A rhetorical observation
I’ve said many times on this blog that I don’t like political speeches and generally hate to listen to them, except for Churchill’s.
But I immediately noticed a phrase in Netanyahu’s speech today that I think was his tribute to Churchill. I have read that Netanyahu sees his role as issuing a vitally important warning of impending danger, much as Churchill warned Parliament about Hitler and the grave peril a re-armed Germany represented.
I see that this comparison was not lost on John Boehner, either:
Mr Netanyahu is due to be presented with a bust of Winston Churchill by the Republican speaker John Boehner, who controversially invited him to speak in Washington without discussing the matter with the White House.
Interesting, considering that early in his presidency Obama returned a bust of Churchill to the British.
Here’s the phrase in Netanyahu’s speech that caught my ear:
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
And although Netanyahu’s delivery can’t be compared to Churchill’s (whose can?), this is the moment it conjured up:
I would guess that Netanyahu was fully aware of the reference. I doubt very much that the same could be said of Obama.
[NOTE: I want to clarify that I think Netanyahu’s speech was good.
But I mean it when I say I almost never like speeches by politicians, except for Churchill. I suspect I would have liked Lincoln as well, but there’s no recording. In Churchill’s case I respond to the incredible trifecta of his sonorous voice; his ability to write and deliver forceful and beautiful and completely clear phrases, almost like poetry; and the profound thoughts he is expressing.
I don’t think anyone compares.
I tend not to be an auditory processor in general. But I also (and this may sound paradoxical, but I don’t think it is) am extremely sensitive to tone in human voices. I loved Churchill’s. Netanyahu’s (and that of most speakers) doesn’t have the timbre; it sounds flattish to me.
But that’s not really any special dig at Netanyahu. As non-Churchillian speeches go, his was a good one: clear, forceful, and especially graceful under the circumstances.
See the left’s reaction, if you have a strong stomach.]
Iran on Tuesday rejected as “unacceptable” U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it would continue talks on a deal
I usually don’t like political speeches because the language has gotten too intentionally nuanced an vague by the likes of Obama.
However, Bibi’s speeches are so plainspoken, direct, and from the heart it’s worth seeing them as given (instead of via the transcript). He did not disappoint.
Especially loved his intonation as he read Iran’s tweet, the way he repeated “tweet!” to underscore just how unabashed this regime is about its desires for genocide of the Jews and eradication of her state. No mealy-mouthed, absurd attempt to explain this away by Psaki, Harf, Kerry, or even Obama himself can hold a candle to this simple truth from Netanyahu.
if i remember correctly, the presidente of mexico lectured the us on immigration from that same poddium-in spite of mexicos internal anti immigration diversity policy-but the demssay the israeli pm insulted us.
typing on a old kiindle……
Pelosi teared up due, she says, to her deep hurt over her president being insulted. The Dems & News Puppets are chorusing that Bibi sounded like—ready for this?—Dick Cheney. OMG, there’s a bitter gotcha that Bibi can wear with Great Honor.
I am not fond of political speeches myself. But Netanyahu raised himself far above politics today. I haven’t seen a speech that good since Reagan.
Bibi Netanyahu is a masterful speaker. I can only imagine how bitter it must have tasted for Obama to get a does of his own medicine, as Bibi said one thing while doing another — in this case, saying over and over how much he respects President Obama, while utterly ignoring Obama’s insults, pleas and threats not to give his speech.
I was delighted with Netanyahu’s threat of action, no doubt aimed directly at Obama: that, if Israel must act alone, she will. But, he added, we are not alone! He knows that Americans support him in overwhelming numbers.
We live in dangerous times. Israel is lucky to have Mr. Netanyahu; with luck they will choose, in two weeks, to keep him. And given how dangerous the world is today, we are all lucky to have Mr. Netanyahu on our side.
As said elsewhere: “Netanyahu 1. Obama 0.”
Best speech in that chamber since September 20, 2001. Fittingly, George W. Bush was the greatest friend of Israel to ever sit in the Oval Office. Think of it: The Best followed by The Weakest and Worst.
