Obama on Jon Stewart: The President Spews "Progressive" Anti-Semitism

Tweet


How familiar are you with "Doublespeak"?

Appearing on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" on Tuesday, President Obama publicly spewed anti-Semitism, albeit using "progressive" code words, while seeking to drum up support for his nuclear deal with Iran. Obama declared (my emphasis in red):

"I guarantee you, if people feel strongly about making sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, without us going to war, and that is expressed to Congress, then people will believe in that. And the same is true on every single issue. If people are engaged, eventually the political system responds. Despite the money, despite the lobbyists, it still responds."

The "money"? Jewish money, of course. The lobbyists? AIPAC, of course.

A minute earlier, Obama also stated (my emphasis in red):

"This is an example of where we have a huge issue of war and peace. Either we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon through diplomacy, or potentially we have a military option. You’ve got a bunch of talking heads and pundits, and folks who are not going to be making sacrifices, if in fact you end up in a conflict, who are reprising some of the same positions that we saw during the Iraq war, not asking tough questions. And if they are not hearing from citizens, then we end up making bad choices."

"Folks who are not going to be making sacrifices"? The Jews, of course. Obama would have us know that Jews don't serve in the military, but instead only seek to buy Congress with their money.

Disgusting.

Roger Cohen, "A War of Choice in Gaza": A 21st Century Blood Libel

Warning! Reading Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen's latest New York Times op-ed, "A War of Choice in Gaza," could induce nausea and vomiting. But before analyzing the content of Cohen's "opinion piece," it is first necessary to recount a few facts.

In an August 22nd Yahoo! News article entitled "Hamas leader: Don't compare us to ISIL," Khaled Mashaal acknowledged that Hamas was responsible for the killing of the three Israeli teenagers, which led up to the current Gaza conflict:

"Meshaal acknowledged for the first time that Hamas members — but not the group's political leadership — were behind the slaying of three Israeli settlers on the West Bank in June. But he defended the murders as a legitimate action against Israeli 'illegal occupation.'"

But notwithstanding Mashaal's attempt to distance Hamas's leadership from the murders, Israel's left wing Haaretz newspaper reported on August 21 in an article entitled "Hamas claims responsibility for three Israeli teens' kidnapping and murder" by Jack Khoury:

"A senior Hamas official boasted during a conference in Istanbul on Wednesday that the group's military wing was behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June.

A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16."

A few days ago, in an article entitled "Israel indicts mastermind behind West Bank kidnapping" by Gili Cohen, we were informed:

"Hussam Qawasmeh, who allegedly headed the terror cell that kidnapped and murdered three Jewish teenagers in Gush Etzion in June, was charged in Ofer military court with organizing and funding the attack.

. . . .

During his interrogation, the Shin Bet Security Service says, Hussam said he had hinted to his brother that he needed funds for a military operation, and eventually he received 220,000 shekels. A female courier made three deliveries of 50,000 shekels each to Hussam’s mother’s home, the Shin Bet said, while the other 70,000 shekels were transferred to Hussam via an offsetting transaction.

. . . .

With regard to whether this attack was overseen in Gaza or by senior Hamas officials, [a Shin Bet] agent said the Shin Bet doesn’t think the kidnapping was a directive from above, though the money probably came from there, 'and even that was not necessarily for a kidnapping but for military activity.' The Shin Bet agent thought the attack was the failed attempt by a local Hamas cell in Hebron that to kidnap someone to use as a bargaining chip."

Or stated otherwise, the murders of the three Israeli boys by a Hamas cell in Hebron were funded by Hamas and subsequently justified by its leadership. Moreover, a senior Hamas official, operating out of Turkey, is crediting the terror organization's military wing with the killings.

Now back to Cohen's "opinion piece." Writing from London about the recent war between Hamas and Israel, Cohen would have us know:

"Much mystery continues to shroud its genesis, the abduction on June 12 of three Israeli youths near Hebron and their murder, now attributed to a local Palestinian clan including Hamas operatives who acted without the knowledge or direction of the Hamas leadership. (There has been no major investigative piece in the American press on the incident, a troubling omission.)

But enough detail has emerged to make clear that Netanyahu leapt on 'unequivocal proof' of Hamas responsibility (still unproduced) for political ends.

. . . .

For more than two weeks after the abduction, persuasive evidence that the teenagers were dead was kept from the Israeli public.

. . . .

The effect of this concealment, whatever its justification, was to whip up an Israeli frenzy."

As already stated, even if Hamas's leadership in Gaza did not direct the operation, it was undertaken by a Hamas cell, funded by Hamas and justified by Hamas's most senior leadership. Cohen prefers to ignore this information.

And then there is also the small matter of Hamas's charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis). But why should Cohen mention the charter, if the objective of his "opinion piece" is to distance Hamas's leadership from the murders?

Moreover, unbeknownst to Cohen, many in Israel presumed that the three Israeli teenagers had been murdered when there was no request for a release of Hamas prisoners in exchange for the boys. On the other hand, it was impossible for the Israeli government to declare the boys dead without first discovering the bodies.

Continuous rocket fire from Gaza aimed at southern Israeli towns and cities throughout 2013 and 2014? Also ignored by Cohen, intent upon bolstering his premise that Israel could have avoided the last round of fighting.

Cohen concludes his opinion piece with an attack, having nothing whatsoever to do with the murders, on AIPAC:

"Two other recent pieces are essential reading in the aftermath of the fighting. The first is Connie Bruck’s 'Friends of Israel' in The New Yorker, an examination of the political sway of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby group. In it, she quotes Brian Baird, a former Democratic congressman, getting to the nub: 'The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if Aipac is on your side, you can do that.' She also quotes John Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: 'We all took an oath of office. And Aipac, in many instances, is asking us to ignore it.'"

Ah yes, AIPAC money is being used to manipulate the United States government. Remind you of something?

Using figures provided by Maplight for 2010, I took the total amount of "pro-Israel" contributions to House of Representatives recipients and divided this number by the total number of recipients. The average contribution: $16,313. Can this amount buy even a single 30-second television advertisement, let alone win an election? Oh, those scheming nefarious Jews!

Although the Middle East has descended into savagery and chaos (What ever happened to the ebullient Roger Cohen who glorified the "Arab Spring" from Cairo in 2011 after gleefully promoting reconciliation with Iran in 2009?), how dare anyone believe that Israel's security should be a US priority!

Yes, Cohen is sickening.

[In his "opinion piece," Cohen declares: "More than 2,100 Palestinians, most of them civilians and many of them children, have been killed." Indeed, this is what is being claimed by the UN, based upon numbers provided to the UN by Hamas. However, Cohen does not mention that adult militants and gun-toting teenagers were counted by Hamas as dead "children." Cohen also fails to observe that many civilians died as the result of errant Hamas rocket fire. In addition, Cohen does not state whether his number includes the 120 Gaza residents who, according to Palestinian Authority President Abbas, were executed by Hamas.]

"Don’t Let Up on Iran": The Best Argument AIPAC Can Make?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Don’t Let Up on Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/opinion/dont-let-up-on-iran.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), AIPAC president Michael Kassen and AIPAC chairman Lee Rosenberg tell us that they "strongly hope that the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts lead to the peaceful dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program," but in order to attain this goal, "they support a policy that complements the current negotiations with a range of congressional actions that threaten greater economic and diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government." Kassen and Rosenberg write:

"Our message to Tehran should be clear: It will not achieve its objectives unless it satisfies ours.

Unfortunately, Iran’s leaders are acting as if they have not received that message. In recent weeks, the president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has declared that his government will not dismantle a single centrifuge. Tehran also went beyond words by testing long-range ballistic missiles that could reach American military bases in the Middle East, as well as our ally Israel. It has even dispatched warships to sail close to the maritime borders of the United States in the Atlantic Ocean.

We also know the Iranians have worked to deceive us in previous rounds of negotiations. In 2003, when Mr. Rouhani was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Tehran issued a declaration that it was suspending uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. Last year, as he ran for president, Mr. Rouhani even boasted that Iran had flouted the agreement.

