Add this, by Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker, to the neoliberal consensus that has rallied to embrace Obama's war speech for the peace prize.
Hertzberg thinks it is the most thoughtful statement by Barack Obama of any kind, and cites David Brooks in a link to authorize Obama's understanding of Niebuhr. George Packer is also quoted at length.
Thomas Friedman, also, might have been quoted, since he proposed the America sections of the Oslo speech--the parts that honor the U.S. as a guardian and protector of world peace for two generations. Friedman approved of the speech, in fact, in a column two months before Obama spoke it, and wrote the following words in his published draft in October:
"I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, to liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi fascism. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers and sailors who fought on the high seas and forlorn islands in the Pacific to free East Asia from Japanese tyranny in the Second World War.
"I will accept this award on behalf of the American airmen who in June 1948 broke the Soviet blockade of Berlin with an airlift of food and fuel so that West Berliners could continue to live free. I will accept this award on behalf of the tens of thousands of American soldiers who protected Europe from Communist dictatorship throughout the 50 years of the cold war. . . .
"I will accept this award on behalf of the thousands of American soldiers who today help protect a free and Democratic South Korea from an unfree and Communist North Korea."
Obama found these words for the same thought in Oslo:
"A quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations--an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize--America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.
"In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
"...In many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
"Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions --not just treaties and declarations--that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans."
The neoliberals are displaying their unity. They surround each other with each other, and are warmed by the thought of a president who accepts the necessity of American wars with a show of gravity. Their new, or, rather, newly explicit consensus on the good of American militarism, is likely to serve Barack Obama more efficiently than the neoconservative consensus ever served Bush in Iraq.
They surround each other with each other
This is always the danger of “communities.” This is why Phil is wise to encourage Zionist voices here, so the regular posters aren’t just always hearing the sound of their own voices, agreeing with themselves.
I only wish that we could get rid of the hateful and abusive ones.
RE: “I will accept this award on behalf of the thousands of American soldiers who today help protect a free and Democratic South Korea from an unfree and Communist North Korea.”
What about the thousands of American soldiers we’ve sent to Vietnam, Afghanistan,
Iraq, and those blown up in Lebanon? What are they, chopped liver? How about those
training selected Palestinians to police the West Bank?
RE: “The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.”
Nothing about the service and sacrifice of men and women in uniform promoting
peace and prosperity in the Middle East–aren’t they dying and being maimed daily, and for how many years? I wonder what they think of being left out of Obama’s speech? Vietnam vets must feel left out too.
Looks like Obama and Friedman think the world (especially Europe) owes the USA complete loyalty
no matter what we’ve done with the last few generations of our soldiers, our military might.
In a PRI interview commenting on Obama’s Nobel “Peace” prize acceptance speech, Michael Walzer dangerously expanded the concept of Just War that Obama laid out in his speech.
Walzer said:
said Walzer, “which implies that sovereignty does not extend, as I think it obviously does not extend, to mass murder.”
In the first instance, on Obama’s theory of justice, one is compelled to ask just how much justice one nation may exact from another. How many more Afghanis and Iraqis must die to propitiate the acts of Saudi and Pakistani ideologues?
As for Walzer’s extension of the doctrine to one that permits war cloaked as “humanitarian intervention,” how does it relate to a notion explicated in Rabbi Kenneth Spiro’s writings on the virulently anti-Islamic AISH haTorah website:
When Israelis or zionists or any group believes that they and they alone and uniquely have the divine right to tell other people how to live, that is the beginning of the gravest injustice in all humanity.
To understand Rabbi Spiro’s perspective is to understand why nation after nation expelled Jews from their midst — Jews who believed that they were specially endowed with the right to tell their hosts how they should live.
