unfortunately for him, he gave in 2011. The Prime Minister's address today was an unusually powerful demonstration of the importance of kairos or timing in rhetorical action. A concept drawn from the ancient Greek, kairos as a term tries to comprehend the role of time in public address--how do we characterize the times we are in? When should one intervene in a public debate? How does the flow of time shape rhetorical appeals and arguments?
In the case of Netanyahu, hardly at all. Although the Congress hung rapt on his every word, that is not an effect that is likely to last. That's primarily because his speech reflected assumptions that may have been "true"--in the sense that they served nicely as premises for public argument--in the halcyon (for neocons) days following 9/11, but no longer hold much water. So, Netanyahu's speech claimed
1) An absolute identification between the values and interests of the United States and the values and interests of Israel. Again, many Americans may have accepted this claim in the months following 9/11, but it was not likely true then and not likely true now. For instance, a peace settlement would do much to improve the situation of the United States in the region; given the conditions Netanyahu sets, he clearly wants to continue an indefinite occupation of much of the West Bank. The time is fast approaching when that conflict in interests will become impossible to ignore.
2) An absolute identification between the values of democracy and the existing norms of Israel and the United States. I have no doubt the United States and Israel approximate those ideals better than many nations. I also understand that, as Reinhold Niebuhr put it, "imperialism is the collective expression of the sinful will-to-power which characterizes all human existence." Our hands are not clean and neither are Israel's. Netanyahu's speech assumes an absolute purity on the part of the United States and Israel that has no foundation in historical experience. It is the same blindness that afflicted the Bush Administration--we can bring democracy to the region because we are pure.
3) An absolute division between good and evil in the region. Netanyahu tries to embrace the continuing democratic movements in the area. But, after a brief acknowledgement of their potential, he offers the example of Iran. Built into the text is the assumption that his adversaries in the region simply can't be democratic, unless they live under the tutelage of Israel. Other than that, they will inevitably, it seems, slip into authoritarianism. Thus, we should pay no attention to those democracies emerging from behind the curtain. They mean nothing.
This is a speech that offers a Manichean world, a twilight struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness, and a victory that can only be won by an endless, rigid determination--by a supreme exertion of will. It is, in short, a speech that could have been given by former Vice-President Richard Cheney. It is not an address that reflects the times in which we live. For that, I am very sad because I suspect the Prime Minister's leadership will take the nation he loves into very bad times, indeed.
Comments