Daniel in Brookline:
Yes, I thought Netanyahu’s high praise for Obama was a very nice touch.
The Reds are already frantically scratching dirt over Bibi’s speech and visit, like dogs in a boneyard. The “news” channels, if the radio journos are anything to go by, will do all they can to erase/distort the PM’s message.
This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
“This movement among Jews is not new … but a “world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” — W. Churchill
Netanyahu is simply the best political speaker since Churchill. I don’t mean to slight Reagan, but, imo, Netanyahu is his better both in content and style. I’m not a fan of political speeches, but Bibi never disappoints.
Baxterstinth:
Try again.
The totality of Churchill’s work and life was about as pro-Jew and pro-Zionist as it can possibly get, especially for a man of his generation:
Regarding great political speech-givers, don’t forgot Lady Thatcher!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
[Shortest clip I could find at 2.5 minutes]
Regarding great political speech-givers, don’t forgot Lady Thatcher!
or Cicero… 🙂
or Ceasers speech to the 13th legion..
or Demosthenes…
and who could forget “Give me liberty or Give me Death”?
But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Lincoln’s contemporaries wrote of his voice. “The most frequent things we read are that, he had a nasal voice, a high voice, but that somehow, miraculously, it floated over large crowds,” Lincoln historian Harold Holzer
I suspect that Lincoln’s nasality and the brevity of his speeches led to, in his time, a devaluing of his oratorical skills. To be fully appreciated, the Gettysburg Address needs to be read slowly and pondered.
As an orator, Martin Luther King, Jr. could be mesmerizing and if anyone matched Churchill’s ‘trifecta’ it was he..
Art, you left off the best part. Patrick Henry knew how to finish a speech;
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775
Pelosi teared up due, she says, to her deep hurt over her president being insulted.
What nonsense. What insult?? It does not insult the president for the man to give a speech.
Lea, Range of Light,
The quote from Pelosi was actually that she was “near tears” because the intelligence of the American people was being insulted by Netanyahu’s speech.
Funny statement, coming from her, if it weren’t so tragic.
She also acted out her upset on the floor while listening.
We write today in reconsideration of “The Gettysburg Address,” delivered by then-President Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the greatest conflict seen on American soil. Our predecessors, perhaps under the influence of partisanship, or of strong drink, as was common in the profession at the time, called President Lincoln’s words “silly remarks,” deserving “a veil of oblivion,” apparently believing it an indifferent and altogether ordinary message, unremarkable in eloquence and uninspiring in its brevity….
In the editorial about President Abraham Lincoln’s speech delivered Nov. 19, 1863, in Gettysburg, the Patriot & Union failed to recognize its momentous importance, timeless eloquence, and lasting significance. The Patriot-News regrets the error. :
Democ.rats then …
“Funny statement, coming from her, if it weren’t so tragic.
She also acted out her upset on the floor while listening.”:
That’s Pelosi!
because the intelligence of the American people was being insulted by Netanyahu’s speech
this is how I feel every day listening to obama. And all the other democrats.
Pelosi out of her gourd:
Pelosi Chases Republican Tom Marino Across House Chamber
End of clip, bottom of screen …
Here’s a little experiment for your dining and dancing pleasure. If you get the chance to watch a speaker on television, turn the sound off and watch the body language. It will really open your eyes about how grotesque these speakers are; unless they are a really good speaker, their body language is often exaggerated. You can even spot little things that the speaker puts in deliberately.
One word of warning though. If you do this more that a couple times and the habit will stick with you, even with the audio on, for the rest of your life. Personal experience speaking there.
KRB
Will some Jewish Democrats now apostasize from voting liberal as a result of this speech?
Speaking of Churchill and the World War II connection, I couldn’t help but see echoes of Chamberlain flying off to Munich when I saw footage of Netanyahu’s remarks at the airport when he left Israel a few days ago. It was eerie and unsettling. We’re right back where we were. Except, instead of flying off to see an enemy, Bibi was flying off to see an ostensible ally in an attempt to preserve his country. How disturbing is that? That should be a given.