Thomas Jefferson put himself to the task of understanding Judaism as thoroughly as possible, including in his efforts the study of the Hebrew language. He concluded that “Judaism is morally deficient;” but that “Jesus was the greatest examplar of morality that humankind has known.” (see Avalon.org)
PG: To understand Rabbi Spiro’s perspective is to understand why nation after nation expelled Jews from their midst
No it’s not. The reasons were, more often than not, hatred of the Other, religious fanaticism, economic advantage, political expediency, collective punishment for the actions of a few, etc. That is not to say that Jews were always innocent lambs, but to present the historical persecution of Jews – especially in the sweeping way that you have – as the reasonable action of elightened and outraged gentiles against Jewish “perfidy”, is both wrong and unjust.
To connect this to another recent thread, if there were some inherent problem with Judaism, why did Jews and Muslims generally get along quite well? Ashkenazim and Mizrahim share the same Bible, Talmud, Kabbalah, exegesis, philosophical works, etc.
His statement was wrong, unjust and a genuine example of real anti-semitism, not the faux variety that people are accused of when they criticize Israel or Zionism.
Your response was calm and logical, but it really shouldn’t have to be said.
I agree, Shmuel, sweeping generalizations are both wrong and unjust.
It is wrong and unjust of me to make such sweeping generalizations.
It is equally wrong for Jews to make sweeping generalizations that they have been persecuted for thousands of years, that that sense of always and forever persecution entitles them to special protections — such as a US government office to monitor and combat antisemitism link to state.gov
Why should “semites” be afforded special protections by United States taxpayers?
In a blog comment I quoted earlier today a Jewish person asserted the intention to “kill millions of Arabs” should Jews feel a “new holocaust” taking shape.
That’s a pretty powerful declaration, yet that Jewish person’s right to make that threat is protected by the combined force of the United States government. My right and ability to push back against it is limited to pounding on keys on a blog. For that reason, I consider it justifiable to make bold, sweeping generalizations– call it proportionality — to force the issue that history and even the common man’s understanding of history does not support the proposition that Jews are either perpetual victims or preternaturally innocent.
btw: I find a certain irony in some charges of “anti-semitism.” Several days ago a diary on a popular political blog written by a person named Jeffrey Feldman stated: “Why did they make this anti-Semitic statement? They know I am Jewish, since my last name is Jewish.”
The irony: No, Feldman is NOT a Jewish name, it is a German name. Mr. Feldman proved Ahmadinejad’s point. And my point: When Jews presume to take over the cultural legacy of another, they ought to expect that resentment will follow. You wanna show pride in your Jewish heritage? Call yourself Shmuel. But don’t presume that German-ness is equivalent to Jewishness; that’s stealing history.
I agree, also, that Jews and Muslims generally get along quite well. Which is why tomes and theses such as Mike Evans’, in link to amazon.com
The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps (one suspects the size of the book jacket was too small for all the fear-mongering catch-phrased Evans wished to cram into his title) is so hateful: Evans, a Jewish man who converted to Christianity, is a consultant to Bibi Netanyahu and founder of “The Joshua Project.” The thesis of “Final Move” is that the US ought to follow the wisdom of Torah and condemn Ishmael and his tribe in favor of Isaac and the Jews. This is hateful.
I have been excoriated just as vehemently for bringing attention to the positive experience of Professor Michael Broyde as he participated in a UN-sponsored conference on religion held at Qom, Iran, in 2005 link to emory.edu
as you have chastised me for “sweeping generalizations” casting Jews in an ugly light.
The moral of the story: if both positive and negative recitations of Jewish interactions in the world are greeted with criticism and censorship, it is the human tendency to react with anger and to affirm the negative impression.
Psychopathic god:
In a blog comment I quoted earlier today a Jewish person asserted the intention to “kill millions of Arabs” should Jews feel a “new holocaust” taking shape. That’s a pretty powerful declaration, yet that Jewish person’s right to make that threat is protected by the combined force of the United States government … For that reason, I consider it justifiable to make bold, sweeping generalizations– call it proportionality — to force the issue that history and even the common man’s understanding of history does not support the proposition that Jews are either perpetual victims or preternaturally innocent.
