alter of Palestine the way forward to peace. If the Palestinians choose not to worship in the prescribed manner, nothing is gained. Is anything lost? Will the Palestinians be sacrificed once again upon the Arab and Muslum alter? Or will a different offering be found?
Obama wants everyone to get rid of the “BOMB” and forget about the technology too. So his scolding of Iran on the N issue is meant for all not just Israel.
I don’t believe president Obama could have given that address he did if the efforts in Palestine were not bearing fruit.
The “moment is now”, says President Obama. “U.S. President Barack Obama says the “moment is now” to press for a Middle East peace agreement, and he pledged to redouble efforts to reach a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.” Meanwhile, the Israeli government has dug in it’s heels and will defy Obama on the settlements.
This is a very dangerous strategy for Netanyahu because he is choosing to fight over an issue where Obama will have the PR advantage. Netanyahu is smart and he must know this. So how do we explain this behavior? I speculated several posts ago that Netanyahu was banking on breaking Obama’s momentum. If he can bog him down long enough, he’ll run out of gas and stall. I put it as “he’s waiting for the 300th day because Obama must start to lose his polish around then” or words to that effect.
But now I am not so sure that Netanyahu’s gamble will come off. Obama is a masterful manager of events. He’s like a showman who knows how to keep the excitement up and has got a hard core of support from the Left. If you compare Obama to Gordon Brown in Britain for example, you can see how far Obama has to fall in order to be truly vulnerable. Gordon Brown has had five cabinet members leave in almost as many days, has lost an election, been tarred by financial scandals, and is by common consent guilty of mismanaging the economy. He’s humiliated, time and again by a far more charismatic David Cameron. Even the Guardian, that bastion of the Left, has asked Brown to step down for the sake of the Cause. Nobody even questions that Gordon Brown is dud. But Brown is still in office. The reason, if you read the leftist papers is that “Brown may be lousy but any Conservative would be worse”. And there you have it. It’s religious conviction. We talk about religious fundamentalists, but they have nothing on political fanatics. As long as Obama can keep his hard core supporters behind him and retain the support of the press, he can maintain lift for far longer than one would think.
The joker in the deck is unpredictable events. Will any ride to Netanyahu’s rescue?
question: is cheney the ”american pinoche” ????
”atlas” brings up two crushing new points to ponder. one ”a diversity visa” now is in effect for citizens of those useful, under-represented populations from yemen,mali or burma, etc. and second”a missionary visa” for those ready to preach to the twisted american masses in need of enlightment. think we’ll see lots of Inca priests or SHinto holy men preaching on 125 and Lennox or Boston Commons ??? naaa, they be holy men from islam bringing the k-ran to the yanks…and maybe slipping some new bomb making techniques to the Ummah. or, am i being a tad jaded ????
The moment is now, to press for a peace agreement?
Based on what agreement between which parties? I thought the moment was now to have serious conversation. The Palestinians have shown no signs of being ready for peace, the least of which is the biggest stumbling block. The Palestinians even if they do not stop lobbing suicide bombers at others must acknowledge Israel has a right to exist. Without such an agreement all of this is mere posturing for the Nobel committee.
As for Gordon Brown he is like a zombie, He doesn’t know he is done. The British economy is too. PM Brown’s own policy has assured the British that they will have nearly as long and deep a recession as we in the US will have. I wonder why in the US, no one is calling for change in the Obama approach. I don’t know if incompetence is an impeachable offence but if a case can be made that the incompetence is criminal, we may still have a chance.
The joker in the deck is unpredictable events. Will any ride to Netanyahu’s rescue?
Men count cards. And, laughing, God thumbs the deck.
I am surprised no one has commented on the following passage from Obama:
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
It was clear to me that this was a poke at the Jews. After all, isn’t that what really piques the hostility of the Muslim world – that the Jews proclaim to be God’s Chosen People, one nation elevated above the others?
