In the latest issue of Ami Magazine, noted author Rabbi Avi Shafran wrote a piece (“Our Not-So-Humble Opinionsâ€) that is, in this author’s opinion, mind-bogglingly deceptive in scope, breadth, and audacity in its portrayal of President Obama’s record on Israel. It is rather shocking because generally Rabbi Shafran is a perceptive and on-the-mark columnist. The structure of this editorial, with due respect, seems to have been penned in the style of classic propaganda literature.
It is hoped that both the reader and Rabbi Shafran will forgive the sharp tone employed here, but it seems a necessity in light of the content of the op-ed—forewarned is forearmed. Generally, there are four components to have in mind when attempting this type of writing:
The audience. Assume your readership is made up of half-witted, easily manipulated people, with no memory whatsoever of the truth and the context of events that you are about to recharacterize, and spin, spin, spin.
The subject. Take someone with a proven track record against what the readership holds dear and manipulate things in such a manner that the readership walks away thinking, “Wow, he’s really on our side!â€
The technique. Utilize a cutesy tool where the reader is subtly tricked into thinking one thing, and then pull the ruse. Very effective in grabbing the reader’s attention and in switching his or her position.
The writer. Make sure that the writer’s credentials are unimpeachable. Try to get a spokesperson for a national and trusted organization. In this case, R. Shafran himself is the writer.
Let’s now reread the article in question, with facts in hand, and with an awareness of the four elements of propaganda literature employed herein. We start with the title.
Miss the good old days?
Here we have “the techniqueâ€â€”the ruse. Tricking the reader into thinking we speak not of President Obama but of some past, pro-Israel president. Oh! If only!
When, that is, we had a president who refused to allow the U.S. to participate in the UN’s Durban Review Conference because he believed Israel would be unfairly criticized.
Actually, Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, has shown that the president actively tried to change and undermine the U.S. position on the hijacked Durban Conference. He was presented with numerous opportunities to stand for and behind Israel but was silent. In her words: “Their silence when it came to Israel was, therefore, deafening.â€1
A president who rejected the Goldstone Report, and refused to participate in joint military exercises with Turkey when Ankara insisted Israel be excluded.
Yet according to a Sept. 23, 2009 JTA report: The White House says an official “misspoke†when he said the Obama administration would not allow the Goldstone report recommendations on Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war to reach the International Criminal Court. Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, called JTA later to say the official “misspoke†and that administration policy on the Goldstone report remains as articulated last week by Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador.
Rice previously said, “We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council and that is our strong view.â€
A president who asked Congress to approve a $205 million package to help Israel build a new anti-missile defense system.
This is true and should be recognized. So far, 1 out of 3. But let’s not forget, this was right before the November election. Things that occur near the election don’t necessarily reflect the real view of a politician. Let’s remember how Bibi Netanyahu was treated a few months earlier—like a Third World hooligan.
A president who spoke up on Israel’s behalf to help it gain acceptance into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
This is also true and should be thanked and acknowledged. But are President Obama’s efforts at stopping the delegitimization of Israel contingent on Israel stopping building activity? There have been many hints to this.
A president who didn’t shy from authorizing the killing of an American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen.
Wasn’t he linked to the Christmas Day bombing attempt? What kind of president wouldn’t try to seek justice here?
A president who, in a speech delivered in the heart of the Arab world, told his listeners that they need to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state.
Yes, but he also said, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.†He characterized it as follows: “This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.â€
And he further attacked Israel with: “And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.†The “A New Beginning†speech in general was looked at by Israelis very negatively—and President Obama’s immediate treatment of Israel and humiliation of Netanyahu indicated that they were right.
A president who, addressing the UN General Assembly, stated clearly and unequivocally that “Israel is a sovereign state and the historic homeland of the Jewish people†and went on to say, “It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the U.S.â€
True he said this. He also expressed the firm opposition to settlements. The applause he received, though, was for the words, “If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations—an independent, sovereign state of Palestine.†They were not applauding for peace, but rather for his commitment to a Palestinian state.
A president who, on the domestic front, signed an executive order that preserved the faith-based social service funding initiative and pointedly did not forbid participating religious groups from discriminating in hiring in order to be faithful to their religious beliefs.
What is this doing here?
Well, take heart. The good old days are more recent than you think. You have that president. His name is Barack Obama.
Ah, the decisive blow of the slick propaganda move.
No, I didn’t vote for him in 2008. I’m a lifelong Republican, an alumnus, in fact, of Young Americans for Freedom. (I was once young.)
Again—establishing the bone fides of the writer. “I am one of you. I came from the people.â€
But it bothers me that Mr. Obama is negatively viewed by so many Orthodox Jews, ostensibly because he treats Israel badly and is hostile to religion.
That is because he does and he did. Look what he did to Netanyahu on that visit! Look what he did to Israel regarding building in our own Yerushalayim! Look how he embarrassed Israel and his instruction to the vice-president to maximize the insult! What happened to you, rabbi? Was that November executive order authorizing funding not subject to federal standards so important to you that you abandon Israel?
I have no statistics, only anecdotal evidence and journalistic gleanings, for my feeling that he is so viewed by many intelligent and otherwise well-informed frum folks. But if I’m right and he is, one has to wonder why.
You are not serious, are you? “One has to wonder why?â€
Maybe it’s his fiscal strategy. Economics is an esoteric, inscrutable science to me, something on the order of particle physics. And so it may well be that the president deserves opprobrium by the heapful for his fiscal policies. But those policies are not the major part of the criticism one hears about Mr. Obama “in the mikveh,†so to speak. There he is indicted on charges of insensitivity (or worse) toward Israel or religious Jews.
Surely our community is not so uninformed as to consider Mr. Obama’s middle name, given him at birth, an indictment of his character; or so credulous as to doubt his citizenship; or so crass—one hopes—as to distrust him for a surplus of melanin.
Lovely, rabbi. Accusing your own constituency of being anti-black! If you are not subtly and disingenuously accusing us of this, why mention it in the first place? No, dear rabbi, there is legitimate reason that President Obama is distrusted on Israel. It is called a track record.
There may well be reasons to feel negatively toward the current administration (certainly many people, and they are hardly limited to our community, do). History will have its say in time. But if any readers were surprised a few paragraphs above to discover that the “good old days†of American support for Israel and concern for religious rights are the here-and-now, they must admit that they were not as well informed about our president as they thought.
Well, certainly not well informed about the half-truths and mischaracterizations.
The real problem here, though, isn’t Mr. Obama or our feelings about him. It’s something deeper.
One of the most basic Torah imperatives is modesty. Not only in dress and in speech but in attitude—in recognizing that there are things we don’t know, in some cases can’t know.
Ah, yes, the classic “I know better than you guys†approach. “I have more information than you, so trust me on Israel. Take my word for it.â€
And yet so often we seem to feel a need to embrace absolute, take-no-prisoners political opinions; to reject any possibility of ambivalence, much less any admission of ignorance.
Certitude is proper, even vital, in some areas of life. But in the realm of politics it can be, in fact usually is, an expression of overconfidence or worse.
Part of wisdom is knowing what one doesn’t know. And part of modesty is acting accordingly.
But part of public discourse is absolute intellectual integrity and the ability to focus strategically on all issues and facts. True, President Obama is not all bad. But his underlying positions on Israel are permeated with an underlying antipathy toward Israel that we have not seen in previous presidents. Propaganda writing is not in our interests and never was. Rather, we should try to achieve true and honest discourse rather than “spinâ€. Emes is the chosmo shel HaKadosh Baruch Hu and is the greater part of wisdom. v
The author can be reached at maninthemikveh@gmail.com.
1. See www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-israel-holocaust-durban-opinions-contributors_united_nations.html: But when the Palestinian delegation laid their new proposal before the drafting committee, what did Obama’s team do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They made no objection at all. It is impossible to argue that their silence was unintended. Over the course of the week’s negotiations, the American delegation had objected to a number of specific proposals. They had no trouble declaring, “We share reservations on this paragraph,†in the context of a demand to criminalize profiling. They “called for the deletion†of provisions undermining free speech, like the suggestion to “take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures, and symbols.â€
Add comment
This Week's Issue
Map of Eruv
Reach thousands of readers.
Advertise Weekly in The 5 Towns Jewish Times. Find out how our sales team can help you reach your advertising goals.
Call: (516) 569-0502
Login
Website Counter
Today
14297
Yesterday
31941
We have: 39 guests, 54 bots online Today: May 16, 2012
In the latest issue of Ami Magazine, noted author Rabbi Avi Shafran wrote a piece (“Our Not-So-Humble Opinionsâ€) that is, in this author’s opinion, mind-bogglingly deceptive in scope, breadth, and audacity in its portrayal of President Obama’s record on Israel. It is rather shocking because generally Rabbi Shafran is a perceptive and on-the-mark columnist. The structure of this editorial, with due respect, seems to have been penned in the style of classic propaganda literature.
5TJT RSS Feed