I’m glad you don’t literally believe your sweeping generalisation about the historical persecution of Jews. Interestingly, I had a similar discussion with a Zionist apologist a while back, where I called him out on his false representation of the facts surrounding the last Lebanon war. He eventually conceded the facts, but argued that his misrepresentations had been justified in order to force the issue that Jews are perpetual victims and everything Israel does is in self defence. So where does that leave us? You say you are trying to force a more nuanced view of history, but your provocation simply promotes an equally false dichotomy (gentiles good Jews bad, instead of Jews good gentiles bad), and gives the ADL exactly what it wants. You can’t force truth with falsehood.
Very well said, Shmuel. Though I must say, I have seen the kind of “push-back” PG is talking about in my interactions as well. The reaction he displayed is, in part, motivated by true (if momentary) outrage at a “perpetual victim” narrative that [some] people feel they are being spoon fed, in an kind of a coersive attempt to guilt trip them into collective guilt. Well, one thing jewish people (even very loosely connected to judaism) fail to appreciate is that protestants are not susceptible to guilt-tripping in the way catholics are. Their faith has a highly individual component to it, an element of choice, and an altogether different interpretation of sin (original or otherwise). I don’t know whether PG’s statement fits in this interpretation, but I’m reminded of the some incidents I witnessed.
As one small example, an individual I know who comes from a methodist background (though he himself is far from religious), reacted very negatively when a Jewish person we both know brought up the catholic church’s persecution of Jews in the middle ages, implying that somehow this gave this one particular jewish person (who happened to be a rather well off and well connected individual) a morally justified position of feeling perpetually as “the injured party”, with the implied ‘entitlement of “compensation in-kind”. In other words, though well removed – by centuries – from certain events, somehow – at least on a psychological level, the Jewish person not only felt he had a right to be “grandfathered” into collective injury clause (no matter his own tenuous connection to the original injured parties), but that somehow, that gave him the right to continue to collect ‘compensation’, on any level he chooses. As a descendant to a protestant tradition , the non Jewish person he felt utterly offended and indeed, outraged, by this implication that he – as someone completely disconnected from catholic traditions and excesses (even as his own co-religionist ancestors were probably persecuted themselves) should be made to feel somehow obligated on a moral level – through no misdeed of his or his relatives’, or any one of his known ancestors. In a state of gut-level outrage he retaliated by making his own sweeping generalization about the arrogance of jews and their claim on the uniqueness of their ‘victimhood’ over all others who were victimized throughout history. A statement, that on its face, could be construed as having anti-semitic overtones. The incident was eventually patched up (thanks to yours truly, I’d add, who just happened to be in one of her calmer moods), but I know – am certain of it – that the jewish person went off feeling even more reinforced in his “perpetual victim’ thesis, and the non Jewish person remained resentful.
I have noticed this happening at other times, and from the occasional outburst am inclined to believe there’s a reservoir of this kind of resentment among non jews, no matter how much they may profess admiration for israel and/or attachment to the chosen people in the holy land. Interestingly, I heard similarly indignant outbursts when an issue of compensation for slavery is brought up, for example, in connection with affirmative action. People – who happen to be white – really seem to resent an infliction of guilt-by-association simply due to skin color and no other attribute. I’ve learnt (over many years of making many mistakes) to take certain pronouncements made in the heat of the moment in stride. Kind of like the statements people sometimes make about a parent or an ex in front of the children.
As an aside, I’ve saved a little video about baboon societal behavior that’s 10 minutes long. Whenever I feel aggrieved for any length of time at someone over some comment that was made, I make a point of watching this video for a while. Then everything becomes crystal clear – at least momentarily.
RE: “The reasons were, more often than not, hatred of the Other, religious fanaticism, economic advantage, political expediency, collective punishment for the actions of a few, etc. That is not to say that Jews were always innocent lambs…”
Yeah, those were all motives, historically. Marx had a pretty good clue in terms of
socio-economic motives. How did the average Jew appear to the average Gentile
in the Middle Ages? In what form, and what power? Serfdom is gone, but is modern
economic reality so different? Once upon a time Jews could not literally own land in many places, but Christians could not literally engage in usury or medicine. These are not small facts. It’s really not been a long time in the face of all history
since serfdom was abolished. Rich white gentiles have a lot to make up for, as Chaos has implied in past threads. And, as Phil says, rich white Jews are now at least equally, if not more so, to blame. Obama is doing his best to make more colorful elites equally to blame?