. . . .

The partial recovery of Iran’s economy in recent weeks, thanks to the relaxation of sanctions, in tandem with its continuing advanced research and development of centrifuges, highlights our concerns. If Iran can achieve such progress without dismantling any part of its nuclear program, why should it make concessions?"

Query: Why is there no mention by Messrs. Kassen and Rosenberg of Iranian support for the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad, which has gassed to death Syrian civilians, dropped barrel bombs on their homes, and is now attempting to starve them into submission. As reported by Reuters yesterday (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBREA1K09U20140221):

"As Syria's war nears the start of its fourth year, Iran has stepped up support on the ground for President Bashar al-Assad, providing elite teams to gather intelligence and train troops, sources with knowledge of military movements say.

This further backing from Tehran, along with deliveries of munitions and equipment from Moscow, is helping to keep Assad in power at a time when neither his own forces nor opposition fighters have a decisive edge on the battlefield.

Assad's forces have failed to capitalize fully on advances they made last summer with the help of Iran, his major backer in the region, and the Hezbollah fighters that Tehran backs and which have provided important battlefield support for Assad."

Without Iranian support, Assad and his family would have abandoned Syria long ago. Moreover, it is Iranian support which is allowing Assad to flout the purported agreement, brokered by Putin, for the destruction of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal (see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/31/dragging-their-feet-us-scrambles-to-persuade-syria-to-honor-chemical-weapons/). If Syria can flout this agreement with impunity, why shouldn't Iran's mullahs believe that they can also disregard demands for the destruction of their atomic weapons development program?

Kassen and Rosenberg refer to "the partial recovery of Iran’s economy in recent weeks." Partial recovery? Again, as reported by Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/usa-iran-sanctions-russia-idINL2N0KN1ZK20140113) one month ago:

"The White House said on Monday it was concerned about recent reports that Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month, a deal that the White House said could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions.

'We are concerned about these reports and Secretary (of State John) Kerry directly expressed this concern with Foreign Minister Lavrov today,' Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters.

'If the reports are true, such a deal would raise serious concerns as it would be inconsistent with the terms of the P5+1 agreement with Iran and could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions,' Hayden said."

"Could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions"? Peculiar, I thought sanctions were already in place. But heck, seeing how Obama, notwithstanding his "red line," failed to lift a finger after Assad dropped sarin gas on civilians, why should Putin and Khamenei be troubled by such threats?

More evidence of the Obama administration's spinelessness? As we were informed a week ago by Adam Kredo in a Washington Times article entitled "Iran to get ‘more than $20B’ in sanctions relief; accuracy of Obama promise questioned" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/iran-get-more-20b-sanctions-relief-accuracy-obama-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS):

"Iranian oil exports soared in January, hitting new highs just months after the United States consented to billions of dollars in economic sanctions relief under the interim nuclear deal.

Exports of Iranian crude oil jumped to 1.32 million barrels, up from December’s high of 1.06 million barrels, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

The spike in exports—mainly to Japan, China, and India—has helped Iran’s once-ailing economy stabilize and decrease inflation.

Iranian oil exports have steadily risen since negotiations with the West restored confidence in Tehran’s economy. The increase runs counter to a promise by the Obama administration that 'Iran’s oil exports will remain steady at their current level of around 1 million barrels per day.'"

Also as reported yesterday by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-iran-usa-aircraft-idUSBREA1K1SN20140221):

"U.S. aerospace companies are seeking permission to sell airliner parts to Iran for the first time in three decades, in a key test of the temporary relief on sanctions given under talks to curtail Iran's nuclear activities.

At least two leading manufacturers, Boeing and engine maker General Electric, have applied for export licenses in a six-month window agreed by Iran and six world powers in November, industry officials and other sources familiar with the matter said."

In short, the economic sanctions imposed by the world against Iran have been effectively dismantled with the connivance of the Obama administration. It is no wonder that Obama is not allowing the public to see the "agreement to agree" between Iran and the P5+1 for sanctions relief.

