Speechwriting with Claire, Cont'd.
A White House speechwriter always tries to anticipate opposing arguments, even--perhaps especially--those the president's opponents might mutter to each other but shrink from making in public. The argument against Israel? That's easy. Although seldom publicly articulated, at least here in the United States, the argument that in one way or another informs nearly all anti-Israel sentiment is that Israel is just too much trouble. The best refutation I've come across in a long time took place this past spring when I interviewed John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine.
If, instead of locating itself in the Middle East, I asked John, the Zionist movement had accepted a gift from the United States of, for the sake of argument, Rhode Island, and the capital of Israel today wasn't Jerusalem but Pawtucket, what difference would it have made?
John's reply:
It would still be the case that a Wahabbist regime in Saudi Arabia would be sitting atop the world’s largest oil reserve. It would still be the case that there would have been an Iranian revolution in the 1979, bringing a Shiite theocracy into power. It would still be the case that Syria would be dominated by a military dictatorship. It would still be the case that Islamic Brotherhood would have assassinated Anwar Sadat and that Hussein Mubarak would in power in Egypt. It would still be the case that Saddam Hussein would have to come to power in 1969 and gone to war with Iran in 1980. It would still be the case that Saddam Hussein would have invaded Kuwait. And it would still be the case that al Qaeda, which arose in response to the positioning of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Guld war, would have been created.
All of these major facts of life have no relation whatsoever to the existence of Israel.
Let's be sure--shall we, Claire?--to add this to our speech folder.
In the video, by the way, John answers my question about the existence of Israel at about minute 4:45.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Speechwriting with Claire, Cont'd.
Following on the notion that Israel is too much "trouble," I'd submit that this idea is a variation on the smartest-kid-in-the-class syndrome. No one likes the smartest kid in the class, and Israel is head and shoulders above its neighbors in terms of national and per capita success: militarily, economically, and politically. It's hard to like the guy who reminds you that you fail to measure up, especially when that guy is different in a very fundamental way.
On a lighter note, just imagine if Pawtucket were the new Jerusalem. The IDF could come in very handy helping us straighten out Massachusetts....
Jun '10
Re: Speechwriting with Claire, Cont'd.
I've read three speeches now (Reagan, Bush, and Netanyahu) trying to discover the keys to a good speech. I'm struggling to construct a scaffold before I offer any ideas about content. Nevertheless, a few things have become apparent to me. All three speeches contain the following: moral clarity, an acknowledgment of Judeo-Christian values as the foundation of our culture, a bold vision for the future, and an appeal to universal values based on a belief in God.
I've thought about what Claire had to say when we opened this discussion. She wants to be positive rather than condemnatory in tone. I'm struggling with this because sometimes evil has to be confronted directly. She also suggests we be concrete rather than abstract. What is the equivalent of "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."? But a wall is (no pun intended) a very concrete thing. Anti-Semitism is an idea and hatred is an emotion. I'm still struggling.
May '10
Re: Speechwriting with Claire, Cont'd.
To which I would respond: "A good friend is worth any trouble."
May '10
Re: Speechwriting with Claire, Cont'd.
Not sure this alternative-history analysis is that useful (e.g., it's folly to speculate about Sadat's fate in a world w/o Israel, as Podhoretz does, since he was killed because of his dealing with Israel). And it seems beside the point: If we ethnicly cleansed a culturally diverse region, is it possible that region would have less conflict? Sure, that's the nature of ethnic cleansing, but so what? Better not to argue messy counter-factuals and instead focus on who's in the right, who's being reasonable, who shares our values...
Jun '10
Re: Speechwriting with Claire, Cont'd.
It looks like this thread is going to die. Too bad because the topic fascinates me. I'll try one more time in an attempt to revive this discussion.
You may have heard this saying from the world of boxing: "You have to outbox the fighter, and outfight the boxer." Where anti-Semitism is concerned, I'm in the mood for a rhetorical brawl. There is very little room to fight this filth on the intellectual level. It needs to be confronted directly and without ambiguity. Stylistically I would attack with short, clipped sentences that convey moral clarity.
My take anyway.