When, in history, have Jews gone around telling other peoples how they should live? This is full of shit. Jews, historically, have usually either assimilated into the surrounding culture or lived as a people apart in order to avoid this – and sometimes forced into this segregation by the surrounding culture. But never has Judaism been about assimilating the surrounding culture, proselytising or coercing.
Rabbi Spiro was awash in wishful thinking about Judaism, but I don’t know how you could have gone from his remarks to your own.
I disagree that “never has Judaism been about…proselytising or coercing;” quite the contrary. In the Roman world, many, many religious traditions and forms of worship were accepted; it was considered perfectly normal that many gods inhabited the spiritual world and that any person could worship however many and whichever gods he chose.
Jews insisted that only one god should be worshipped: in “Heritage, Civilization and the Jews,” Abba Eban makes this point very clear; so does Rabbi Spiro. Coming from a Catholic background, it’s tricky to navigate the level of authority one should vest in a Rabbi Spiro — a Catholic priest derives authority from a hierarchical system; what validates a Rabbi Spiro? Is what he writes complete nonsense? How does one know?
It’s true that Jewish leaders once went around like Mormons at your door.
There were certainly times when the monotheistic notions of Judaism became more widespread and conversion was more common. The Khazers did convert wholesale to Judaism, but this, as I understand it, was at the desire of the Khazars.
The Mongols also auditioned Judaism as a prospective religion before choosing Islam, instead. There would have been a historical fork!
Maccabeans, potsherd.
No, Maccabeans went around forcing other Judeans to practice Judaism as they conceived it, they weren’t trying to convert the Greeks, just the Hellenized Jews.
Sarah Palin, in her book, essentially agrees with Obama. Humans are innately evil; especially in group conduct and ideology. Shrub (or Reagan) could have delivered that Obama Oslo speech; certainly there is nothing inconsistent, except his lesser ability to read teleprompters and speak the English language. Did Orwell write Obama’s speech?
Did Saint Augustine? In the speech 9/11 attack motives were related to Hitler’s regime–Al Quaida justified USA historically recent military operations;
the 9/11 commission determined that those motives were directly related to the USA’s
consistent rubber-stamping and funding of Israeli actions–straight from the mouth of
those who planned and executed the hijacked planes attack on the symbolic WTC (as well as
the 93 bombing of the WTC) but only referred to in the 9/11 report as acceptable blowback from generalized USA foreign policy.
Here’s a comparison of MLK and Obama regarding Obama’s Oslo speech:
link to blog.buzzflash.com
Belief in universal human rights – if that’s what we do believe in – does seem to imply some kind of right of intervention in their defence: in what sense are they universal if we don’t have to do anything about them outside our borders? This in turn seems to require some kind of supranational body, comparable to the UN, on whom oppressed people everywhere could rely. But we have not created anything of the kind and have kept the actual UN rather weak. In practice, recent attempts at humanitarian intervention have not gone so well.
On Jewish interest in conversions, Sand’s recent book is very good.
As an analysis of the positions of Jews, Christians and anti-Semites Freud’s ‘Moses and Monotheism’ is extremely interesting, in a sense the most important attempt to see the problem from both sides.
From both Sand and Freud we can see how religions and by extension cultures are always being interpreted and reinterpreted, so that their inner essence becomes elusive. I would hate to see us split by different views over the inner essence of Judaism (or Islam) rather than concentrate on the actual deeds and predicaments of Israelis (or Palestinians) – this inner essence is not a thing we can fix and grasp.
Good point. Look at the facts on the ground over the last half century, for example.
Notice how they keep changing in the former Palestinian Mandate land?
1. Israel Shahak attempts to relate the “facts on the ground” to the “inner essence” of Judaism, or Islam, Christianity, Americanism, Arabness, Persian. “This inner essence” is a thing we must be able to grasp, to understand, but never, ever presume to have the right to “fix.”
