Among the most hotly debated issues arising from President
Obama's speech in Cairo was whether or not he was implying a moral equivalency
between the plight of the Palestinians and that faced by the Jews during the
Holocaust. He and his team have denied this, but the juxtaposition of ideas in
speeches does not occur entirely by accident. Neither does the juxtaposition of stops during presidential trips.
That President Obama went from Cairo to Germany and from a
day where the central message was associated with his outreach to the Muslim
world to one in which his
central message was a commemoration of the Holocaust was purposeful. Frankly,
to me it was slightly grotesque. "Ok Jews, if Cairo gave you heartburn here's a
little Holocaust for you. Feeling
better now?"
Further, the message
delivered by the president at Buchenwald, was as carefully calculated as
all his messages are to resonate different ways with different audiences. Again, the juxtaposition of Buchenwald with
Cairo colors how we hear words like:
This place teaches us that we must be ever vigilant about
the spread of evil in our times. ... We have to guard against cruelty in
ourselves. ...And it is now up to us, the living, in our work, wherever we are,
to resist injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may
take and ensure that those who were lost here did not go in vain."
Palestinians
will undoubtedly greet those remarks as affirmations of their cause even as
Israelis may greet them as a recognition of the lessons of the Holocaust. It is
a deft politician who can use such a blend of language, setting and day-to-day
context to deliver potent and seemingly supportive message to two deeply
divided groups at the same time.
Whose
evil is he referring to? Whose cruelty? He dances with issues of equivalency
but never gets so close as to actually embrace them.
This
helps him with his outreach to the Muslim world because he seems to be saying
the Israelis are hypocrites and while they have used the Holocaust for years to
justify the existence of their state and the often tough
tactics they have used in defense of it, perhaps we can now join together
in using it against them. And for the Jews he says, I feel your pain.
Indeed,
on this trip, for all the talk of Muslims he has sought to take a page out of
the playbook of a popular Christian icon, Santa
Claus, offering something for everyone. For Muslims the speech, for Jews
Buchenwald, for Palestinians tough talk about Israeli settlements, for Israelis
talk of an unbreakable bond with the U.S., for anti-Iranians criticism of
Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial, for Iranians acknowledgement of their "right"
to a civilian nuclear program, for the American right attacks against "violent
extremists," for the left no use of George Bush's favorite word "terrorism." And
so on.
Thus,
while the equivalency debate may continue to boil for some time without
resolution (because everyone can hear what they want to or what they fear to in
his recent statements), it underscores that the message of this trip seems to
be that there is no position so divided that the U.S. cannot be on both sides
of it, no group pair of enemies so embittered that we cannot offer support to
both sides. While I am willing to accept
the Administration's assertion that there was no implied
equivalency between the actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians and
those of the Nazis against the Jews, I am more troubled by the fact that the
President or his team somehow think that leadership and diplomacy require that
we view all issues as somehow equivalent...that there is no idea that cannot be
bartered for another, balanced by a countervailing thought.
Obama
on this trip has become President of Newton's Third Law of Motion. For every
action, for every word, there is an equal and opposite reaction...and the United States
will embrace both.
While
some may hope to see this as the impartiality of the peacemaker, others might
reasonably fear that it is the moral vacuity of a politician who seeks to be
all things to all people. As my friend Tom Friedman often says, "just because
George Bush or Dick Cheney says something doesn't always mean it is not
true." There are absolutes. There are
countries with whom we have greater shared interests than others. There are crimes
that are worse than other wrongs. To restore American leadership does not mean
having everyone like us. We can take stands that are more difficult and
controversial than the President's statements today opposing Holocaust denial
and genocide. (Though it might be worth exploring whether we are opposed only
to genocide during or after the fact or whether we are willing to actually try
to stop those who threaten it...as do the Iranians and the leaders of the
militant wing of Hamas in their views toward the destruction of Israel. And by the way, by stopping them I don't mean
reprimanding them.)
The
answer as to whether Obama ultimately lives up to our hopes or our fears come
when his actions illustrate whether there are values we are not willing to
negotiate, points that can't be balanced, enemies we are willing to oppose,
friends we are willing to stand by even when it is unpopular. Tell me the day that Obama is willing to make
his first enemy in order to defend a deeply held principle and I will tell you
the day he ascends from being a politician to being a statesman.
JENS-ULRICH KOCH/AFP/Getty Images
Read More
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE