Another Tack: Barack and Bernard-Henri

BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY with Libyan insurgents. Sparing no hyperbole, he declared Benghazi "the capital not only of Libya but of free men and women all over the world." (Reuters)One day before US President Barack Obama touched down here and began to beguile us, flamboyant French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy was reportedly barred from Libya’s Tripoli because of his Jewishness. On the face of it, these two episodes are wholly unconnected. But, on closer inspection, they’re not.

Lévy had been an avid Obama fan since 2004, gushed about him unreservedly and even crowned Obama the “Black Kennedy.” However, there’s way more that ties the two men. Obama and Lévy are both hyper-hyped photogenic trendsetters and charismatic superstars. Foremost, though, both have compelling reason to reevaluate their strongly held maxims.

Both believed in the Arab Spring, in heralding a new free-thinking and broadminded Arab orientation. Each in his own way contributed to what he trusted was a defining historic makeover.

Obama, at the helm of the world’s sole remaining superpower, helped topple old stalwarts like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak with mere words. Lévy, a swashbuckling intellectual with no might behind him, singlehandedly goaded then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy to mount a European intervention to aid the Libyan rebels. It was quite a feat for one individual, no matter how iconic.

Lévy travelled repeatedly to strife-torn Libya, likening its rebels to the Warsaw Ghetto fighters, no less.  Sparing no hyperbole, he declared Benghazi “the capital not only of Libya but of free men and women all over the world.”

Here we need to interject that Algerian-born Lévy is by no means one of the garden-variety Israel-bashing leftist Jewish scholars who proliferate in fashionable salons and prestigious campuses. Quite the contrary. Lévy is proudly Jewish and forthrightly characterized anti-Zionism as “the new mutation of the anti-Semitism virus.”

But so entranced was he by the Libyan insurrection, that he chastised Israel for its skepticism about an overhaul of the Arab mindset.

“Exaggerated caution, withdrawal, silent disapproval,” He wrote in 2011, “would place the heirs of the great Zionist dream in an untenable position, one that would be unworthy of their history. I am hard put to see how a country can be proud – rightly so and for such a long time – of being the sole democracy in the Middle East and yet hesitate to welcome its neighbors when they attempt to join it, embracing, at the cost of heroic combat, the values Israel has exemplified.”

Shortly thereafter, Lévy told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that Libya’s opposition leaders will establish diplomatic ties with Israel should they come to power.

A mere two days later, the self-same rebels released a communiqué that “strongly rejects what has been reported in some media as Mr. Bernard Lévy’s comments on the future relationship between Libya and the Israelis.”

It was a slap in the face but Lévy wasn’t disheartened. Likewise, Obama appears not to have been overly disheartened by copious evidence that the much-ballyhooed Arab swing to liberal values was no more than a cynical façade for a takeover by the distinctly illiberal forces of Islamic fanaticism.

During his charm offensive here, Obama spoke of American support for “the Egyptian people in their historic transition to democracy,” seemingly in total oblivion of the very counter-democratic course of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi.

He further asserted that “the United States continues to work with allies and friends and the Syrian opposition to hasten the end of Assad’s rule.” He just failed to mention that in opposition-held areas, women are compulsorily confined to their homes in keeping with strict Muslim edicts, while public lashings have been adopted as due punishment for an assortment of religious transgressions.

That said, despite his reluctance to confess his critical errors of perception and policy, Obama did indicate awareness that things aren’t truly going to plan. In one candid second, during his joint press conference with Netanyahu, Obama did own up that “obviously what was already a pretty tough neighborhood has gotten tougher.” In other words, much as he’s loath to admit it, he knows that the Arab Spring made things worse rather than better.

In the final analysis, even Obama must realize that America’s only constant and reliable ally in this corner of the globe is the tiny Jewish state, which he studiously excluded from his overseas excursions itinerary during his first White House stint.

All around Israel, synthetic nations, concocted by British and French imperialists last century, have now dismally disintegrated into tribal, religious and sectarian components. The Middle East was reduced to bedlam.

Therefore, the very fact that Obama continues to promote the two-state chimera is unsettling.  Given the madhouse chaos of this pivotal region, the cause of world peace would not be served by the introduction of yet more anarchic players in the shape of a sovereign Palestine and an insurgent Jordan.

All that allows Ramallah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas to parade as a peace-partner is the fact that Israel props him up. The same goes for King Abdullah in Amman, who would have been deposed, were it not for Israel. Both are able to posture in the international arena simply because Israel underpins them.

As soon as Israel pulls out, Hamas or kindred Islamic fundamentalists will take over. Only Israel keeps them at bay. Coercive pressure to create the Palestinian state that Obama so ostensibly yearns for, will not only harm Israel but will inescapably lead to the downfall of Israel’s purported interlocutors, chiefly Abbas (whose mandate from the voters expired years ago). The resultant mayhem will, just as inevitably, knock Jordan off balance.

Abbas anyhow, lacks courage to make a deal, which would in effect mean relinquishing the currently claimed right to inundate Israel with millions of so-called Arab refugees. Abbas cannot end the dispute with the Jewish state.

His predecessor Yasser Arafat, who didn’t lose Gaza and who wielded incomparably more clout than Abbas, feared to accept then-premier Ehud Barak’s egregiously generous offers in 2000. No wonder Abbas rebuffed an improved offer from Ehud Olmert in 2008. For Arafat’s successor, theatrical poses aside, striking a bargain is tantamount to actual suicide.

In a way, Obama gave Abbas an out in 2009. By pressuring Netanyahu to impose a ten-month moratorium on Jewish construction beyond the 1949 Armistice Line (a.k.a the Green Line), Obama supplied Abbas with a pretext to avoid even the semblance of seeking a modicum of accommodation.

Obama’s settlement freeze had swelled into Abbas’ permanent precondition. He cannot be seen as demanding less than the American president. Unwittingly, Obama has sabotaged his own pet project. He should have understood that Abbas cannot deliver.

For all of Obama’s peace preaching, a Palestinian state is not a remotely viable option because no Palestinian leader can sign on the dotted line – and that’s without even dwelling on the minor matter of squeezing Israel into an indefensible nine-mile waistline. Israel’s densest population centers would be exposed to daily battering that would make all the rocket barrages unleashed on our south by Hamas and on our north by Hezbollah look mild in comparison.

But, more often than not, public figures find it advantageous to cover up gaping flaws in their sales pitches. It’s detrimental to be seen as backing down from pious pretense and buoyant pledges to fix the world. Some fallacies, especially of the hope-stirring sort, are difficult to ditch.

Sunshine and cheer are seductive and therefore confer political perks aplenty on those who can dispense them with aplomb. Take our own indefatigable president Shimon Peres. “Peace is not only a vision but a possibility,” he intoned confidently to an appreciative Obama.

It was music to Obama’s ears. Despite everything which the Arab Spring dished up – coupled with the lethal damage he wrought to his own first-term attempts to kick-start meaningful Mideast negotiations – Obama still extolled the virtues of finding a “resolution to this issue,”  i.e. the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Such resolution, Obama responded gladly to Peres’s cue, will “enhance Israel’s security” and help Palestinians “channel their extraordinary energies and entrepreneurship in more positive ways… The entire region will be healthier…  So I’m going to keep on making that argument.”

We’ve of course heard lots such mantras before. This time, though, Obama was refreshingly cognizant of exactly how he sounds. As a result, he felt bound to stress that he says what he does “not only because of some Pollyannaish views about ‘can’t we all get along and hold hands and sing Kumbaya.’”

Regardless of how ridiculous her upbeat disposition may prove to be in the merciless glare of our Mideastern daylight, Pollyanna is always enticing – even though reality gallingly vindicates ever-irksome dire predictions. It’s natural. Optimism is sugary and promises all manner of lovely things to come. Realism (scorned as pessimism) may be bitter and warn of grim consequences that nobody wants to hear about.

And so despite his disclaimer, Obama still puts on Pollyanna airs and belts out a sappy peace-‘n’-love rendition of the stale two-state Kumbaya. Despite what he knows, or at least suspects in his heart of hearts, the show must go on.

Similarly, Lévy can’t publicly backtrack from his well-intentioned naïveté. “Have I become an undesirable in Libya?” he asks in a Daily Beast op-ed. “You can’t quite persuade yourself that ingratitude is the vice of great nations or that your friends may simply have been using you for as long as you remained useful to them.”

Nonetheless, while denying he had travel plans, Lévy isn’t sure that officials “within the Tripoli city government,” don’t indeed regard him as undesirable. He attributes this to the “the war between the two Islams,” but he concludes: “you feel strengthened in your resolve to carry on, both at home and in Libya, alongside your true Libyan friends.”

No matter how hard and insensitively reality slaps given delusionists in the face, they still compulsively persist in their charade. The world may be a tad unkind, but the optimistic sham of unwavering trust in human goodness is too good to give up.

14 thoughts on “Another Tack: Barack and Bernard-Henri

  1. “Obama and Lévy are both hyper-hyped photogenic trendsetters and charismatic superstars.” – There are some differences, though. The former’s always sporting an off-white bare chest, whereas the latter, with all his dramatic faults, is certainly the more intelligent of the two.

  2. Levy may be delusional but obama knows exactly what the reality is and is complicit with it. As long as the US can be demeaned and chastised and 3d world countries and anti-western movements lauded he’s quite happy.

