What are your thoughts/observations about what the President did (and did not) say? About the terminology he did (and did not) use? About the location and extent of this material within the overall speech? About the implications for America's potential (non-)involvement in the foreseeable future?
3 comments:
Basically, all Obama said was "we stand for Israel, um, also Palestine." He didn't offer any solutions. I recognize that speech was not about this, and I think President Obama has more of a moderate stance on the conflict than previous U.S. presidents, but I doubt that he will be able to do anything, even if he wanted to. Which I'm not convinced he is. We've been working on a two-state solution for a long time, maybe it's time to think about other alternatives.
-Elika
Obama is very good with words, far, far better than his predecessor G.W. Bush, who as we all know was a bit of an embarrassment with his mangled syntax and Texas drawl (e.g. ‘nucular’ for nuclear ). Obama is always ready with the right speech for every occasion. His diction is perfect, body language graceful. He is perfectly calm and composed as he stands in the presence of tens of millions. Unlike George Bush, who appears in the medium as ‘kinda dumb’ (aren’t all conservatives?) , Obama projects an image of grace and intelligence. This guy is made for television, a depthless medium of glitzy superficiality where platitudes and illusions reign. Marshal McLuhan would have loved him, the magister ludi, the master of the glass bead game.
But Netanyahu, who is also very impressive in the medium (‘Bibi’s English is so good; he talks just like an American!), just doesn’t trust him, especially to watch Israel’s back. Because for Netanyahu and Israel, this is a serious matter, an existential crises; if you miscalculate there are serious consequences; you can’t just go back and fix it with a speech. Israel has no strategic depth, to lose a battle is to lose the war, to lose a war is to cease to exist as a people. Israel isn’t like Mother Russia with endless steppes and forests to absorb invading armies. Israel’s defense doctrine rule number one: Never again will the Jewish nation entrust its security to the goyim.
Listening to Obama’s speech, I realize that everything he says is predictable: he never departs from the script. He keeps on doing the same thing, making the same speeches. In his arrogance he seems to genuinely believe all the praise that an adoring media showers on him.
It’s on the ABC network that I viewed his speech, and right next to the text of the Dear Leader’s speech is a video of an anaconda eating a giant something or other. Right below that is a video of Ann Coulter critiquing Obama’s speech. What a serendipitous confluence of events. Is there a message here? Is this an example of what Jung in his introduction to the I Ching called synchronicity? The anaconda is beautiful and lethal. Anne Coulter is beautiful and lethal. Anyone caught in the coils of either of those two predatory critters is a goner. What if we feed Obama to Ann Coulter? Which is it better to be—an anaconda or its meal?
The President's words on Israel and Palestine certainly aren't new, but it's good to know that this is still the position he takes; that is, a strong line against extremism on both sides and standing behind the idea of a two state solution. He didn't offer any new ideas about accomplishing such a solution, but that wasn't really the point of the speech I guess.
Elsewhere, throughout the speech, the President seemed to emphasize the USA's right and obligation to project power abroad for the purpose of defending human rights and liberty (and removing those who violate these common values). This surely applies to the Israel-Palestine area too, but the US does have a history of being a little less robust when trouble crops up there -- it usually seems that both this and past administrations prefer to let Israel handle things regarding Palestine on its own while offering as little intervening action or suggestion as possible. Aside from helping supply Israel's arsenal, obviously. Hopefully the US will take a more involved role in resolving the conflict in the future, while taking into consideration the interests of both parties. Hopefully. But you have to remember that any chance for peace faces the aggressive opposition of committed and energetic people who are convinced that land can be holy and fellow humans can be infidels whose fate is inconsequential. Because so many on both sides hold a worldview that maintains God is on their side and death isn't permanent, and that human history is pre-ordained, the introduction and widespread acceptance of reality-based solutions to the problems of the real world will unavoidably face strong public opposition in both Israel and Palestine. The President may take a practical and just position on Israel and Palestine, but there is a limit to what he, the US or anyone can do. The future of the region will ultimately be decided by the people who actually live there. And while many may want peace, the most violent, loud and outrageous among any group of people make an undeniably powerful impact on politics, social life and opinion. This particular genre of opposition to peace may last many more generations yet. Such strongly held beliefs held by so many people aren't going to stop being influential anytime soon.
-Nate
Post a Comment