I couldn’t find the video online but here is an excerpt from a press release.
I feel deep and genuine concern for the security of all the people of Israel,” Netanyahu told journalists on the tarmac, his wife by his side, before boarding his flight. “I will do everything in my ability to secure our future.”
In a press release before leaving, he called the trip a “fateful, even historic mission.”
“I feel that I am the emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish People,” Netanyahu said. “I am deeply and genuinely concerned for the security of all Israelis, for the fate of the nation, and for the fate of our people and I will do my utmost to ensure our future.”
Nice catch neo.
What we heard from Bibi was a politician who loves his people and western civilization, and will defend both. What we hear from the messiah is dreams of his father who hated western civilization.
Not rhetorical:
Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war…
The Iron woman
Bibi is a class act…a quintessential Jewish man…one of the most successful, principled politicians in the world today…what a pleasure to have seen him deliver that great speech from such a prestigious venue…here’s hoping the Israelis reelect him…the entire world needs this man at this time
Another rhetorical flourish was Bibi’s repetition of Iran’ s aggressions at approximately 11:39 seconds into his speech. It may have been a homage to Roosevelt’s enumeration of Japan’s attacks on various targets on Dec. 7, 1941, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhtuMrMVJDk at 3:31-4:01.
Unfortunately the population that elected and re-elected Obama is in no condition to see the logic of Netanyahu’s presentation. The MSM will either get off the front pages or make about Bibi interfering in US politics. After all Obama’s base needs and wants to be fooled; it’s easy and it’s fun. No worries about tomorrow and one is reassured of the wisdom in voting for such an enlightened demi-god.
WRT his “flattish tone”…I heard that also and chalked it up to ESL. I love his clarity and focus. He acts, talks and conducts himself honorably and with grace.
Churchill he isn’t, and John Kerry ain’t John Bolton, either. Obama makes Jimmy Carter look good and Hillary begins to make even her philandering impeached husband look less odious, if such is possible.
Maybe the passage of time heightens the good and diminishes the memory of the bad. Maybe the crucible of dire national need tempered the character of Churchill or is it that it forged the temperament of his nation into temper with his own?
We seem to be approaching those times again that will forge and temper a new generation of leaders, for better and for worse. Churchill was a great statesman and an indefatigable leader but he was called out of “retirement”. The same could happen today, and will. Leaders appear when the direness of situation demands results and causes all the pretenders to shrink from the awfulness of reality.
mike in ga:
Although you’re technically correct that English was Netanyahu’s second language, it’s pretty close to a first language for him. He was born in Israel in 1949, but lived in Philadelphia from 1956-1958 and 1963-1967, formative years. “To this day, he speaks fluent English and has retained his Philadelphia accent.” He came back to the US (Boston) to study and work from 1972-1978, when he returned to Israel. He again lived in the US from 1982-1984 with a DC post at the Israeli Embassy, and from 1984-1988 at the UN in NY.
He’s spent a LOT of time speaking English, some of it when he was a child and teenager.
kcom: thanks for bringing us Bibi’s remarks on leaving Israel. I have the weird feeling that German Jewish fathers spoke to their families in the same way before they left to find a site of rescue.
I cannot say strongly enough what great evil Baraq and his henchpeople have brought to the world. It is totally clear that the Iranian nuclear sword hanging over Israel, the destruction of Iraq, the regal rule, not governance from the White House, the crushing of the medical sector (16% GDP), the preposterous financial criminality being conducted by the Fed Treasury and Fannie Mae, the IRS obscenities, are body blows to the Republic and its Constitution meant to put it on the mat.
Steve Sailer posted a couple of photos that kind of say it all: Bibi versus Barry-O, both as young men:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/05/bibi-barack.html
Well, ONE of them was a man, anyway….
By the way, folks, El Caudillo is now talking about “federalizing” state and local police.