But back again to the Kassen and Rosenberg opinion piece: Where is there any reference to the horrific human rights abuses of the Khamenei regime with which Obama engaged in secret negotiations in Oman (see: http://news.yahoo.com/secret-us-iran-talks-set-stage-nuke-deal-045356533--politics.html)? The American press routinely refers to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a "moderate" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/search/label/Hassan%20Rouhani); however, this maniac, with whom Obama held a "historic" conversation in September, just ordered the execution of a poet and a human rights activist for "enmity against God" after they were first subjected to torture (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Rouhani-orders-executions-of-Iranian-Arab-poet-rights-activist-340173).

Consider also how Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes in the middle of Tehran, stones to death women accused of adultery, and tortures and rapes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, Christians and political dissenters in Evin Prison. This is the regime with which Obama intends to reach a binding agreement?

I suppose that given their positions, Kassen and Rosenberg can't acknowledge that Obama is a foreign affairs naif, who has destroyed American influence, power and credibility throughout the world. On the other hand, their argument for "diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government" leaves much to be desired.

Nicholas Kristof, "Meet the Champs": Nick Taking Leave Without Explaining His Filthy Retweet Concerning AIPAC

Why is Nicholas Kristof taking a leave of absence from his New York Times column?

In his latest Times op-ed entitled "Meet the Champs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/opinion/kristof-chess-champs-and-charity.html?_r=0), Kristof tells us:

"This will be my last column for a number of months, as I’m taking a leave to work on a new book with my wife.

. . . .

The truth is that covering inequality, injustice and poverty can actually be inspiring and uplifting."

So, Kristof has decided to duck out without explaining his recent retweet of a message referring to AIPAC as one of "the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html).

Hey, Nick, if you care so much about "injustice," how about first explaining your retweet, before disappearing?

Nicholas Kristof, "She’s (Rarely) the Boss": Why Doesn't Nick Write About Anti-Semitism?

We have yet to hear an explanation from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof concerning his recent retweet of a message referring to AIPAC as one of "the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html). Nor have we heard from Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of the Times, concerning this matter. Nor have we heard from Margaret Sullivan, public editor of the Times.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "She’s (Rarely) the Boss" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/kristof-shes-rarely-the-boss.html?_r=0), Kristof bemoans the relatively small number of senior women executives in the workplace. Fortunately for the companies that I advise, this is not the case.

But as long as we're on the topic of discrimination, why hasn't Kristof written an opinion piece concerning anti-Semitism in Iran, in Egypt, or - closer to home - at The New York Times? If you need background material, Nick, I'll be delighted to supply it.

Nicholas Kristof Retweets "OBAMA Told the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to Drop Dead in Same Month": Is Kristof an Anti-Semite?

As reported in an article entitled "Nick Kristof’s Piggishness," written by Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/nick-kristofs-piggishness/):

"New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is facing criticism after retweeting a controversial message that referred to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the National Rifle Association as 'the 2 most pig like lobbies' in America.

Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as 'pigs.'"

Kristof's retweet also comes at a time when he and other New York Times columnists are lobbying hard for Senate approval of Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-in-defense-of-hagel.html). As Hagel's confirmation hearings draw near, the media is rife with claims that AIPAC, "Israel firsters" and Zionists are opposing his appointment, owing to his reference to a "Jewish lobby" which purportedly has cowed Capitol Hill, and his ambiguous attitude to an armed strike intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/13/chuck-hagels-ambiguous-stance-on-dealing-with-iran/).

Remarkably, AIPAC has remained mum regarding Hagel's appointment.

Why am I not surprised by Kristof's retweet? As I explained in an article entitled "Nicholas Kristof, Israel, and Double Standards" (http://www.jsantisemitism.org/essays/GrossmanJSA210(4).pdf) for The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, Kristof routinely rails against purported Israeli injustices, while ignoring the improprities of other democracies:

"Ignorance, however, has never prevented Kristof from foisting twaddle upon the Times’s readership, particularly with respect to Israel. In an August 2011 op-ed, “Seeking Balance on the Mideast” (http://www.nytimes
.com/2011/08/04/opinion/seeking-balance-on-the-mideast.html?_r=1&hp), Kristof lambasted Israel at a time when Assad’s tanks were massacring the inhabitants of the Syrian city of Hama. Kristof sought to excuse himself by observing:

'Whenever I write about Israel, I get accused of double standards because I don’t spill as much ink denouncing worse abuses by, say, Syria. I plead guilty. I demand more of Israel partly because my tax dollars supply arms and aid to Israel. I hold democratic allies like Israel to a higher standard—just as I do the U.S.'