I have good friends who claim to be anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic. They honestly have no issues with Judaism per se or Jewish individuals. What they do have issues with is the notion that somehow God distinguished Jews as super special and above others. It’s a complex theological issue and David Goldman recently wrote at First Things about the relationship between Jews and Christians as they relate to the issue of Jewish election. Worth a read.
Then again, maybe I am reading too much into Obama’s words. I have this nagging feeling that the combination of a Muslim schoolboy childhood, an agnostic/atheist youth and mother, and adult membership in Black Liberation Theology has the hostility to Jewish election as a common theme. Was that code to the Muslim world on his part?
The question Wretchard, is will events overtake Buraq?
Will there be a terrorist attack on America?
Will Iran got nuclear? Will Pakistan fall apart?
Will interest rates rise and doom the recovery as a result of the massive deficits and want of investors willing to hold American assets?
Will there be hyperinflation as a result of the Fed’s multi-trillion dollar interventions?
Will umemployment continue to rise, sinking the Credit Card companies, commerical real estate loans and the Banks?
Will many of those given loan mods redefault as some economists think, further hurting the Banks?
Buraq is betting he can keep a bunch of very highly charged, volatile balls in the air, without letting a single one fall to the floor and explode, by utilizing some very dubious policies. It won’t work.
Buraq Hussein’s support is not as wide as the media alleges, but it is surely paper thin deep and not well informed. If the politically explosive bad situations above start to fall apart, even Buraq’s con man tricks will wear thin and his support will crumble.
Our exalted President is also asking us to suspend disbelief, to ignore all the contradictions inherent in his policies in addition to the vengeful, violent, brutal history of Islam, for his plans to work even on a political level. But his foolish plans won’t and can’t work, and soon enough we’ll probably get a very bad taste of just how wrong he is.
Hdgreene @ 2 “Why can’t they all be right?”
As much as I am fascinated by the study of the universe’s inner workings, the theory of relativity may be said to have dawned the multicultural era, where an observer’s independent observations can be different than another’s, yet both can be simultaneously correct. They can all be right.
“Buckets’ Modified Theory of Relativity”
“Relative to each individual observer’s frame of reference, an individual’s simultaneous perception of Obama’s speeches can be different than his neighbor’s, and yet both must be said to be correct. No one individual’s perception can be said to be more correct than another’s.”
I think the Obama phenomenon may very well have “gummed up the works” for future American diplomacy. Why? His extreme popularity in Europe and the Middle East will be pegged to him being the most culturally un-American American president in history. In other words, Barack Obama’s popularity will be seen as a cultural rejection of all things American, or at least all things traditionally American. Remember, Barack Obama never talked about “bitter” people “clinging to guns and religion” when he was in Cairo; those disparaging remarks were aimed at Americans, never at Arabs.
What’s the point to an American learning German or French or Arabic when all he needs to do is show an exotic pedigree and charm people with the fact that he didn’t grow up in the United States? What’s the point to an American learning about Islam when all he needs to do is show he is the son of a Muslim father? The Obama phenomenon is dangerous partly because future presidents will always be measured against him. And let’s face it, there aren’t many Americans with a Kenyan father and a Javanese stepfather. Obama worshippers who reset their calendars to when their deity stepped onto the world stage will incessantly ask, “Why can’t you be as good as Obama?” This will be especially the case if Barack Obama becomes known as the worst president in American history.
No man wants to be told by his wife, “Why can’t you be as good as Gene Simmons?” After Barack Obama is gone, the anti-Americanism will come back with a venom, redoubled in its strength. It will take great statesmanship merely to keep the United States together after the damage Obama is doing to the glue that keeps our culture together. Barack Obama’s very sources of popularity reduce the incentive for future American leaders to even try to be ingratiating toward other nations. That would be unfortunate.