Stay tuned. . . .
I would not call PM Netanyahu an orator by any means; but, he has a message, he believes in his message; and he delivers it effectively. That compares favorably to BO who, to my mind, comes up short on all counts.
I agree with the sentiment that Margaret Thatcher was easy to listen to; and she delivered her message very effectively. It is interesting how some English accents–even from allegedly educated people– simply grate on the ears, while others are charming.
I would think that even the voters of San Francisco would be embarrassed; but, perhaps I give them too much credit.
Bibi’s primary goal was to drop a steak into the grand cauldron that is the Rice-Powers-Jarret boil of trouble.
Que McBeth… Act I Scene 1…
“Someone wicked this way comes…”
“Evil is as evil does…”
&&&&&&
We’ve got a bunch of faculty lounge fantasists on the bong in this maladministration.
&&&&
BTW, who here is forgetting that Iran’s economy is being driven into the wall by Saudi Arabia’s price war?
At current prices and with current trends, the mullahs will be bankrupted just about the same time as Putin.
Barry is determined to seize defeat out of the jaws of victory.
&&&&&
I’d say that Wretchard has the gist of Barry’s crisis: he’s being pummeled by clue bats.
&&&&&&&
As for Bibi: he’s giving our king nothing to push back against. Hence the opening thankfulness of a prime minister to a president.
This renders any Soetoro response all the more churlish.
The mark of insanity is to attack ones friends.
On such a basis, Russia and America are experiencing apex insanities.
For Putin is ignoring Russian laws — in step with Soetoro’s violation of the US Constitution — and reams of Federal statutes.
{ For those unaware: Russian law prohibits the use of Russian troops or armies without a declaration of war. It is for this reason that Putin is coercing his soldiers to ‘volunteer’ for mercenary (ish) duties in ‘southwest Russia’ — ie the Donetz basin.}
The digital state has triggered WWV, by way of induced paranoia.
THANK YOU SNOWDEN.
Now, where’s MY parachute?
He’s very good. He was very good at charming the Democrats as well as the Republicans with the Old Testament, references to the story of Ester, Queen Ester, we grew up and powerfully bringing back the story of the Holocaust with Elie Wiesel there, the survivor and hero and keeping history alive with regard to the Holocaust. He did all of that right except in the end, I don’t think he ever explained his alternative. – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/03/03/chris-matthews-sneers-speech-hawk-netanyahu-pushed-us-iraq#sthash.eCJPv4xB.dpuf
Chris Matthews Sneers at Speech: ‘Hawk’ Netanyahu ‘Pushed’ Us Into Iraq – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/03/03/chris-matthews-sneers-speech-hawk-netanyahu-pushed-us-iraq#sthash.eCJPv4xB.dpuf
I am at a loss as to what all the fuss was about. The speech was good, although, agreed it didn’t resonate like a Churchill speech. I don’t think the entire episode would have made much of a ripple, if the administration hadn’t trotted out their conga line of hysterical haters.
You know, we all think we are the center of the universe; it is the human default position. But sometimes, it is not about you, me, us, or the USA. Maybe Bibi was playing a longer game here and that is why he subjected himself to weeks of vile abuse. Maybe that was the point. Maybe he used the behavior of the administration to make a larger point to worldwide Jewry and his own citizens and it is that the West doesn’t have your back. I think I agree, with some exceptions: Canada, Australia, Denmark, and fly over country.
Just checked the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and several Jewish newspapers, and they didn’t pick up Nancy Pelosi turning her back on the PM. Unfortunately, neither did the Daily Mail, the largest online newspaper in the world. Disappointing
If someone already made the following observation, good for you:
I could not help but be mildly amused (as well as irritated) with president Barack Obama’s first retort to Netanyahu’s speech. This from the man-child who refused to even watch or listen to it—–but noted that he “read the transcript”. What a petty little man.
His first response was, “I read the speech, there was nothing new in it”.
_______________________________________
At first blush, of course there was new information, however, I won’t go into that. And here is a much more powerful takeaway.