True, Syria has not been a recipient of U.S. aid. But whereas Egypt has received billions of dollars of American aid, Kristof doesn’t write about the persecution and murder of its Coptic Christian minority . . . And while Pakistan, a democracy of sorts, has also benefited from billions of dollars of U.S. aid while abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan, Kristof has been seeking a reduction of tariffs on Pakistani garment exports to the United States, purportedly in order to fight extremism.

. . . .

According to the 'working definition of antisemitism' of the European Forum on Antisemitism: 'Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: . . . Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.'

. . . .

Kristof plainly has no problem ignoring the persecution of 30 million stateless Kurds, the oppression of Iran’s Baha’is, and the despair of Egypt’s Copts. He clearly holds Israel to rules unlike those that he would set for any other country, democratic or otherwise, be it Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, or the United States. Kristof worries over whether he will be accused of applying a double standard to Israel, to which concern I would observe that there is an old Jewish maxim applicable to Kristof’s angst: 'The hat burns on the head of the thief.' In the best-case scenario, Kristof is guilty of applying double standards to Israel, notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary. In the worst-case scenario, Kristof is guilty of something far more insidious."

As further reported in The Washington Free Beacon article, "Kristof and a New York Times communications official did not respond to a Free Beacon request for comment" regarding his retweet.

David Brooks, "Why Hagel Was Picked": Anti-Semitism?

Is Chuck Hagel anti-Semitic? I don't know. I've never met the man, and although I am disturbed by his reference to the "Jewish lobby" and his response to efforts to keep the USO open in Haifa, i.e. "Let the Jews pay for it" (see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mr-hagel-and-jews_693993.html), I am far more troubled by his complacency toward Iran, which regularly calls for the extermination of Israel; by his call for talks with Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis; and by his refusal to sign a Senate letter calling upon the EU to brand Hezbollah, which was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 American soldiers, as a terrorist organization. Among those backing Hagel's nomination is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who called on Obama to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran.

However, if we are examining the issue of anti-Semitism, I am more concerned by Obama's stubborn decision to proceed with Hagel's nomination for secretary of defense, notwithstanding his questionable positions, which, according to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html), place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him." Anyone skimming readers' comments in response to recent opinion pieces regarding Hagel in US newspapers and journals cannot fail to notice the wave of accusations of "control" and "manipulation" of US foreign policy by AIPAC, "Israel firsters" and "Zionists" that has been unleashed by this nomination. Obama surely must have known that this would be coming.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Hagel Was Picked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/opinion/brooks-why-hagel-was-picked.html?_r=0), David Brooks approaches Hagel's nomination from a different angle. Brooks believes that US health care expenses are "squeezing out all other spending," including programs for children, education and the poor. With respect to the military, Brooks states that "there will have to be a generation of defense cuts that overwhelm anything in recent history." Specifically regarding the Hagel nomination, Brooks postulates:

"Chuck Hagel has been nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of defense cutbacks. If a Democratic president is going to slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him political cover, and he probably wants a decorated war hero to boot.

All the charges about Hagel’s views on Israel or Iran are secondary. The real question is, how will he begin this long cutting process?"

Hagel will provide "cover" for future cutting by Obama of the defense budget? Maybe. But my guess is that this symbiosis extends much further and deeper. Hagel represents everything that Obama, a radical wolf in moderate sheep's clothing, could not say during his first term in office, including an underlying hostility to Israel and a desire to avoid confrontation with Iran, even if should it be days away from building its first atomic weapon.

Note that Ed Koch, who supported Obama's re-election, is now admitting that Obama is no friend of Israel (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/):

“Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when [Obama] would renege on what he conveyed on his support of Israel,” said Koch, adding, “it comes a little earlier than I thought it would.”

