THE NEW REPUBLIC.COM
I've just read the transcript of the president's remarks about Haiti, the ones he made on January 15. He noted that, in addition to assistance from the United States, significant aid had also come from "Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others." Am I missing another country that truly weighed in with truly consequential assistance? Ah, yes. There it is. Right there "among others." Yes, the country to which I refer is "among others," that one.
The fact is that, next to our country, Israel sent the largest contingent of trained rescue workers, doctors, and other medical personnel. The Israeli field hospital was the only one on the ground that could perform real surgery, which it did literally hundreds of times, while delivering--as of last week--at least 16 babies, including one premature infant and three caesarians. The first 250-odd Israelis were real professionals, and they were supplemented by others, also professionals. And to these can be added the many organized Jews from the Diaspora who, in solidarity with Israel, also went on a work pilgrimage, an aliyah, in solidarity with Haiti.
It's not that Israeli participation in the Haiti horror was being kept secret. I myself saw it reported several times on television—on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.
So didn't Obama notice? For God's sake, everybody noticed the deep Israeli involvement. I understand that Obama doesn't like Middle East narratives that do not contain "one side and the other side" equal valence. But he couldn't have that here. The Arabs don't care a fig, not for their impoverished and backward own, and certainly not for strangers. That's why their presence in Haiti amounted to a couple of bucks from Saudi Arabia and maybe from some other sheikhs.
An afterthought: Who would want Arab participation in the rescue effort? This was serious work and dangerous work. Amateurs weren't welcome.
Yes, I think that the labors of the Israelis were edited out of Obama's speech, either by his speechwriters (who have made dissing Israel their forté) or by his own oh-so-delicate but dishonest censoring mechanism.NOTE: TWO COMMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS ARTICLE (SEE BELOW):
I regard Obama's words as extremely calculated. Someone once said here that whatever was included in his public expression was always well thought through and never coincidental or careless. Like Jane Austen's novels, Obama is thrifty with words. Nothing just happens to be there, or to be absent by accident.
At the first (I think) debate among the presidential candidates, they were asked to name America’s three most important allies. Clinton and McCain named Israel as one of the three. Barack Obama didn’t.
I'm sure Marty you noted this omission at the time but probably managed to rationalize away your anxieties somehow.
But as you see, these things do not just happen. There is a consiste ... view full comment
I regard Obama's words as extremely calculated. Someone once said here that whatever was included in his public expression was always well thought through and never coincidental or careless. Like Jane Austen's novels, Obama is thrifty with words. Nothing just happens to be there, or to be absent by accident.
At the first (I think) debate among the presidential candidates, they were asked to name America’s three most important allies. Clinton and McCain named Israel as one of the three. Barack Obama didn’t.
I'm sure Marty you noted this omission at the time but probably managed to rationalize away your anxieties somehow.
But as you see, these things do not just happen. There is a consistent effort to exclude Israel from the circle of grace...
You might want to take a look at this article by Nick Cohen which is being much discussed on the Internet:
"I don't believe you can understand why he is such a let-down if you hold on to old definitions of liberalism. From Eleanor Roosevelt onwards, the Democrats were meant to believe in universal human rights. Even Jimmy Carter, mocked for his weakness in handling tyrants, tried to make them a part of his foreign policy. The flattering label "realist" – which, like the equally gratifying "sceptic", is not a badge of honour you can award to yourself – was claimed by Republicans, most notably Nixon, Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger. They maintained they were hard-headed men who could see the world as it is, unlike soppy liberal idealists. They would deal with any regime, however repulsive, that could help advance US interests, and ignore what their allies did to their captive populations."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/24/nick-cohen-barack-obama
Obama holds no surprises for me. It was all clearly stated in his campaign speech to AIPAC. In the first part of his speech, he states his knowledge of Holocaust denial and Arab rejection. In the second part, he advises Israel to sit down with Holocaust deniers and long-standing rejectionists to talk peace. The 7 years of the Oslo Peace Farce, the 19 years of Egyptian and Jordan occupation, and the trashed "two-state solution" of 1947 evaporated from Obama's mind faster than ether spilled on a hot summer's day sidewalk, assuming it was ever in his mind in the first place.
Obama holds no surprises for me. It was all clearly stated in his campaign speech to AIPAC. In the first part of his speech, he states his knowledge of Holocaust denial and Arab rejection. In the second part, he advises Israel to sit down with Holocaust deniers and long-standing rejectionists to talk peace. The 7 years of the Oslo Peace Farce, the 19 years of Egyptian and Jordan occupation, and the trashed "two-state solution" of 1947 evaporated from Obama's mind faster than ether spilled on a hot summer's day sidewalk, assuming it was ever in his mind in the first place.