The Symbol of America's Redemption

Today, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. I believe that the inauguration of President Obama is the symbolic equivalent of America’s redemption in the eyes of the world. Although not a descendant of slavery, Obama is a representation of America’s emancipation from its own sordid history of slavery and racial discrimination. Barack Obama offers a hope for change and a chance for America to shed its identity as a global villain. Obama stands for The Good, and Americans are ready for The Good President.

Nevertheless, I think it is important to highlight that the power of Obama thus far has been entirely symbolic. Anthropologists have long been interested in the ways that symbols convey meanings and the power that these meanings have over our experiences. A simple example of this is how a small red octagon has the power to govern the movements of billions of people all over the world. However, the thing about the power of a symbol is that it is subject to and limited by the constraints of its physical and material environment. The power of the stop sign is irrelevant if you’re heading towards a busy intersection in a car with faulty brakes.

Which brings me back to Obama. One can’t help but fear that for all the symbolic heroism that has been projected onto this man, he will be unable to fix the political, economic and environmental mess that is today’s global reality. Whether or not Barack Obama proves to be America’s redeemer will remain to be seen. Let’s just hope, for our sake and his, that’s he’s got better luck than the driver of the car without brakes.

Good Guys and Bad Guys

Those of you who have read my blog before might remember my father-in-law, the Albertan. Our politics tend to diverge, which makes for lively debates and interesting blog topics. Anyways, my Albertan father-in-law now has his own blog, Ivory Tower Pundit. You should check it out.

In his latest posting, my father-in-law argues that the reason Hamas has continued its war against Israel, despite its obvious underdog position, is that its primary objective is to vilify Israel on the world stage. Images of Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli tanks don't do very much for Israel's reputation. He believes that if those opposed to Israel’s actions (i.e. lefty protestors, anti-Zionists, anti-Americans, unions, etc …) truly want the violence to end, they must condemn Hamas and deprive it of the support it needs to continue.

I don’t necessarily disagree with his argument, but think that one must also ask how and why Hamas gained such widespread support in the first place.

Here's the thing- most people naturally root for the underdog. And in a world where politics are governed by optics, the endless suffering of the Palestinian people has solidified their underdog status. This, despite the fact that Israel is despised by its neighbours, some of whom are sworn to its demise.

However, after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, there was a window of opportunity where Israel could have transformed itself from the tyrannical oppressor into a helpful ally. Had Israel (and its international allies) taken the necessary steps to strengthen Abbas and the Fatah party, perhaps Hamas would not have won the support of the Palestinians of Gaza. Had Israel and its allies made it their business to ensure the social and economic stability of the Palestinians of Gaza, perhaps the blockades of food and medical supplies might not have been a tragic military necessity.

To this, my father-in-law might reply, “Why should Israel be responsible for the safety and security of the Palestinians?” Well, when Hamas becomes the primary provider of important resources like basic health care and education, it is no surprise that it wins the support of the people. If my father-in-law is correct and Hamas’s primary objective is to demonize the State of Israel, then it makes sense that the well-being of the Palestinians should be a strategic necessity for Israel.

And in a world where optics count, it wouldn’t hurt to look like the good guys for once.

So Much for Brand Israel

In August of 2008, the Israeli Foreign Ministry embarked on an ambitious PR campaign to re-brand Israel. Toronto’s status as a multicultural centre made it a perfect test site for the “Brand Israel” initiative, which will be launched internationally in the coming years. According to Israeli Consul General Amir Gissin, the marketing mission is to “make Israel relevant and attractive to Canadians and to refocus attention away from the conflict.” By purposely omitting politics from the re-branding agenda, the hope is to shine a positive light on some other aspects of Israel’s identity, such as its role as a medical and technological innovator.

Unfortunately for those involved in the re-branding effort, Israel just doesn’t seem to want to cooperate. Five months into the campaign, and Israel goes and has a war with Gaza. So much for trying to avoid the political conflict.

The thing is, Israel’s image problems are nothing but political. It was created as a response to an attempted genocide of the Jewish people. It is surrounded by hostile neighbours, most of whom regularly express their desire to see it destroyed. As a result, Israel’s military is fierce and its 60 year occupation of the Palestinians has been brutal. The current war in Gaza is a tragic outcome of the reality of Israel’s very existence. Until Israel is able to come up with a tenable solution for the Palestinian problem, it will be continually forced to bare its military might. No amount of positive PR will ever change this sad fact.