Given the storm surrounding Hagel's nomination, it is remarkable how much political capital Obama is willing to spend to make Hagel, a Vietnam war hero with dubious administrative and executive talents, his next secretary of defense.

Thomas Friedman, "Why Not in Vegas?": How About a Little Honesty, Tom?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Not in Vegas?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/opinion/friedman-why-not-in-vegas.html), Thomas Friedman attacks Romney for pandering to AIPAC and Israel. Friedman begins by observing:

"I’ll make this quick. I have one question and one observation about Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel. The question is this: Since the whole trip was not about learning anything but about how to satisfy the political whims of the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu, American Jewish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, why didn’t they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas? I mean, it was all about money anyway — how much Romney would abase himself by saying whatever the Israeli right wanted to hear and how big a jackpot of donations Adelson would shower on the Romney campaign in return. Really, Vegas would have been so much more appropriate than Jerusalem. They could have constructed a plastic Wailing Wall and saved so much on gas."

Obama today believes that the US should not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Did it ever occur to Obama and his foreign policy advisers, including Samantha Power, who advocated sending US troops to protect Palestinians from Israel (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw), that his refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital adds credibility to Arab attacks on Israel's legitimacy?

It should come as no surprise that Friedman showers praise in this opinion piece on Jimmy Carter, who accused Israel of apartheid, yet cowardly refused to debate Alan Dershowitz on the issue; Henry Kissinger, who infamously told Nixon during the War of Atonement, "Let them [the Israelis] bleed a little"; and James Baker, who was quoted as saying, "Fuck the Jews - they didn't vote for us anyway."

Yes, I find Friedman revolting. Enough said.

Obama at AIPAC: Yes, He's Bluffing

Obama's speech to AIPAC (see: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/text-obamas-speech-aipac-15844791?singlePage=true#.T1R7NYcgcpl) was a "beautiful thing," but regrettably it doesn't bespeak anything beyond the president's customary oratorical grace and grandeur.

Obama declared:

"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say."

Sorry, Mr. President, but I don't have a clue what you "mean" when you "say" this. Okay, you are preserving all "options," but where are the red lines? Can Iran continue to enrich its uranium and develop a ballistic missile delivery system, so long as it doesn't put the pieces together? And when it finally does put the pieces together, who is to say that this will not be too late -- for Israel, for the United States and/or for Iran's Sunni Arab neighbors, e.g., Saudi Arabia?

Obama said that among the options remaining on the table are "a military effort to be prepared for any contingency." Maybe I'm stupid, but I also don't understand what this means. It sounds to me as if Obama's "options" are merely intended to give rise to additional "options."

Obama stated:

"So there should not be a shred of doubt by now — when the chips are down, I have Israel's back."

Why then am I in doubt? Yes, I can testify that military and intelligence cooperation between the US and Israel is close and joint exercises are indeed robust. However, Obama has also snubbed and denigrated Israel's democratically elected prime minister, while seeking to appease Iran and Syria during the beginning of his term. Moreover, Obama is advised on foreign policy by Samantha Power, whose extreme hostility to Israel is known to all (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O5XxXm8wPE).

In his speech, Obama acknowledged that as a US senator, he toured Israel; however, as president, Obama has refused to stop off in Israel, while visiting nearby Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. What better way to eliminate doubt as to his commitment to preserving Israel's existence than by coming to Israel and physically demonstrating his support at this troubling juncture? If indeed America's "friendship with Israel is enduring" and "Israel must be recognized," why doesn't Obama acknowledge this friendship and reinforce the need for recognition of Israel by coming to Jerusalem? Or Caesarea?

The coffee is waiting.

Dowd's "Devil of a Scandal": Guess Who Is Again Being Accused of a Diabolic Plot?