The comic book series Superman is a great curse upon America, for far from promoting freedom and initiative, it promotes royalist idolatry toward an illegal immigrant from the planet Krypton who saves the day all by himself without any help from Americans who are already here. Even the Kryptonite that blocks Superman’s power comes from abroad! To say that Americans need Superman is another way of saying that the efforts of Americans without Superman are utterly futile. It is difficult to imagine a message more inherently demoralizing than that. And yet, Barack Obama made a journey to Metropolis, Illinois, so he could pose in front of its Superman statue.
They honestly have no issues with Judaism per se or Jewish individuals. What they do have issues with is the notion that somehow God distinguished Jews as super special and above others.
What do they say about Muslims then? Muslims think they are super-duper special too. The difference between the Muslims and Jews is that the Muslims want to murder everybody that gets in the way of them ruling the world. Do your friends think the “two state solution” is rational? Do they think letting Muslims occupy a strategic part of Israel is wise? Because I have serious issues with somebody claiming they aren’t anti-Jew while simultaneously promoting policies that are likely to get them all killed.
Barack Obama’s very sources of popularity reduce the incentive for future American leaders to even try to be ingratiating toward other nations
I don’t get your point. Obama has been nothing but ingratiating towards other nations, quite frankly it’s disgusting. US foreign policy should not be about “restoring our image”, what everybody else thinks isn’t very important. What matters is our interests, which are not served by obsequious toadying to Europeans and Muslims.
Bob/39:
Well, you just outlined the argument that inevitably follows when someone makes that distinction. I agree with you, to me these friends hold cognitively dissonant ideas. They are liberal, so that is not a shock. But they are also not idiots, they are smart people who have been taught that such dissonance is socially acceptable, even desirable. So, I engage them in debate and discussion in the hopes that at some point they will have an epiphany. These are the little things of which Wretchard speaks – working the people around you to get them to think differently than what the conventional wisdom feeds them. I have moved a couple of people incrementally on some issues. It is a very slow and painful process, but what other choice is there? How do you undo 30. 40, 50 years of social programming? Stalin’s solution was Siberia – I’m not ready to recommend that….yet.
wretchard 31
I don’t trust Obama on this issue at all. Events will show what he really plans to do. But he has left enough slack in his rhetoric to do anything from throwing Israel under the bus to doing nothing.
The moment is “now” to “press” for an agreement. But it will require “patience”. So anything from a strong finger-wagging to reducing military and intelligence cooperation with Israel are kept in reserve. Then there was the classic “redoubling” of efforts. If the inital effort was one penny earned, we could retire the national debt with all the “redoubled” pennies.
If we can’t rescue the English language from Obama, then let’s wallow together. We can speak of an “urgent need” to “create the conditions” “eventually” for a peaceful Palestinian state, acknowledging that “everyone has made mistakes” but placing security against terrorism first “is a fact”.
Buckets hits the nail on the head. To the post-modern, multicultural moron there are no truths other than the fact that there is no truth.
Pure nihilism that is linked to a cultural death wish and which insists that the truth gets defined by the one with the power.
So, in the current climate, whatever Hussein says goes, and what he seems to have said in this speech is, “C’mon in, jihadists. This is your country, too, and it’s time to start the takeover, just like started in Europe a decade or so ago.”
Why can’t the underlying message be that pure and simple, despite all the slight of hand?
Which means, we will continue to slide until we regain our self-confidence, and this will necessarily involve the bigotry of admitting and proclaiming that we ARE better than the rest, that American exceptionalism, with its emphasis on natural law, Judeo-Christian morality, the primacy of the family and the individual, and the explicit rejection of all that is associated with the post-modern left is indeed the way to go. Without that, none of us will get along. In fact, these recent events escalate the risk, even the likelihood, of a global conflagration which will be out of our control and which we must prepare to weather.
Blitzkrieg. The Obama administration seems to be pouring through on every front. I do not believe we are in any better shape here, on the home front, than Netanyahu is in Israel.
The world is littered with the husks of nations who have warred against Israel.
Onesimus
Perhaps we see this in too short a timeframe.
