Prof. Paul Eidelberg
What does Barack Obama’s opposition to “settlements” in Judea and Samaria really mean? The term “no settlements” is obviously linked to his idea of a “Palestinian state.” But as a discerning commentator pointed out, the term “settlements” is a euphemism for “Jews.”
“No settlements” means “no Jews,” and “no Jews” inevitably translates into “no Jewish state.” Strategically speaking, this is the goal of Obama’s “no settlement” or pro-Muslim policy, and it goes a long way toward understanding his Cairo speech.
As others have noted, in that remarkable speech, Obama leveled the distinction between the Nazi Holocaust (afflicted on the Jews) and the “dislocation” of the “Palestinians” (afflicted on themselves). This leveling is more than a manifestation of moral equivalence or relativism, which post-modernists like Obama ingested at American universities. No, his leveling the distinction between the Holocaust and the “dislocation” of the mytho-Palestinians is worse than Holocaust denial!
Holocaust denial is a refusal to acknowledge the well-established facts about the Nazi death camps. For many, this denial is motivated by a desire to erase any justification for the State of Israel—as if Israel’s reestablishment in 1948 had no justification other than the Shoah. This is simply a falsification of history.
Suffice to say, that in 1920, after World War I had ended, the Allied Supreme Council assembled at San Remo, Italy, and, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, assigned to Great Britain the Mandate for establishing a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The right of the Jewish people over Eretz Israel thus became a right recognized by international law, in fact, by the 52 members of the League of Nations. All this occurred more than ten years before Hitler’s rise to power.
Although it would be correct, it would be superficial to conclude, that Obama is shallow or a mere spin master. His equating the “dislocation” of the mytho-Palestinians with the Nazi Holocaust should be viewed as symptomatic of the post-modernism spawned by academia. Weaned on moral relativism, post-modernist politicians like Obama cannot squarely address the enormity of evil; they cannot sincerely incorporate the idea of such evil into their rhetoric and thereby teach the public about the demonic evil that underlies genocide and that renders its advocates enemies of civilization, hence beyond the domain of reason or human discourse.
On the other hand, it may be that Obama has engaged so much in play-acting that politics, for him, is little more than an ego trip—a stage on which to strut and win applause and power. This requires audacity and awareness of the character of his audience.
Notice his audacity on the American stage, where this disciple of change associates himself with that superb statesman Abraham Lincoln, whose tragic countenance is utterly contrary to Obama’s, whose smugness is more conspicuous than his ears.
Besides, unlike Obama, Lincoln was an Old Testament man; he did not equivocate about evil. He believed in the eternal truths of the Declaration of Independence, a document very much inspired by Jewish ideas, a document scorned by the disciple of that “God-damn-America” minister, the irreverent Jeremiah Wright.
To discerning minds, nothing was more egregious in Obama’s Cairo speech than its deceitful character—how appropriate in culture skilled in the art of ingratiation. Al-Azhar University was a fitting venue for Obama’s “outreach” to the Muslim world. Al-Azhar represents the theological-political position of most of Islamdom. Allow me a slight digression.
Back in 1968, delegates from 24 countries attended a conference at al-Azhar, including Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.
Many papers were presented by Islamic theologians and professors. The papers frequently denote Jews as the “Enemies of God” or the “Enemies of humanity.” One paper referred to Jews as “the dogs of humanity.” Another referred to the Bible of Israel in pejorative terms. Jews are described as evil, as deserving the hatred and persecution of all the peoples with whom they have come into contact—and this was said in full awareness of the Nazi Holocaust! Also, the State of Israel is described as a culmination of historical and cultural depravity.
Since the Muslim theologians and professors portrayed the evil of the Jews as immutable and permanent, they were effectively prompting the Arab-Islamic world to annihilate Israel (politicide) and the Jews (genocide). This was not a conference of “Islamic fundamentalists,” unless Islamic fundamentalism is the nature of Islam. Islamdom has not changed during the passage of some 40 years—as witness Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vow to “wipe Israel off the map”—a vow perfectly attuned to what Obama called the “holy” Quran.