Yup, Obama Hates Israel

Very neat article at NRO pointing out the nuances of Obama's words for Israel -- compared to his words for Palestine.

It's all pretty neat, but these word-choices matter: These words have been chosen carefully. Including the passive/active voice and declarative or commanding tenses. This is essentially a publicly-delivered diplomatic cable.

There are other neat things, but the best observation, to me, is the fact that when Obama speaks of Israel, he speaks in terms of concrete demands that he, Obama, is laying upon Israel.

When he turns to the reciprocal concessions most urge on Palestine, however, he stops speaking in the command tense, stops speaking of demanding this or that, and simply says that Palestinians will do better if they stop killing Jews.

Not that they must stop killing Jews, mind you, like Israel must stop building settlements; just that hey, it would be better, you know? Or not, you decide.

For contrast, the writer quotes Bush, who was pretty command-tense with Palestinians: They must crack down on terror and dismantle the terror infrastructure.

Perceptive. Obama makes demands on Israel, but makes promises to the Palestinians. Tells you pretty much where he's coming from.

Obama Advisor Fareed Zakaria Pretty Stoked About Obama Speech:

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN correspondent: Hala, exactly. It was his role as educator-in-chief that came out today. He provided a kind of worldview, almost a historical interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring. He began in the beginning with Tunisia, and moved forward. And he tried to present a way in which he saw America's interests and values as squarely aligned with this Arab revolution.

Wow, he chose to start at the beginning of the Arab Spring and then move forward, linearly, from there. Truly that is "almost a historical interpretation." Almost, mind you.

This man is brilliant. When he tells a story, he relates events in the order they actually occurred in.

What's the name of that style of narrative? Oh right, we don't have a name for it, because it's so common it has no name other than the default of "default."

But eog-stroked non-entity Zakaria is just pleased as rum punch.

More from Fareed:

I think that he was also – he also gave a speech that I would be surprised if anyone in Israel would object to,

Well, prepare to be surprised. Check out Drudge, SuperBrain.

... because he was very clear that Israel's legitimate security interests have to be taken care of. He was very clear on the fact that Hamas could not be negotiated with as long as it refused to recognize Israel and call for its destruction.

Actually he was pretty damn unclear on that. He actually said this was a "question" that Hamas and Fatah would have to answer together. He did not indicate what that answer would have to be.

I think that there are many of those key issues that Israelis were worried that he would either ignore or half-state, he stated pretty fully. So I think that he was quite even-handed while calling for a Palestinian state on '67 borders, plus-or-minus land slots. He also recognizes Israel's legitimate security needs.

Notice he does what that writer at NRO just noted -- he speaks of "calling" for a Palestinian state, based on 67 borders, plus recognizing Israel's security needs.

The first is a demand made to Israel. The second is a demand made of nobody -- Obama himself is just saying he recognizes Israel's security needs. Not that anyone else needs to.

Anyone notice that no one ever heard of this jackass before 9/11 and then suddenly we needed an Arab moderate in the media and he suddenly had a career?

Thanks to Jane D'oh.

posted by Ace at 07:26 PM

| Access Comments