***
“Mr. President, of course there was “nothing new”. This barbarism, terrorism has been a plague on civilization and more specifically aimed at Jews for hundreds, and actually, more than a thousand years now. So——-you are correct. “Nothing new”. And it should therefore resonate with you and others who, like you, do not seem to recognize the nature of the threat and calling it out for what it is.”
(cont’d.)
“Nothing new”. Indeed, here is Bibi’s reference to the plot of a Persian who intended to destroy the JEWS———-2,500 years ago!!!
Nothing new here:
“We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.”
The Persians, Iranian radicals and terror-supporting leadership/government in Iran STILL plot to eradicate the JEWS—-TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED YEARS later.
_______________________________________
“Mr. President, you effing BOZO. For what amounts to a rarity, I agree with you here—-‘nothing new’.
Now, Mr. President, why don’t you call it out for what it is, RADICAL ISLAMISTS, who plot and plan and effort to eradicate the JEWS, ISRAEL, and AMERICA—THE GREAT SATAN.”
Clarityseeker:
“I read the speech, there was nothing new in it”.
Those are choice words indeed, coming from him. How many of Obama’s speeches introduce nothing new? (I’d say most of them.) And how many of Obama’s speeches have had the impact that this one did? (Few to none, I’d say.)
Quick test: without checking the transcript, can you name any choice phrases from Bibi’s speech? I’ll bet you can. Now, can you do the same from Obama’s State Of The Union speech, six weeks ago? I can’t.
By the way, Obama’s churlish comment wasn’t even true. Notably, Netanyahu offered up several COMPLIMENTS to Obama that had not been made before! It’s funny that Obama found those to be negligible.
Bottom line: Obama is angry at Netanyahu — even more than usual — because Bibi’s objection to annihilation is in Obama’s way. And Obama is frustrated with Netanyahu — even more than usual — because Bibi gives a better speech than he does.
Geoffrey Britain Says: March 3rd, 2015 at 4:40 pm / Art, you left off the best part.
your right… but then again, i am edited for length at random and people start yelling that i am too long and so i am damned if i do, damned if i dont…
either i leave it out, or else they cut it off.
Procrustes has his/her reasons, and regardless of that, my knees are the natural cutters mark
writing for a lesser audience than when i grew up and things were 8th to 13th grade rather than 5th to 8th grade like now..
🙂
Regarding the debate over “flatness of tone” in a “second” language:
I speak German and although I didn’t even take it up until I was nearly 30 and have had nowhere near the time in Germany that Netanyahu has had in America, find it rather easy to know when to emphasize words for emotional affect. Actually, I like my German speaking voice better to my English speaking voice. I grew up in Chicago and developed a trait common there that makes the locals sound like honking geese when speaking. However, when I took up German I learned to speak from the bottom of my throat in order to make the sounds unique to that language.
A good speaker is a good speaker, just as a good singer is a good singer. English is not Celine Dion’s native language but she knows where and how to accent the words in her English songs. All opera singers perform in multiple, foreign languages with no difference in emotion.
Good speech, avoided a lot of pitfalls. I watched the speech on SKY network and noted 2 things that were interesting to me. The speech was cut at the point he mentioned N. Korea with no explanation and went to a short piece on Bill Gates for a few minutes then returned to the speech. Throughout the speech a ticker in bright yellow covering 2 pedophile stories ran on the bottom of the screen and was immediately replaced with sports stories when the speech ended. The UK media never misses a chance to prove how juvenile and antisemitic it is. Makes me feel right at home.
Michael Barone caught the Churchill reference, too.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/benjamin-netanyahu-echoes-winston-churchill/article/2561028
George:
Yeah, but Barone probably caught it from me 🙂 .
I read the transcript you linked Neo, before I went to the link for dem responses you provided in that same column.
Did they hear the same speech that I read? It was like they were hearing something translated and retranslated 3 times over by google. I am shocked by how I can still be shocked.
TWANLOC.