Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event
President Obama’s long-awaited speech in Cairo on U.S.-Muslim relations met expectations. It was passionately read and delivered (except for one stumble: calling a “hijab” a “hajib,” an understandable error), touched all the rhetorical bases and – typical Obama – actually said much less than it read.
What it did say, however, should cause Jews, frivolous worriers, to worry for real. As always, what was said was as important as what not was said, and the audience reaction spoke eloquently about the effect of these words on the Muslim world.
Many will perceive the speech as a success simply by virtue of its having been given, and because Obama was met by occasional applause but never with a shoe or two. But what in fact did he say?
Praising Islam for all its contributions to civilization is admirable and accurate; of course, Obama could have delivered this speech in the year 1200 – by which time all the “contributions” he mentioned had already been made. Islam has been slumbering, in primitivism and occasional barbarism, for 800 years, and but for the discovery of vast oil reserves a century ago would today be completely ignored by the civilized world.
To speak of Islam as a wellspring of “dignity, justice and tolerance” is, at this point in history, delusional, as is the attempt to marginalize Islamic radicals as some fringe element in Islamic society, when in fact their supporters number perhaps in the tens of millions. And terming Islam, as a religion, part of the “solution” for global peace would have been more meaningful had it followed the simple truth that Islam is the only religion sparking violence across the globe today.
But Jews should be most concerned. Speaking of America as “partners” with Muslims and Jews in forging peace is a troubling code that signals that America and Israel – according to Obama – no longer share the special relationship that has always marked the two countries. The implied moral equivalence between the suffering of the Jews historically (especially during the Holocaust) and the suffering of the Palestinians “in their quest for statehood” was obscene.
By avoiding Israel on this trip (instead tossing Jews the bone of visiting Buchenwald), Obama sent Jews the clear message that we are to be best perceived as history’s victims, to be sheltered by the beneficence of a kind world but not at all as national actors with rights, interests and claims of our own. And the comparison of moral offenses committed by both sides – lodging rockets at sleeping babies and blowing up old ladies on city buses (Arabs) vs. building of settlements (Jews) is grotesque.
Whatever Obama’s personal background (rootless, without any real identity, and therefore a citizen of the world who is above the parochial religions that engender strife) and his rhetorical nods to Israel (America will never abandon Israel, etc.), deeds speak louder than words. And his campaign to weaken Israel and force it into making suicidal concessions is now crystal clear. He has decided what will bring lasting peace in the region, and he will impose whatever he has to – despite the fact that the same solution has been tried in the very recent past and failed miserably.
Once again Jews are expected to make concrete concessions, dismember their land and jeopardize their existence – in exchange for a repeat (sixth or seventh time, by my count) of Arab promises not to use violence, not to incite violence, not to indoctrinate their children with the ideals of violence, etc. Same defective merchandise being sold, this time by a new and charming salesman.
The real gauge of the speech was the audience reaction. A State of the Union address, with its constant and insipid interruptions of hand clapping, it was not. Obama’s comments about the Holocaust and the evil of Holocaust denial were met with stony silence. His impassioned declaration that Arabs must recognize Israel’s right to exist generated no applause at all.
And this took place in what passes in the Muslim world for a bastion of moderation – a university setting in which students in the past have participated in pro-democracy riots. But any positive reference to Israel – indeed, any indication that Arabs might have to compromise on anything – was greeted with dead air.
About the Author: Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun of Teaneck, New Jersey, and the author most recently of “Judges for Our Time: Contemporary Lessons from the Book of Shoftim” (Gefen Publishing House, Jerusalem, 2009). His writings and lectures can be found at www.Rabbipruzansky.com.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
Wye would be seen to have set the groundwork for the creation of a Palestinian state
Blaming Israel for the violence in Gaza, he ends up justifying Hamas’s terrorism.
In the Thirties it was common for anti-Semites to call on Jews to “go to Palestine!”
“This arbitrary ban is an ugly stain on our democracy, and it also undermines the rule of law.”
We take US “aid” for psychological reasons-if we have an allowance, that means we have a father.
ZIM Piraeus isn’t Israeli-owned or flagged, incidentally, it is Greek operated.
Foolish me, thinking the goals were the destruction of Hamas thereby giving peace a real chance.
The free-spirted lifestyle didn’t hold your interest; the needs of your people did.
And why would the U.S. align itself on these issues with Turkey and Qatar, longtime advocates of Hamas’s interests?
Several years ago the city concluded that the metzitzah b’peh procedure created unacceptable risks for newborns in terms of the transmission of neo-natal herpes through contact with a mohel carrying the herpes virus.
The world wars caused unimaginable anguish for the Jews but God also scripted a great glory for our people.
We were quite disappointed with many of the points the secretary-general offered in response.
Judging by history, every time Hamas rebuilds their infrastructure, they are stronger than before.
There is a certain unwordliness to the pope’s call for a two-state solution, an obliviousness to the reality on the ground.
Much of what we know about 19th century Orthodoxy is false, including the provenance of the term Orthodox.
A president who today used the language of FDR or JFK would be derided. If he were a candidate, the media elites would bury his chances of winning the election. He would be a laughing stock to the aimless young people whose uninformed opinions on public affairs seem to matter more than they should.
With the constant drumbeat of articles about “Orthodox” female rabbis appearing in the media almost weekly – essentially the same articles making the same points to the same eager audience, all to make the phenomenon of such “rabbis” seem commonplace – it is important to take a step back and examine how we arrived at this destination.
The Wall Street Journal last month featured a front-page article titled “After These Jewish Prayer Services, Things Come ‘To Life’ at Open Bar,” with the sub-heading, “To Woo Worshippers, Synagogues Compete with Food and Booze.”
In the wake of the presidential election, American Jews must once again ask a fundamental question that seems to defy both societal trends and a clear resolution: why do Jews overwhelmingly support the Democratic candidate, year after year, election after election?
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/121690/2009/06/10/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: