|
|
View My Stats |
 Subscribe in a reader |
|
|
June 10, 2009
Did Obama 'Shoe' Israel?
Take a look at this picture of Obama talking to Netanyau: |
It has generated anger in Israel:
Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "insult" to Israel.I could understand if this was limited to Sephardic Jews who immigrated from Arab countries, but the implication is that this was not limited to them alone. Myself, my parents got annoyed at me when I walked around the house without my shoes, as that is a sign of mourning.
They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad.
It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too.
Israel's Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere." The report said Netanyahu's aides interpreted this as a "threat." [emphasis added]So much for getting rid of US arrogance.
UPDATE: Powerline quotes the thoughts of Paul Rahe, professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of the three-volume study Republics Ancient and Modern. Professor Rahe writes that Obama has a history of these kinds of gestures:
Far-fetched thoough these fears might seem, I suspect that these Israelis are not being hypersensitive. Barack Obama has a history of belittling his adversaries in just such a fashion. In April 2008, he was caught on tape during a debate with Hillary Clinton, rubbing his hand across the right side of his face and extending his middle finger in an obscene gesture that many in the audience could see it but she could not, and when this provoked laughter on the part of his supporters he responded with a knowing smile.Read the whole thing.
Later, after accepting his party's nomination, he did precisely the same thing during a debate with John McCain; and, after Sarah Palin remarked at the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a soccer mom was lipstick, he observed at a rally that a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Again, many in the audience caught the dig and they, too, were rewarded with a knowing smile...
...Behind the thin veneer of politeness, there is, I suspect, something ugly lurking. In the first of the autobiographies that he claims to have written, Barack Obama frequently speaks of himself as being in the grips of rage. We would do well to take him at his word. If we are to stop him from doing great damage to this country and to our friends and allies, we must take every opportunity that comes our way to unmask the man.
Hezbollah in passive voice
A cynical and mistrusted offer
Wapo: peace process succeeding because of the great work of the administration
Council speak 100610
Nyt: peace process failing despite the great work of the administration
Do we have enough regulations yet?
Iranian General: "US, Mossad played roles in 9/11 event"
Absolving arafat, ten years later
Rahm can't run? antisemites!
The politics of peace
Yes, its an intended insult. In Arab culture to show your shoes to someone or throw them at someone is a sign of contempt. And Obama is well versed enough in Muslim culture to know the significance of the gesture. Its not meant as a compliment to Netanyahu, that's for sure.
Posted by: NormanF at June 10, 2009 6:26 PMJust keep in mind that this was on the phone, not in person. If anything, I would say he is making a show of informality when talking to Bibi, which could be taken as a slight.
I remember when Bibi met Clinton. When leaving the room, Clinton put his hand around Bibi's shoulder--and Bibi did the same. One person wrote that Clinton was trying to show he was in charge, and Netanyahu countered.
I think that was reading too much into it as well.
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 11, 2009 12:47 AMDaled, there's a difference between Clinton and Obama. The former doesn't have that history with the Rev. Wright. I don't think Israelis would read too much into Clinton's body language. But they think Obama's subconscious body language may well betray feelings towards Israel that cannot be expressed openly. And 90% of human communication is non-verbal. If its not an insult, then the White House wouldn't have released the photo after the phone call. So if its just an innocent gesture, then we will see if the White House goes on to release an similar photo of the President after a phone call to any other foreign leader.
Posted by: NormanF at June 11, 2009 1:34 PMWell, we all read quite a lot into Clinton's body language when she kissed Suha Arafat...
As far as Obama goes, spending too much time on this photo is only going to make us even more paranoid than we already are.
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 11, 2009 1:56 PMParanoia is not justified when there no valid grounds for it.
Israel's paranoia is justified because the other side does seek to destroy the Jewish State. And its not spending too much time on a photo that has Israelis worried.
Posted by: NormanF at June 11, 2009 4:21 PMI did not mean to minimize our concern.
It's just that we'll get a more receptive ear if we focus on the facts and not on pictures of Obama.
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 11, 2009 4:30 PMBeg pardon for being dense, but how precisely should Bibi feel insulted over the phone by the other side doing whatever he is doing with his feet? Other parts of the post notwithstanding, this particular detail is a bit far out (I know that it is not you, DA).
I should look again at my habit to answer the phone when in the bathroom, then...
Posted by: SnoopyTheGoon at June 12, 2009 6:59 AMI thought the assumption was that with photographers there, a picture would be sure to be published.
Personally, I just thought it was a little rude to appear like that publicly when speaking to the leader of a country.
The shoe thing would not have occurred to me.
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 12, 2009 10:40 AMMyself, my parents got annoyed at me when I walked around the house without my shoes, as that is a sign of mourning.
My father, too.
Posted by: trn at June 15, 2009 5:10 AM