When Make Believe Makes Us Believe
Posted on December 31st, 2008
by Dennis Dale |
|
Last summer, as Barack Obama directed the subtle intimidation of fawning European crowds (millions of charisma-intoxicated Germans can’t be wrong!) at those Americans still retaining the quaint notion presidential elections are domestic affairs not subject to global opinion, at least one of his acolytes in the media here in the formal remnant of the United States gushed that Senator Obama had thereby assumed the leadership role vacated by President Bush–by acquiring the geopolitical equivalent of an impressive TVQ score. “Power begets more power, absolutely” Mr. Rich enthused, apparently without irony.
We’ll leave aside for the moment the interlocutor’s widely shared confusion–that President Bush does, or that President Obama can be expected to, maintain a leadership role that is more substantial than ceremonial. The inverse relationship between the freedom of action afforded a president and the power vested in the executive office continues to grow, along with the complexity of the job and Congress’ by now institutional cowardice. Likewise the relationship between the caliber of man drawn from the electable and the reverential expectations we have of the office. For this we have only ourselves to blame. Remarkable leaders are possible only by astounding coincidence in this environment, and they will not be fashioned out of creative desperation (witness the fiction of President Bush’s post-9/11, thrust-upon greatness).
Of course, before Barack Obama’s world tour touched down amid the automatic adulation of the children and the childlike of Europe, he’d already performed a much smaller gig in front of a tougher crowd in Israel, where he dutifully asserted that any amount of force (or US munitions) Israel deems necessary to deter Hamas’ crude rocket attacks is justified, because he has children of his own (the children of Gaza, and how their deaths might perpetuate the cycle of violence–something the president-elect has at least feigned awareness of in the past–would not be allowed to complicate this simple calculus). Yes, he doesn’t really believe this, he was just saying–which is precisely the point. Even now, three weeks before the nation changes administrations in a state of bewildering economic and geopolitical crisis, the next president of the United States has little experience beyond just saying.
That rhetorical bet of last July is now being called, before the president-elect has even sat at the table in earnest, as sanction for a gruesomely disproportionate military response leveled upon an all but powerless adversary. The precocious senator, having grown used to posturing before people intoxicated by the imagined wisdom inherent in his mulatto moral superiority, and having his elegant vapidities received as profundities, has forgotten, or never properly learned, that words have meaning. Of course he’s not alone; we’ve all forgotten this. Barack Obama wouldn’t be possible otherwise.
More to the point, this man who’s made a religion of power (with which he has, like the born-again Christian and his savior, a close personal relationship), has ascended with such absurd ease and rapidity to its pinnacle he hasn’t had the opportunity to develop sufficient respect for its consequences. His make-believe of last summer, playing at global “leadership”, is suddenly harsh reality. Israel’s hard bargainers weren’t just looking for him to genuflect properly (this much is to be expected), but were looking for something a little more concrete. Obliterate the Gazan ghetto with America’s finest military hardware before an outraged world, burning through American soft power as rapidly as we expend her munitions? Yes we can!
So the presumption and airs of that heady summer last are nowhere to be found as the president-elect ducks questions on his way from gym to golf course, his sudden shyness papered over by embarrassing beefcake shots. “One president at a time” is how the dodge is put into words, even as Israel’s actions and Ehud Barak’s assertions, placing limitations upon the incoming administration with the complicity of the current one, reveal it for what it truly is, capitulation to a forced reality. The economic crisis warranted no such respectful inaction, but rather haste in supporting the status quo; Obama’s duck-and-cover in this instance is really the same thing after all, reassurance to the players upon which the new president’s cherished power is utterly dependent that he will not step out of line. As for that much-hyped esteem which the rest of the world so cheaply bestowed on our frail young prince, it will wear out as quickly and to the same disappointment of any cheap purchase if Mr. Obama doesn’t redeem it with real, yeah, “change”.
Filed under: Election, Foreign policy, Politics, War, World
It never ceases to amaze me that what is ostensibly a conservative magazine. And believe me it’s not easy being a Republican Jew in New York City. Has an editorial board and a readership that almost unfailingly takes the side of those happy go lucky lads from Hamas and Hezbollah over Israel. And again. I ask the people here this; If you were the PM of Israel. And the southern part of your country was being hit constantly with missiles. And they were coming from an area where the government was TOTALLY devoted to your destruction. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN REPONSE. Not a rhetorical question. I really would would like to know. And keep in mind that the Rafah crossing is in Egyptian hands and they are keeping to closed. Please keep that in mind. But I really would like to hear the responses. No boilerplate. Tell me what your plan would be.