2. Natan Sharansky — and Tzipi Livni — emphasize the centrality of Torah to Jewish identity. I raise the matter of Thomas Jefferson’s “Life and Morals of Jesus” because the thinking of Jefferson and other founding Americans should be more and more intensely understood by Americans as the authors of the “American Bible, or establishing epic, mythos, and value system; Torah is an interesting intellectual exercise but it does not define the American character and value system. I reject the notion that the Abrahamic/Noahide tradition establishes the American founding epic. I would not presume to attempt to “fix” Judaism, and I resent any attempt to reshape in the image and likeness of a Middle Eastern god the unique character of whatever is the American identity.
MHughes: I would hate to see us split by different views over the inner essence of Judaism (or Islam) rather than concentrate on the actual deeds and predicaments of Israelis (or Palestinians) – this inner essence is not a thing we can fix and grasp.
I agree, but when such issues arise, they must be adressed. One argument in favour of the inherently evil nature of Jews ruins a thousand arguments in favour of Palestinian human rights. The current momentum (BDS, GFM, Goldstone, arrest warrants for Israeli war criminals, cracks in the MSM) will collapse if it loses its universality – which includes the rejection of real anti-Semitism. And it is Palestinians, first and foremost, who will continue to pay the price.
Thanks for reminding us what it’s all about. Unfortunately, it’ll be difficult to avoid some toxic elements when the adversaries happen to be mostly Jewish, and the sense of moral outrage is so intense. As you say, the only anti-dot is to strive and bring the issue of human rights back into focus. The temptation to go off on tangents is enormous, and not all humans are good at resisting temptation, or even recognizing it as one. It’s just that while we argue about who was or wasn’t responsible for what transpired over eons of human history, a great injustice is being done to actual people right now, and we should never forget that (I try not to; I know you don’t and many others here). Sometimes, I wonder what the reaction is of palestinians who may be reading comments on this blog, while sitting somewhere in the WB/Gaza. I bet some would love to have the luxury of discoursing ad-infinitum on the nature of anti-semitism, the jewish gestalt, racism and the like.
Good points, as always, Danaa. The resentment and frustration are clear and understandable. I feel them myself, from my own perspective – which I think you know something about. It is also true that a lot of our chit-chat here must seem self-indulgent in the extreme to the people who really bear the brunt of things. On the other hand, it was actually the Palestinians who rode the anti-Semites out on a rail, on another forum I used to participate in, claiming that they were harming the Palestinian cause, which could count on nothing but the moral high ground. If it weren’t for that, I wouldn’t even bother with anti-Jewish remarks around here. I’m not the anti-Semitism police, and we really do have much bigger fish to fry – from Palestinians, to Iraqis to Lebanese, to your garden variety western Islamophobia.
Pingback: Nice N Easy Sees Results With Performance Management Software | Management Business Wisdom
It can’t be impossible for Palestinians and non-Jewish Israeli citizens to join in Western discussions of this kind: I wish we would hear more from them, though I expect they’re extremely and understandably impatient with us. But their silence and abstention from Western discourse is part of the reason why they seem so utterly other and why the Zionist claim that ‘there was no people in the land’ attract a kind of credence even now.
My own conscience is troubled by the fact that I am morally at variance with most Jews – very serious matters and very strong feelings are involved. Does this mean that I’m at variance with ‘something essential to being Jewish’? I reply to this by saying that ‘something essential to being Jewish’ is only a fiction, not a reality. I hate the brutal, brutally essentialist, language of traditional anti-Semitism like ‘the Jew politician X’. But I have to work hard at the distinction between ‘what is essential to Jewishness’ and ‘what is prevalent among Jews’. I can’t get over the fact that I’m against the latter. Zionists are in effect arguing that if you are against what is prevalent among Jews you cannot entirely separate yourself from the anti-Semites, however much you may dislike them. What do you think they were against? – I don’t find the standard replies to this argument very convincing.