For reasons which are not necessarily obvious to all the political persuasions, there are those in Israel who are less enamored with United States President Obama than are others. This has caused for calls to protest the President. The question has been exactly how to protest President Obama when access to him will be under tight security and thus very limited. Obviously such security would shield the President from coming in contact with any demonstrations and their only effect would be whatever coverage they received in the World media, particularly the American media. This also would allow the media to interpret in what vein the protesters would be cast affecting how they would be perceived. The problem then is to find a manner of protest which would make the point that there are some difficulties and differences in opinions and aims between many Israelis and the President of the United States. The protest must also take into consideration that much of their effort will likely be blunted by the massive security which will isolate the President from such influences.
Perhaps the best of protests would be not to protest and instead simply refuse to attend any venue featuring President Obama. Should all of the reports of President Obama during his visit in Israel show minimal audiences and small if any crowds vying to view the American President, this would be the most impressive demonstration. Let’s face the truth; large demonstrations could be shot in one of two manners, either showing them as protests or hiding their true intent and representing them as supportive throngs. On the other hand, you cannot show empty streets as a supportive throng of people cheering the President as he passes from one event to the next. If Israelis simply went about their normal day-to-day business, with the necessary adjustments to accommodate road closures and other security necessities, and simply appeared not to have any reaction, pro or con, to President Obama’s visit, they would make the loudest of statements. The real problem in attempting to protest any visit by United States President Obama is that by doing so one leaves it to the media coverage to carry the message. Does anybody in even their wildest imagination believe that Haaretz, the BBC, AFP or the New York Times and their cohorts would ever report protest against President Obama in any positive light? They would do everything in their power to show the protesters as a disgruntled minority while showing the crowds of adoring fans as the norm and representative of the vast majority of Israelis. They would do this even if it required misrepresenting which pictures were of protesters and which were of supporters which from a distance would be differentiable. Relying on the truth from media has become a bit of a fools game in the new modern age of slanted journalism where opinions are conveyed as facts and facts are considered interpretable.
So, maybe the best path that Israelis wishing to impart a disapproving message to President Obama would do so best by simply doing nothing. Simply let the complete lack of any evidence of approvals or disapprovals make their statement rather than allow for interpretation by the international media. Nothing could make a louder statement to President Obama the man than to have only a paltry few show to cheer his presence as the admiring throngs are one of the benefits of the Presidency which he most treasures. Deny him admiring, cheering crowds and the silence will be the most devastating message that could be sent. Sometimes the best action is inaction.
Beyond the Cusp
Three of the most important nominations a President makes, as the Administrative Branch of the government is primarily responsible for foreign affairs, are Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). President Obama could have made appointments which would have been uncontroversial, middle of the spectrum, and well versed in their fields and received quick Senate approval with little confrontational debate. But that was not his intent. The President cast cares aside and chose three candidates who were at best problematic.
For Secretary of State he chose Senator Kerry who originally made his name making outlandish and adversarial accusations before Congress demeaning his fellow soldiers with whom he had served side by side with in Viet Nam. He accused them of committing horrific atrocities comparing them with Genghis Kahn and the Mongol hordes. Since being elected to the Senate Kerry had castigated the State Department who served under Republican Presidents and was never really much of a defender of the state on the international stage. Still, of the three Senator Kerry was likely the least controversial and due to his relations with the members of the Senate received an easy confirmation hearing. Senator Kerry becoming Secretary of State was never in doubt and, by comparison with the other two appointees, was the least troubling.
Next is the President’s appointment for Secretary of Defense, former Senator Hagel. Senator Hagel’s hearings have had a grand display of ruffled feathers and looks to be flailing and headed to defeat. His hearings were a relief in many ways, none to Mr. Hagel’s credit. He was unprepared for answers which any competent appointee for Secretary of Defense would have known would be asked. His lack of having even a basic grasp of President Obama’s foreign policy positions was appalling and shocking. His admission after receiving corrections and admonitions from even Senators with whom he had served surprised and shocked even those who initially had supported his appointment. When even Senator McCain, who had been a friend and cosponsored legislation with Senator Hagel, appeared to lose his temper at Hagel’s’ evasions and prevarications was seen as shocking and a telling problem which evidenced the downturn of any possibility for Hagel to be approved. What may have been the final nail in the Hagel appointment coffin came when the senior committee member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, announced he planned to filibuster the appointment should it be brought before the Senate for confirmation. Seldom do we get to witness such a display of animosity shown publicly for a former Senator when brought before the Senate for confirmation. Partial proof of the deference shown by the Senate to former Senator during confirmation hearings was the easy and rapid approval given Senator Kerry just weeks prior when considered for Secretary of State.
The final appointment was the President appointing John Brennan to be the Director of the CIA. Any candidate for such a sensitive position is required to possess many varied and crucial qualifications. One of the most vital is the trust of both the employees of the CIA and the President while being able to display same before the Senate. Another would be a high sense of morality and a solid moral breadth to guide him in a position where temptations to go afield of the straight and narrow are numerous. That is where there may be some difficulty with the Brennan appointment. This was evident with his first appearance before the Senate where the hearings were disrupted repeatedly by demonstrators. What was amazing is that I have to give Code Pink credit for their consistency on this matter. Code Pink had problems with Mr. Brennan when he was instrumental in defending the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Since then Mr. Brennan has been neck deep in President Obama’s use of drones for targeted assassinations including that of Americans overseas who have been identified of ties to terrorism. This too has troubled Code Pink and their demonstration against him as a President Obama appointee was something not often found in politics in the United States, a consistent and independent sense of morality that is applied without regards to political party. Code Pink was right on target about Mr. Brennan who has demonstrated that he has no internal morality and will simply take his orders and perform whatever he is assigned to without regards to legality or righteousness. He has uncanny ability to find justifications for any actions no matter their actual morality. That combined with Mr. Brennan’s tendency to be a simple yes man makes him problematic at best and a disaster waiting to happen at worst as Director of the CIA. Unfortunately, the Senate is very likely to allow Mr. Brennan to be confirmed as it is rare for the Senate to refuse two senior Presidential appointments so close together, but we can pray.
Beyond the Cusp