Unrelated to this topic, I have a question about Daniel Larison’s blog. Unless there’s something wrong with my browser or the server, it hasn’t been updated since December 12, and there’s no explanation. Is something wrong with him, or is there some way for me to access his blog? I recall having this problem once in the past, but this has been going on for very long time. Any explanation?
Good point Pearlman
I can´t understand the almost unconditional support this conservative magazine has for the Palestinians. It´s a childlike “If the Neo-Con says that we say the opposite” attitude. I guess the right to self-defense don´t applies Israel.
What is interesting is that this site has the same arguments like the hard-core socialists here in Sweden when it comes to Israel, it´s always Israels fault, the Palestinians are always the victims. Both socialists and this site seems to forget that Israel returned Gaza to the Palestinians as an act of good will hoping this would encourage the peace effort. The only result was that Hamas first turned it to a ghetto, then moved their rockets positions forward. But of course, Israel is the aggressor I guess.
“So, what would you do?” can be a good question in response to criticism. Critics always have an easier time than those that must take action. But are you saying that you think the Israeli response is fitting and effective, or would you do anything differently?
“a gruesomely disproportionate military response”
A very perceptive point.
Israel is indeed guilty of a massive disproportion in its response.
Hamas seeks to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible, with the ultimate goal being the killing of all of them.
Israel does not seek to kill as many Gazan civilians as possible, and has the ultimate goal of killing as few as possible of them.
That indeed is a gruesome disproportion.
Has Israel followed the advice laid out by Martin van Creveld? I think not.
The trillion dollar question is what business does the US have in their cycle of violence and could it do anything if American politicians did want peace? I don’t think the Israeli government, Israeli settlers, Hamas or the Palestinians firing rockets into Israel want peace.
“I can´t understand the almost unconditional support this conservative magazine has for the Palestinians”
Most thinking individuals, including former CIA, understand that the Palestinians - even if they all wanted to (which they do not) - could never destroy Israel. And they also understand that Israel is a grave violator of international law and has been since its inception. This is the Orwellian nature of this conflict and how it is presented to Americans.
Look at the maps. 100 years ago - where was Israel? How did it come to be? Was most of the land taken by force? Is that legal? Is Palestinian land still being taken by the state of Israel? And what became of the people that lived on that land, does it relate to one of the longest-running refugee situations in modern day history? Did the Palestinians bring this war to the Israelis (or Jews)? Look at those maps again, from 100 years ago, and then now. Just exactly who is pushing whom into the sea? Wbere was Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ, and others BEFORE the advent of Israel? Who has the f16s, the Merkavas, the bunker busting bombs, the unqualified support of the world’s superpower (thanks to the Israeli lobby therein), etc etc etc.
Just a few questions one might reflect on if they wanted a larger picture of the conflict. No, it has not been going on ‘for thousands of years’ as some assert. The Turks occupied the area for hundreds of years - when Jews, Muslims and Christians largely lived in relative peace throughout.
Something to ponder.
I just saw that Israel hit a Hamas leader and got TWO OF HIS FOUR WIVES. Also, Hamas has approved the reinstitution of crucifying. complete with being nailed to a steel cross. Your either on Israel’s side or on the side of those happy go lucky lads from Hamas and Hezbollah. And I’m going to remind you of one major fact. You can sacrifice the jews here but if you think that the Christians are going to walk away from this your nuts.
You’re reaching for straws, Bill. Nobody is talking about ’sacrificing the jews’. It’s ridiculous to believe that all of those groups - even taken together - could take down Israel. Not even close. And some of us happen to be on AMERICA’s side, and choose to stick to the ideals upon which THIS nation was founded - liberty and justice for all.
As to your statement about Christians - I’m one of them, and there are many in that region that are being targeted all the same by the Israelis, whose missiles, bombs and gunfire do not discriminate between Arab Muslim or Christian.
If you have a passionate attachment to another nation, that’s fine. But when that nation’s problems become OUR problems, to the detriment of our citizens, then do the rest of us a favor and take it somewhere else.
Bravo Harriet, You beat me to it. The US gains nothing by taking sides in an internal semitic grudge match far away.
As for Arab Christians, they are being driven from their homes and the region in general by our foolish adventures. They are the real losers in all this. They have lost Lebanon, are being driven from Egypt and Iraq and are non too welcome in Israel either. Jersey City is full of displaced Coptic Christians.