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Devil of a Scandal", Maureen Dowd scolds the Vatican for its refusal to address its burgeoning pedophilia scandal and its attempt to hold itself out as the victim of a "New York Jewish Lobby". My online response, if The Times deigns to post it:

As noted by Ms. Dowd, the denunciation of Catholic priests suspected of pedophilia is being compared with anti-Semitism, and "La Repubblica reported that 'certain Catholic circles' suspected that 'a New York Jewish lobby' was responsible for the outcry against the pope."

But there's more. On Good Friday, “Let us Pray for the Conversion of the Jews” was recited, purportedly by mistake, by traditionalist Catholic congregations in Italy and the Society of Saint Pius X, whose bishops' excommunication was remitted by Pope Benedict in January 2009.

Elsewhere, Afghanistan's President Karzai has stated that the Americans, whom Karzai labels "invaders", are in Afghanistan because they want to dominate his country and prevent him from reaching a peace agreement with the Taliban. As observed in a recent article in The New York Times, Karzai's brother, who is allegedly involved in the narcotics trade, money laundering, election fraud and deals with the Taliban, is also allegedly in bed with the CIA. The response of certain persons in the Obama administration: Israel's failure to achieve peace with the Palestinians is endangering U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Heaven knows what the Jews or Israel have to do with the Catholic church's pedophilia scandal or U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, but they are always there to blame.

Maybe those at the Vatican who would have us believe that a "New York Jewish Lobby" is responsible for the current outcry against the pope are referring to AIPAC, which is also being pilloried by the new left for its alleged fiendish manipulation and control of the U.S. government. Peculiar, or not so peculiar, how the extreme left and right are always able to find common ground demonizing the Jews and Israel.

Hillary to Address AIPAC for 43 Minutes

Hillary Clinton is not easily insulted. After Bill's bodily fluids were found on Monica's blue dress, Hillary took it all in stride: forgive and forget, business as usual, let's work together to give me my well-deserved turn in the White House. Jerusalem, however, is another matter. The announcement by the Jerusalem planning commission of the theoretical future construction of 1,600 apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem, which will remain part of Israel as part of any two-state settlement agreement, had Hillary blind with rage, as Benjamin Netanyahu learned during a 43-minute harangue from the U.S. Secretary of State.

Hillary is proud of this display of "toughness" and has also made it known to all who are willing to listen that the U.S. is interested in seeing regime change involving the Israeli government, as evidenced by this incoherent dialogue with the BBC's Kim Ghattas:

Ghattas: You took a risk in escalating the tone with Israel last week, I understand the relationship is solid but the Israelis could have said we never promised restraint on settlements in east Jerusalem - is the risk paying off?

Clinton: I think we're going to see the resumption of the negotiation track and that means that it is paying off because that's our goal. Let's get the parties into a discussion, let's [get] the principle issues on the table and let's begin to explore ways that we can resolve the differences.

Ghattas: Is the pressure on the Israeli prime minister meant to be a moment of clarity, either he delivers on his commitment to peace, or his right wing coalition falls?

Clinton: We're not taking any position and we have no particular stake in who the Israelis choose to govern them. They're a democracy and they make that choice. I think that different parts of govern make action or statements that are not in the best interest of the government as a whole and I think what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly is that his government and he personally are committed to pursuing these negotiations and he just has to make sure that he brings in everyone else, that's his responsibility it's not something that the United states can or is interested in doing.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0310/Clinton_Escalation_paying_off_.html?showall

"We're going to see the resumption of the negotiation track"? Excuse me, Madame Secretary, but all that we have seen since your outburst is a renewal of Palestinian rioting, a renewal of rocket fire from Gaza, and a square named after a Palestinian terrorist who murdered 38 Israelis, including 13 children, as well as one American photographer. We don't see any evidence of a resumption of talks - the Palestinians are not willing to sit in the same room with the Israelis - and the United States has made a point of not criticizing any of the recent Palestinian outrages.

Obama stated in the past that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience amounted to little more than drinking tea with ambassadors while she was first lady. This was one of those rare instances where Obama, sans teleprompter, spoke the truth, but this did not prevent him from appointing Hillary Secretary of State and allowing all to reap the benefit of her ignorance and narcissism.

I hope it will be possible to hear a pin drop when she concludes her speech to AIPAC.