Never has there been such a confluence of events that allow the Muslim world a chance to prove that they can be allowed to join the West and the rest in modernity and “tolerance”. Perhaps, parsing away the subtle details of Obama’s speech, that is the “sense of life” of the whole rhetorical excercise. Make a few compromises, behave yourself in public, and everybody can get along. Sort of.
Jump aboard the train now, because this may be your last chance. When will there be another US President that is this obsequious to the Muslim interest?
If, as has been said, that the Arab/Muslim world never misses an opportunity to miss and opportunity, and that this falls with a thud in the next few years, much of what Obama has said will be discredited by that harshest of judges, reality.
To wish Obama failure (really) is to accept that there might be really terrible slaughter in the world in the years to come. Please let that bitter cup pass us all by.
But the fundamental premise, if I read his words correctly, is false, whatever nice rhetorical turns parts of the speech make. It is what Obama and his class of intellectual peers do best; create false rationalizations to explain the imperfections of men and their societies.
And perhaps that is necessary, as much of the political part of the Muslim world lives in world of self-delusion.
Relativism and Perspective
Relativism does not apply to some universal truths. However, regarding the events of the day – any day – it is absolutely true. Consider as an example a traffic accident involving several cars with some complexity. The various witnesses and drivers will each have their own perspective on the subject, and tell what may appear to be different stories. They have already – consciously or not – assumed what others were thinking and trying to do during the accident. None of renditions will be the absolute truth, and none can be said to be all wrong. That is why inspectors ask all the witnesses.
The same can be said about political conflicts and wars. Everyone, whether directly involved or observing, will have their own take on events depending on what they see, what they knew (or thought they knew) about the issue and what interests they have at stake.
The issue of superiority summarizes to a large extent the Israeli-Palestinian/Moslem conflict. Both believe themselves God’s chosen people. Both believe God is on their side and anyone opposed is wrong. Neither is willing to accept to be equal to the other in any way. But, peaceful coexistence requires at the very least admitting the others have an equal right to exist. That has not yet happened. So, the war continues.
There have been a lot of questions posed regarding how many Moslems are really fundamentalists, and why do the others not speak out or act against them? It also appears that there is a true disbelief that there are any Moslems who are not seeking to kill us all.
I have been around long enough, and seen enough, to know that I do not have all the answers, no matter how much I try. What I always try to do, however, is find context for events that allows for a more accurate perspective.
No one has specific statistics about the percentage of Moslems that are radicalized. But, even a small percentage (assumed at 10-20%) still translates into a very large number and a serious problem. The percentages, as well as the potency of the movements, certainly vary from country to country. We also know the numbers have been growing almost everywhere. The more sever the problems, the more radical people get.
Please put away the guns before you read. I AM NOT COMPARING RELIGIONS OR BELIEFS. I am only addressing basic human traits, which tend to be the same wherever people are born.
This is not a defense of anyone. It is just some context and perspective to help better understand what is happening.
I will not use the word “Moderate” as it still implies a level of potency, which makes them fundamentalists of a lesser degree. There are many of those, but they are not the ones we are talking about here.
Think about all the people around you. There are many who simply do not believe in God, even though they were born into Christian or Jewish families and where taught all the religious dogma. They are simply too doubting to believe in anything they cannot prove.
There are also those – the vast majority – whose religious involvement is limited to praying to God for a better life and seeking comfort that there is a supreme being watching over them. They try to be good people, helpful, generous, etc. But, they do not hang on every word of the Bible. Most have not even read the whole Bible. They do not carry their religion on their sleeve and try to convince all others of their beliefs and reject those who disagree with them. They leave people’s relationship with God to each individual.
This is simple human nature, and applies to all people, of all religions and nations, including the Moslems. People generally focus on their own lives and struggle to improve their lot mostly through legal and moral means. And, when you boil religions to their basics, it all comes down to one moral standard – Do unto others as you wish others to do unto you.
