Obama on the Middle East
So, Obama is trying to set the record straight about his relationship with Reverent Wright and his views on race, America, and foreign policy. I thought that MidEastYouth bloggers would have a lot to say about this part of his speech today in Philadelphia:
In terms of acknowledging and moving beyond racial politics, this speech was a smart move. Obama moves well beyond soundbytes that will appease white voters, but not so vis-a-vis the Israel lobby. To break down the quote above, Obama implies that his view is that that “stalwart allies [of America] like Israel are not the primary cause of conflict in the Middle East; instead, these conflicts emanate from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.” Well, “conflicts in the Middle East” is not a valid category, I’ve never seen a definition of “stalwart” that includes “in defiance of international law and in violation of the freedom of movement of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza,” and I wonder how many Americans are going to get the distinction of “radical Islam” as belonging to the radicalized form of religious ideology that has “radical Judaism” and “radical Christianity” as bedfellows, not referring to Islam in general. Of course, any American role in Middle East conflict is not mentioned.
I notice that in talking about people’s religious leaders and their relationship to them, Obama says:
Did I strongly disagree with many of [Wright's] political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
It’s interesting that Obama does not add “your imam” to help people understand that his previous opening remarks about “radical Islam” do not apply to Islam in general He later says:
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
So true, so true; here’s hoping he listens to his own words. This speech is primarily an amazing precedent to a more open dialogue about race and racial politics in America; I recommend everyone listen to it who would like to learn more about this topic. I heard a lot of what I thought Americans are not ready to hear about race; here’s hoping we’ve found a candidate who, once elected, can talk to us about what we think we aren’t ready to hear about US foreign policy.
Join the Conversation
(Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, not yet another of these discussions!
)
Well, I see Obama as a very skilled, yet not only rhetorically great speaker. But this speech is to American to be good!
It’s not that Obama’s words are wrong – but they aren’t right, too.
What he says about race in America is very, very good. But why does he have to add this “…that we know what is right about America…”? That’s something so nationalistic it just can’t be correct anymore. It’s pure populism, added to a phrase of social theoretical importance.
And then he goes on with this totally useless sentence about the Near East conflict. And everybody can see that he adds this only to show that he isn’t anti-Israel or anything like this. Only to show that he, like every American, accepts the untouchable state of the holy cow of American politics, the infallibility of Israel. It’s a symbolic way for saying “no, I’m not revolutionist”. Obama gives a sign to his followers and his critics, that he will change something, but not everything. Walk in a new tempo, even new shoes, but not a new way.
Not, that this is news. But I think Obama felt that he needed to show this, as his critics more and more started to tackle his statements especially on the Near East. And to anybody else, especially these liberal Europeans waiting for Obama becoming somewhat of an American Ché Guevara, it should be a sign not to expect to much. New shoes, but not new ways.
In his well addressed speech towards potentially American electors, Barack Obama stumbled directly over this hurdle he blamed Reverend Wright for. The maybe democratic nominee for presidential election, accused the latter “to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality” and exactly this did Obama, concerning the main conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and its Muslim, Arabic neighbours.
Obama’s retort in this manner is directed towards the accusation of Reverend Wright, as the latter claimed that the United States are to be blamed for 09/11. As Obama in general likes to hark back to history in his speeches, he also shortly scratched the perdurable problem in this region.
Comparing Reverend Wright’s view of a static and still racist America and the Trinity church priest’s view of the “conflicts in the Middle East rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel”, Obama showed us his own, simplified and stereotypical view, as, according to his opinion, this complex conflict is only “emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”
Obama was right to reject that this conflict is rooted primarily in the actions of Israel but he was wrong in his analysis that the origin is just emanating from radical Islamic ideologies. At least he should have said that the firing source is fundamentalist ideology, rooted in religion and nationalism alike, and its consequential actions from both sides. Certainly radical Islamic ideologies are definitely a part of this problem, but to trace everything back to it, just means “to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality”. After all he distinguished between the peaceful Islam, which is practised by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and radical fundamentalism.
Since Obama often has proved us, that he fundamentally ponders his words, he should consider eliding this topic if American electors cannot stand reality. Having the status of a potential U.S. president, he should be aware that his words have a wider range then just the National Constitutional Centre in Philadelphia and the U.S. territory; they are heard and measured around the globe. If he wants to solve this enduring conflict in his maybe presidency, he should be more careful in the choice of his words. Nevertheless, good luck in your presidential campaign and hopefully you walk your bloomy talk!
Beyond soundbites ? .. You gotta be kidding me. Obama’s entire campaign is based on delivering the soundbite, and his presidency shouldn’t be any different.