.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Thursday, January 22, 2009

What Does Obama's Speech Mean? Are Jews Less Important than Muslims for Obama?

Obama's inaugural speech was eloquent and full of lofty phrases, not to mention platitudinous rhetoric, as such speeches usually are. John F Kennedy's inaugural speech is still remembered. Yet, Obama inserted a few novelties into the speech, novelties concerning both Jews and Muslims. Jews have long outnumbered Muslims in the United States. Indeed, Muslim numbers were once very small. They have much increased in recent years, but there are still more Jews. So what does it mean that Obama put Muslims before Jews in his speech, as if the Muslims were more numerous? Hugh Fitzgerald makes the additional point that the United States was founded in part on Judaic ideas taken from the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, I point out the aggression against American shipping by the Barbary Pirates, the subsequent wars by American forces against the pirate ports of North Africa, and the suspicion towards Muslims of early American leaders on account of what they learned about Islamic jihad as a motivation for this piracy. This is not to forget the sympathy for Jews and/or a Jewish restoration to the Land of Israel expressed by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and others.
Here is part of Obama's speech:
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
Note that Muslims take precedence over Jews despite American tradition and the historical record. What does it mean? Here are Hugh Fitzgerald's impressions:
The Inaugural Speech was thankfully sober and unsoaring, but it contained one phrase that disturbs.
That phrase is this:
"The United States is a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers."
The traditional formulation has always paired "Christians" with "Jews" -- "Christians and Jews." Such a blatant change, then, in that traditional formulation is sure to attract notice. It invites inspection. It disturbs. The order in which these adherents of different faiths are named, and which is paired with the obviously, and rightly, dominant “Christians” (this country was both founded on Christian or, to include the Old Testament, Judeo-Christian principles, and owes its development right up to the present day to those same ideas, enshrined in our political and legal institutions which are, after all, the best thing America has to offer) both count. [Hugh Fitzgerald at jihadwatch]
. . . on what basis did Obama make the decision to move up “Muslims” in the ranking, right after, or even possibly paired with, Christians, leaving the Jews demoted, in a sense? It cannot be on the basis of population, for there are twice as many Jews in the United States as there are Muslims (and of the approximately 3 million Muslims, 2 million are unorthodox Black Muslims). And if he did not wish, after the word “Christians,” to give any pride of place, why not mix it up still more: “Christians, and Buddhists, and Jews, and Hindus, and people of other faiths, and people of no faith at all, nonbelievers of every level of doubt”? Was this one more attempt to impress on the public the notion that we must appease Muslims, we must make of them something they are not in this country, in order to hold onto their loyalty that otherwise is in danger of being lost? What exactly is the justification for putting "Muslims" right after, or even paired with, “Christians”?
Full text of Obama's inaugural speech here. Obama continues:
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
Why a special appeal to the "Muslim world"? Why not Russia and/or China? Or India? Does this mean because many in the Muslim world have been threatening and expressing hatred toward the United States that a special effort must be made to appease them? Then, what about Latin America? There are many there too who hate and are suspicious of the United States. Why doesn't Obama want to appease them? After all, they are closer neighbors to the USA than any Muslim state. And then there's Africa, the native continent of Obama's father. What about them? Neither Africa nor Latin America are mentioned in the speech. Russia and China are suspicious of the United States. If the USA is going to appease, then why not appease them?

Why Muslims yes, and those nations and continents no? Does he mean to appease Muslims? How? What would appeasing Muslims mean for the Jews? Are Jews lives and rights less important than those of Muslims, in particular of those Muslims now called "palestinians"?

Then Obama tells us that he believes that "the old hatreds shall someday pass." Does he really believe --or care-- that Muslims will stop hating non-Muslims, whether Jews, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists for that matter?

Then he argues, "America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace." This is the same Obama who told his mass audience in Berlin that "the Afghan people need our troops and your troops." Maybe peace can only be achieved by sending American troops to Afghanistan. Is that the role that Obama sees America playing in bringing about peace? Does peacemaking also mean pressuring Israel to allow the Arabs to obtain a strategic-territorial position that will allow them to destroy Israel and cut the Jews' throats? Obama sent Senator George Mitchell, son of a Lebanese mother, to Israel to urge Israeli concessions that cancel out Jewish rights. He already demanded preventing Jews from building homes in Judea-Samaria. This was eight years ago in his notorious Mitchell Report. He now claims that the American interest requires a "solution" [a Final Solution?] in the Middle East, a solution of the Arab-Israeli or "palestinian-Israeli" conflict. Indeed, is this solution meant to be a Final Solution of the Jewish Problem? Mitchell has already proven his anti-Jewish racism. And Mitchell is the agent of Obama. Hence, Obama is an anti-Jewish racist.
- - - - - - - - - -
Judith Apter Klinghoffer comments on Obama here.
- - - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc

Labels: , , ,

3 Comments:

  • "My writing is mainly questions but my questions have the root of the answer within them: a response that will carry either the wilful ignorance of a narrowly defined apocalyptic vision of a god given right to a piece of land against created terrorists, combined with the corporate greed for regional control under the guise of a war on terror; or a broader answer that reflects the humanitarian religious views of acceptance, peace, cooperation, understanding, and freedom for all people, in Gaza, in Palestine, in the Middle East, an equitable existence for all people of all faiths in the region." - Link

    Just food for thought! Shalom!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:07 AM  

  • This commenter parades himself as a peacemonger. However, while he calls for acceptance, peace, equitable existence, etc. for "all people" in the Middle East, he does not mention Israel or Jews. Does that mean that he does not want peace, etc., for the Jews? The hypocrisy is revolting.

    He also seems ignorant of the Muslim belief that their god, Allah, gave them rightful ownership over the whole world which become subject to Islam, whereas Jews only claim the historic Land of Israel, and Israel was an independent nation 3,000 years ago, long-preceding the destructive Arab conquest of 634-640 CE.

    As to form and style, the comment seems to be form comment which he pastes on various blogs without actually commenting on what was said in the post that he is ostensibly commenting on. The tone of comment is somewhat snide, sneering and supercilious.

    By Blogger Eliyahu m'Tsiyon, at 11:38 PM  

  • Allah supposedly gave Islam rightful control over the whole world which must BECOME subject to Islam.

    By Blogger Eliyahu m'Tsiyon, at 11:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home