Rush Limbaugh may be wrong in claiming that Obama spoke of a moral equivalency between the Holocaust and Palestinian suffering, but he’s right that Obama suggested that the two phenomena were in the same universe of pain. In Cairo, Obama was interceding in a history of Jewish thought that has decided that there are no parallels and rejected it as a legitimate negotiating position.
So much has been said about Obama’s historic speech in Cairo last week that I wondered what more could, or should, be said. Then I heard Rush Limbaugh’s comment claiming it “unconscionable” that Obama would make a “moral equivalency” between the Holocaust and Palestinian suffering. Rush’s comment was covered by Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s The Situation Room and quickly refuted on that program by former Bush speechwriter David Frum (who thought the speech was a disaster). Yet I think Rush’s comment requires serious attention.
While not repeated with Rush’s bravado, the “equation,” as it were, has been mentioned by many in the American Jewish community. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted in the New York Times Friday June 5, saying “’I understand Palestinian suffering, it is terrible… But it is not on the other hand to the Holocaust” It is to this other hand that I would like to draw our attention.
To begin with, what if Rush is right? What if he is right precisely where he is wrong? “On the one hand/on the other hand” could surely be a phrase introducing moral equivalency—though it could just as easily recognize two unequal realities, both of which must be taken into account when trying to understand a complex situation. Moral equivalency needs more evidence than “on the other hand,” which is why David Frum discounted it when it could have served his purpose.
http://newageislam.com/obama-CshakesD-the-jewish-consciousness-in-cairo--/islam-and-the-west/d/1462
No comments:
Post a Comment