  3. In regards to Obama, my only question is how he can preach all that ‘Pollyannish’ tripe with a straight face, unless of course his ultimate goal is the weakening of Israel, leading to it’s eventual downfall? Hey, if it works on America why not try it here? Are we really naive enough to think Satan will bear his horns and tail for all the world to see?
    ‘Pollyanna’ is a great disguise for those who are ready to buy the schtick of the illegitimate, Kenyan born president of a soon-to-be ex-sole superpower,
    שבת שלום שרה

  4. A haunting question…WHY are so many of the best minds of the Jewish intelligentsia NOT focused on the success of Zionism, but on NONSENSE…?

    • Many times Jews are their own worst enemies, my dear nephew. Only through the grace of G-d is Israel kept not only from from going under, but actually thriving in the midst of the worst of hostile environments.

  5. When one encounters men like B.H. Levi, one sees where the process of religion-less Judaism and loyalty to the “people of Israel” exists in real time.

    Arguably I could respect him as a human, even if not respecting him as a Jew. Once, apostasy involved conversion to another religion. Now it is the gentle but certain disappearance from the ranks – and and the likes of Levi, Chomsky and Woody Allan might be considered as members of this category – that cause the remainder to engage with renewed vigour in order to ensure our continued existence and preserve our people.

    If Levi can’t grasp that he’s been used and discarded by the Libyans (et al) one wonders as to his practical intelligence, common sense and respect due to him as an alleged philosopher.

    Perhaps he should address the philosophy of delusion and ego.

    Well done Sarah. Another laser like article that hits the spot!!!

  6. I lived in the middle east for years and I agree a modicum of realism and truth ,at the very least, is required.
    I had composed a thoughtful reply but all I came up with was words! Suffice it to say I am prepared to be a spear carrier behind your chariot! It must be hard for an intelligent person to keep stating the blooming obvious and these car salesmen posing as politicians ignore you as their own agenda is simply re-election!! Leaders with humanity and a brain don’t be silly!
    Well done Sarah!

  7. Bernard-Henry Levi–self-deluded fool and symbiotic Obama sycophant. There was an article on another web site not long ago, that talks about how so many Americans have become deluded: cultural degradation of society, along with the decline of our schools, and the silly, stupid pursuit of the unattainable-the perfection of human nature-have combined to produce Obama voters. Incredible arrogance also plays a role. Many American Jews are the worst offenders. Barack Obama-the enemy. Barry is the No. 1 self-deluded fool, but there’s no doubt that he’s doing all of it on purpose. Otherwise, why would he have avoided speaking to Israel’s Knesset? And why would he keep the Benghazi survivors hidden? And why would he…….(on and on)? Thank you, Ms. Honig!

  8. Also, Bernard Henri Levi is an example of the “unconstrained” view of human nature–i.e., people are good, and human nature is perfectable; vs. the “constrained,” or tragic view of human nature, that America’s founders possessed. According to Peter Robinson, Newt Gingrich, and Thomas Sowell. Another example of the “unconstrained” view of human nature was Anne Frank; but she gets a pass; her delusion was her way of blocking out the terrible circumstances in which she was forced to live. Bernard Henri-Levi? American reformed Jews? No pass for them.

  9. The big O is really no longer the leader of a Superpower, he has seen to its slow steady demise. China probably better fits the role now, or a least very soon to be. You would never need to use exorcism, just take his teleprompters, he will be left speechless. I often wonder who writes the material and who edits it. There you will find the real leader or leaders. Would be interesting to know, no conspiracy theorist here. It is hard to see him having time to write with his busy sporting and vacation schedule. As far as the American Jew well they are a very gullible lot. They believe in a strange kind of Social Justice very similar to their non Jewish friends and relatives. Here we all live together and sometimes the differences are very hard to see if you can see them at all. But make sure if you come here do not make public note of the similarities or you could have wish you would of remained silent. Most have their own versions of Judaism and Israel. Remember it is easy to say what you want when the rockets are dropping on someone else’s head.

  10. Thanks Sarah, great article. I have been interested in this particular situation for a long time, so you helped fill in some of the missing details I didn’t know about.

  11. BE PROUD TO HAVE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF JEWISH BLOOD IN OUR VEINS, RAISE YOUR CHILDREN TO BE PROUD OF THEIR HERITAGE AND FROM AN EARLY AGE EXPLAIN WHY THEY MUST MARRY JEWS, ISREAL WILL SURVIVE OBAMA AND FLOURISH. TOO MANY AMERICAN JEWS ARE TOTALLY LOST.

    • ……..as are many diaspora Jews from secular liberal leftist backgrounds who chose to disassociate themselves from the Jewish people, and to fawn and ingratiate themselves with those whose purpose is to ridicule, deride and eventually see the destruction of our nation and its rightful homeland.

      The name “quisling” comes to mind!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s