What to Say When You’re Handed the Obama-Is-Good-for-Israel Talking Points
Many Americans, and particularly Jews, are starting to receive mailings encouraging them to vote for President Barack Obama or donate to his reelection campaign of by arguing that he is pro-Israel. Several readers have asked me to provide them with responses. Here is a brief answer.
These emails and mailings, though designed to look as if they were written by concerned individuals, clearly draw their texts from talking points posted on the Obama reelection site. The arguments are very thin and selective but are presented as if they represent the totality of Obama policy.
The main arguments are:
1. Obama says he likes Israel.
That’s nice, but so what? Of course it is good when he says nice things (by coincidence, no doubt, usually to Jewish audiences), but one can also find a lot of nasty remarks by him, his advisors, and various officials appointed by him. Every president for the last half-century has said similar nice things; not all the presidents put together during this period have said or done so many hostile things. While it is a great exaggeration to say that Obama hates Israel or wants to destroy it, I think it is fair to say that no president (including Jimmy Carter when in office) has been so cold toward Israel and basically failed to understand its nature and interests.
2. Israeli leaders say Obama is great.
Yes, that’s nice, but it’s not what they say in private. I can tell you authoritatively that not a single Israeli leader in any party has a high opinion of Obama with regard to Israel and its interests. But it is their job to lavish praise on America’s president. Their task is not to defeat Obama or to critique him but to get along with him as well as possible in order to protect Israel’s long-term alliance with the United States without sacrificing any of Israel’s vital interests. They’ve done it well. The one moment the truth emerged was when Obama betrayed Israel, on the diplomatic level, by announcing, without consultation, a new policy on peace terms while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was flying to Washington. You think Israeli leaders (and this is not ideological, not a matter of left or right) have a high regard for Obama? Read Netanyahu’s speech to the joint session of Congress.
Perhaps the equation can be summarized as follows: Obama just gave Israeli President Shimon Peres a presidential medal of freedom. He also has just helped give Israel a second Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime next door and insists that this is a good thing.
3. U.S.-Israel bilateral relations are good especially with regard to military aid.
That’s true, but only a small part of that relates to Obama’s benevolence. Why?
a. Congress supports Israel. There was more pushback against Obama from Democratic members on this issue than on any other, foreign or domestic. Thus, Israel is the only “target” of Obama whose constituency has vocal defenders within his own party that raise the cost of his actions against it, at least during his first term. (Note that last phrase.)
b. The same applies to public opinion, which is strongly pro-Israel. This factor also inhibits Obama, at least during his first term. (Note that last phrase.)
c. Regarding military relations, the U.S. armed forces are generally quite pro-Israel and want these programs. Many of them are based on previous commitments, which Obama merely continues.
An especially important reason why Obama’s administration hasn’t been far more hostile to Israel in practice is that the Arabs and Iran shafted his policy. Remember that Obama offered to support the Palestinians, pressure Israel, and accelerate talks if only the Arab states and Palestinian Authority showed some flexibility. They repeatedly rejected his efforts—refusing even to talk–giving him no opportunity or incentive to press Israel for concessions. Note too, though, that the repeated humiliations handed him by the Arabs never made him criticize them publicly, change his general line, or back Israel more enthusiastically.
The same point applies to Iran. While Obama has intensified sanctions on Iran, he:
- Did so only after a long delay.
- Did less than Congress wanted/
- Exempted in effect China, Russia, and Turkey from observing the sanctions.
Obama has been visibly eager to make a deal with Tehran, even on bad terms. Only Iran’s hard line has prevented some kind of arrangement that favored Iran. Instead, though, Tehran has used Obama’s slowness and desire for some compromise in order to buy time for its nuclear program to progress.
BHO first term was a farce in regards of Israel, but BHO (gd.forbid) second term will be a tragedy for Israel.
A second term for Barack Obama will be a tragedy for everyone.
Unless you bundled large ammounts of money for Obama, in which case you could expect hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars for your brand new business start up.
“….in which case you could expect hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars for your brand new business start up.”
Only if your “New Business Start Up” is Solar Powered, Wind Powered, or otherwise “Green”.
If your business runs on Oil, Gas, or, (G-D FORBID) COAL, he’ll bankrupt you.
You might have mentioned he advised the Russians (Putin) he will be more flexible after he wins re-election, that is, when he’s free of that pesky democratic accountability thing to do what he really wants–I wonder what the Russians really want with the Syrian Iran axis?
I like the way this article approaches Roger Simon’s call to bring the other side into the fold. It proposes concrete talking points to parry arguments from the other side, and that is the way to go. I view alternative media such as PJM as an alembic in which new Right memes, narratives and approaches are cooked up through a net-based community of like-minded writers, thinkers, and readers. Each argument, each refinement of a thought or meme becomes a metaphorical brick in a New Right edifice.
