Sar Shalom
Louis Brandeis that is.
Courtesy of an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times about the filibuster, I learned of Justice Brandeis' line from a dissent, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Therein is the crux of Obama's approach to Israel.
Many Israel-supporters ascribe Obama's actions to an animus against Israel. Such an assessment has two problems. One, there are facts that contradict it. Two, the is an alternative theory that explains why he has taken the actions he has. While not flattering of Obama, it does not describe any degree of malice on Obama's part.
A place to start would be how Obama's worldview was formed. When Obama got his start as a community organizer in Chicago, he had two main types of sources of information on the Mideast conflict: the Palestinianist spokesmen, such as Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, and the liberal Jews of Chicago, such as Abner Mikva and Sam Minow. From the first group, Obama absorbed a sense of Palestinian grievance. The second group provided reason not to take it at face-value, nor did it provide any defense of Israel's presence in Jordan's 1949-conquest. However, because the second group did defend Israel where Jordan failed to conquer in 1949, Obama thought he had heard "both sides" of the conflict and thus knew everything that he truly needed to know, and thus he felt entitled to say "na na na na, I don't hear you" to anyone trying to point out anything that was not within the parameters of The Truth that his Palestinianist and liberal Chicago Jewish mentors taught him.
However, there are consequential gaps in Obama's knowledge of the Middle East. For instance, his mentors did not teach him about the history of the Pact of Umar. Nor has he ever pondered the possibility that his Palestinianist mentors, rather describing what we westerners consider a legitimate grievance, were merely dressing up their grievance that outside of the Temple Mount, the Pact of Umar is no longer in effect. Thus Obama combines an exceptional level of zeal provided by his Palestinianist mentors with an equally exceptional lack of understanding. As Brandeis wrote, it is the greatest threat to liberty, and thus we get UNSC 2334.
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, PhD, proprietor. (mike.lumish@gmail.com)
I betcha Obama wore a Che t-shirt and I betcha that is the major problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd what did 20 years with reverend Wright taught him?
ReplyDeleteWell, that "Jesus was a Palestinian" for one thing.
DeleteI'm sure it's irrelevant what my thoughts about his motivations might be. I can only go by results and outcomes. Who knows, maybe there really were that rare 'good' Nazi. I don't know or care. They were all Nazis and that's a good enough working theory. Similarly who cares why Obama 'appears' to be an antisemite? He appears to be one. That's sufficient.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree.
ReplyDeleteObama is primarily ideologically-motivated.
Of course, the ideology itself both feeds on and nourishes anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.
Seconded.
DeleteThere is too much feeling involved for it to be purely ideological. He (or any progressive international law and justice warrior) never gets excited about Congolese civil war, Boko Haram, ISIS, Karabagh ethnic cleansing, eastern Ukraine, etc. Name another country who's prime minister has been treated with that much disrespect by Obama and Michelle.
DeleteYou're all missing the issue of epistemic closure. Epistemic closure explains things that the theory that BHO has it in for Israel does not, such as the record aid deal, does not. Further, there is nothing in BHO's actions at the UN that "has it in" explains that epistemic closure does not. Given those two facts, why do you insist on the "has it in" theory?
ReplyDeleteIf that doesn't convince you, how many people do you think were convinced to vote for Hillary by her "deplorable" speech? Why do you think castigating those who declare that Jewish rights end for all eternity at Jordan's 1949 line-of-conquest would convince any more people?
On the other hand, calling it epistemic closure and insisting that currently ignored incontrovertible facts be incorporated into people's worldviews has not been demonstrated to be a failure at changing people's views.