THE PLANK JULY 28, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Jeffrey Goldberg gets calls from "two senior administration officials" responding to the argument that Obama should directly address the Israeli people:
These two senior officials -- sorry, those were the ground rules --
made the plausible argument that the Cairo speech was, in fact,
directed at Israelis as much as it was directed at Arabs. "The President went before a Cairo audience in a speech co-sponsored by
Al-Azhar with Muslim Brotherhood members in the audience and spoke of
America's strong, unshakable support for Israel," one of the officials
said. "He could have gone to a million different venues to say this,
but he went to Cairo, and it wasn't exactly an applause line. Isn't it
more important to say this to the Muslim world than it is to say it to
an audience of Israelis or American Jews?"
That argument is in fact plausible, but I think it misses a larger point--which is the not insignificant matter of flattery. The mere fact that Obama chooses to address a group--whether it's Iranians with his Nowruz address; Africans with his speech to the Ghanain parliament; Europeans with his town hall in Strasbourg; or Muslims with his Cairo speech--carries the message that the group (and its opinion of him and America) matters to him and America in some special way. Yes, Obama said a lot of things in Cairo that should have been music to Israelis' ears (although he also said some things, as Aluf Benn notes, that were rather discordant to those ears); but when it comes to Obama's speeches, the where may actually be just as important as the what.
--Jason Zengerle
7 comments
So when does it become absolutely imperative that President Obama speak directly [and only -- for that's the true path to flattery] to the people of China or India? That's about 40% of the world's population, so one would think they're due some flattery, as well. Surely it isn't too controversial, even at TNR, that 40% of the Earth's population might be roughly as important -- and deserving of flattery -- as Israel.*
Who else should be in line for some presidential flattery? Maybe the State Department should take requests and countries can get in line for an Obama speech directed right at them.
* Of course, the Israel speech would be particularly entertaining, if only for the post-speech analysis at TNR, where it is debated at length whether or not the speech was flattering *enough.* [Hint: It won't be.]
- DC Spence
July 28, 2009 at 1:30pm
What struck me most about Goldberg's comment was the following:
--These two senior officials -- sorry, those were the ground rules ..
and then Goldberg goes on to quote them using quotation marks and all. It is bad enough that "journalists" quietly report senior official's background briefings without having them foreground direct quotes from unnamed "seniot officials."
I thought the whole point of the Cairo speech was that it was hosted in a Muslim country and directed 9primarily) towards Muslims.
- ndmackenzie
July 28, 2009 at 2:28pm
Senior officials represent a pretty large group too, most governments around the world possess them. The Chinese and the Indians have millions of 'em! Maybe Obama could do something special for those folks? After all, they don't get out much, unless they are giving deep background to reporters.
It's a lonely life. Like posting on TNR.
- ironyroad
July 28, 2009 at 3:24pm
When only 6% of Israelis consider Obama a friend, that means that most Israelis simply don't trust him and don't believe him. It will take much more than a speech to reverse that trend. Words are cheap, and as we've learned (from Hillary), "unenforceable".
Israelis don't go for flattery and coming from Obama at this point it wouldn't be believed by most Israelis. Besides to be at all meaningful he would have to contradict some of things he said in Cairo & elsewhere. Israelis and probably the Arabs as well would pick up on this and render the whole exercise meaningless.
In his AIPAC speech Obama referred to Jerusalem undivided as Israel's capital. Now he raises a fuss about Jewish construction on a property in eastern Jerusalem, privately purchased in the early 1980's in an area bounded by Hebrew U's Mt. Scopus campus (which was an Israeli enclave -- and hence unusable but officially Israeli nonetheless -- from '48-'67), and the national police headquarters. So as an Israeli, which Obama do I believe? The one from AIPAC who was trolling for Jewish votes or the elected version who seems to be hell-bent on humiliating Netanyahu and reneging on past understandings?
However Obama deserves credit for doing what was widely considered the impossible -- get Israelis, even from the left, to circle the wagons around Netanyahu.
Hershel Ginsburg
Efrata / Jerusalem
- ginzy
July 28, 2009 at 4:36pm
It might be useful to remember that Obama is president of the United States, has no official status within the state of Israel, and probably has no immediate motive to try to bump up his numbers there (he's somewhat more worried, I suspect, about the support for major health care reform at home). It would be nice if Israelis such as ginzy could vote themselves the U.S. president that suits them, but it's difficult to see how that might work out -- particularly as not all Israeli leaders have been to the taste of Americans, but we couldn't do much about it either.
If a nation's alliance with another nation is robust, it will survive shifts and disagreements, even on the substance. If it isn't, then popularity numbers won't help.
- ironyroad
July 28, 2009 at 5:33pm
I am a dual citizen and i do vote (sometimes) in US elections (I also have to file a 1040 every year). I vote via the state Illinois, my last USA residence.
As a US citizen I have every right to "petition the gov't" (and the media) to implement policies I support.
hg
- ginzy
July 29, 2009 at 3:41am
Indeed you do, ginzy. Nevertheless, I think it can be -- again, can be -- somewhat cognitively dissonant to read a set of arguments based upon a president's popularity numbers in a country of which he's not a political office-holder of any kind. It's one thing to assert that policy A or policy B would be beneficial to both the United States and anther country, e.g. Israel, but it's a slightly different thing to suggest that the president's individual polling numbers in said country (even a close ally) should be taken as guidance in choosing to execute A or B.
- ironyroad
July 29, 2009 at 10:48am