Taqiyeh is only applicable when Moslems are in an environment where they are outnumbered and not able to win. It is there that they are commanded to try to blend in and accept other people’s rules until the time comes when they are able to take over. So when you see Moslems in places where they do not need Taqiyeh, you know that there positions are true. If they can be fundamentalist and it is even better for them, then speaking against it is not for show.
There are instances and places where Moslems have stood up and fought fundamentalists. But, they are limited due to two very simple facts.
The first is that almost all Moslems live in authoritarian societies, where free speech is not permitted and will get you killed. Their options are limited to the fundamentalists or a cruel potentate who rules by fiat and has the support of the world community. Not a good choice.
The second was best articulated by good friend of mine, an international lawyer and 40 year veteran of human rights and a Moslem himself. He had written a lot about the role of religion in Moslem countries and gotten himself into trouble for it. This the way he put it and I paraphrase.
“You and I can debate any issue, disagree present facts to prove our point. One of us may convince the other, or we may agree to disagree. We can even discuss the meaning of verses in the Bible or Koran and present our own interpretations of them. However, if one of us raises a holy book – be that a Koran, Bible or any other – and with absolute conviction that all in it is exact and subject to interpretation and says this is what God said, the conversation is over. Who are we to debate with God and disagree with him? How can we even conduct this conversation since the person in front of us has absolved himself from any authority to discuss the issue? He can only point to God’s words. Since it is God’s word, we will have to take it up with HIM. In the mean time, unless God clearly takes our side in a visible manner, we considered apostates and heretics who stand against God’s will, and subject to eternal damnation.”
Sure an educated person with extensive knowledge of the Koran may be able to point at another part of the book to make his point. But, how many of those are there? Most do not even know were to begin. And, if they do, there are many parts of the Koran that call for war, killing and eradicating the infidels, etc. Temporal context is not specified in the Koran, so it cannot be argued, unless we are willing to take it up with God himself and return a convincing answer. I do not know anyone who has that kind of pull with God, yet.
Thus, most will remain silent to remain alive. Dhimmism is not limited to non-Moslems. Many Moslems live under the similar rules. Fundamentalists have killed much more Moslems than they have killed others.
In those instances where they have a chance of success they do act. A good example is the war between the Lebanese Army and the Sunni Fundamentalists in the Palestinian camp in North Lebanon. The area around the Camp is predominantly Sunni Moslem, and the fundamentalists declared their war on behalf of these people, proclaiming their aim to establish an Islamic state and defend them against an “infidel state” (meaning no Sharia). The Sunnis where on the front lines, shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Lebanese to defeat them. More Sunni soldiers died in that war than any other sect – more than half.
The few Lebanese who were among the fundamentalists were denied burial in their towns. Yes, Sunnis refused to “defile the soil of their towns with the blood of these vile monsters” (their words not mine).
The most common statement heard from Sunnis then was “We do not want to become another Kundahar”. They enjoy their freedom and modernity and wanted to keep them.
Will we see more? Hopefully, but that is a subject for another time.
Cadmus
Jeez, cadmus –i almost hate to chime in wih my little puff of air after such a statement –but –Glick at the Jerusalem Post has just crushed what few crumbs that O seemed to’ve tossed toward Israel. Forgive the long paste, but this snip is important:
(open quote)
Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign – and therefore unjustifiable – intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it.
The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.
This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the “reconstitution” – not the creation – of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.
But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history.”
He then explicitly tied Israel’s establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.
Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal and moral justifications for Israel’s rebirth, was Obama’s characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners’ treatment of their black slaves. He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the US civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, “resistance.”
(close quote)
–that’s just a snip, folks –
Soooo funny!
“The comic book series Superman is a great curse upon America, for far from promoting freedom and initiative, it promotes royalist idolatry toward an illegal immigrant from the planet Krypton who saves the day all by himself without any help from Americans who are already here. ”
Why I always preferred Batman. ANYone could grow up to become Batman, if you were just willng to put the time and effort into educating yourself, and working out, and have enough nerve to go out there and DO it. (And have really really rich dead parents who didn’t get in the way.)