New media is the New Right’s think tank. Web based, widely distributed, organic. A true grass roots movement. In that spirit, may I suggest a slight alteration to the title of this article?
What To Say IF -youre-handed-the-obama-is-good-for-israel-talking-points/
I sometimes think this site makes an unconscious assumption about its readers. Those readers may be overwhelmingly Jewish for all I know, but I suspect not. May I suggest that articles at PJM would do well, as often as possible, to orient their voice towards an America-centric audience – and one which is axiomatically not primarily a Jewish or perhaps Jewish-centric readership. I think the demographics would bear me out. Israel and her fate is very important to me, as I assume it would be to most PJM readers, but as a non-Jew, it is sometimes odd to read articles here which seem to assume I’m a Jew or Israeli. The simple fact is this: most PJM readership will be American, they will place America’s well being above other nations – including Israel, and they will read articles here as Americans. They will probably be mostly non-Jews too. And that makes perfect sense. Writers like Phyllis Chessler, Ron Radosh, Ron Rosenbaum (so glad that moron is gone) have every right to write their articles as if their primary audience is in Israel, or are American Jews, but I’m being frank when I say I fined this rather off-putting myself. I appreciated reading Mr. Rubin’s article, and while i don’t always agree with him, i appreciate his clear thinking and insights. His ideas above are well worth internalizing if the topic ever comes up – and it may. But for me, and I suspect most PJM readers, it will not be a matter of WHEN, but IF.
It’s only my personal opinion, but I think a wiser audience can be reached if PJM editorially decides to make sure it understands who is coming here to read its offerings.
These are good points.
I suspect only a minority of readers here are Jewish. Most Jews are off reading the Huffington Post and other liberal anti-Israel sites.
I’m a non-Jewish, non-American, non-religious supporter of Israel (Canadian agnostic). When I read Barry’s articles, I don’t feel like he assumes his readers are Jewish. His cogent analysis means that Obama’s policies are not only potentially disastrous for Israel, but also for the U.S. and for the West in general.
True. But his analysis is not read nor taken to heart by American Jews. They, no matter how terrible the left or Dear Zero’s is to Israel, will still vote Dem by ovwewhelmingly large majorities. And it will never change. It it like telling blacks that the Dems have killed your chances of reaching the American dream, but they will still vote Dem. Talking to a wall will give you a better response than American Jews or blacks.
All true, but it’s hard to not notice that the writers here who write the most about Israel (Simon, Radosh, Rubin, Goldman, Ledeen, etc.) are. Certainly it helps when e.g. Reynolds and VDH join in, but it’s hard not to get the impression that this is primarily a Jewish forum, at least when it comes to the Middle East.
As many have pointed out, this forum has a lot of Jewish WRITERS, not readers.
I’m a non-Jewish American. I welcome these articles that should concern us all. The Jewish nation is our only true ally in the Middle East and, as such is and rightly should be of upmost importance to us. Israel has been our friend and ally since it’s inception and should not be treated the way Obambi has been doing.
As a Vietnam Vet, I know what it is like to fight in a war where your ally could not be trusted. Never knowing if they would be there for you. Luckily, most of my time there was working with a true friend in the Korean Marines. They hated the Vietnamese and couldn’t care less what happened to them but they were there because we were so they backed us.
I’d be curious Morton, what you feel about “Commentary.” I always see PJM as an offshoot of Commentary myself frankly.
I’m an American Jew. But I can and often do try to read these articles from the perspective of a non-Jew. I’m quite sensitive to what you’re saying — although I don’t frankly feel that PJM is *outwardly* catering to Jews. Other than the fact that many of her authors are Jews, and consequently the write about topics which tend to be important to Jews, I see most articles as being oriented in a straight “Conservative” direction (perhaps also “Neo-Con,” which yes, I am — and I don’t see that as a “negative”).
It also seems to me that when you see an article that is going to be completely or primarily about Israel, there’s no reason you need to read it. I’m really not trying to be cute. Really. I’m simply noting that, for example when I read the Wall Street Journal — since I’m not *that* interested in the finer aspects of the stock market — I simply skip over those type of articles. This doesn’t affect the enjoyment I get from reading the many other types of articles in the WSJ. And I read the Christian Science Monitor as well with certain similar caveats.
If you really *do* support Israel (and there’s no reason you should or must!) — but if it happens to be true that you do, then just skip those types of articles given that you may not be particularly interested in the finer points of American Jewish life and/or the ups and downs of American support of Israel.
On the other hand, there are clearly people who read PJM who do not like Israel — and yes, I think this goes hand in hand with a certain level of antisemitism (they generally go together — but not necessarily always). Now I can see that they will want to lobby PJM to change their ways. But here, I would say to them: go read another outlet which more matches your interests if you don’t like the pro-Israeli sentiment here.
I actually like that they like to read PJM. It implies that PJM is so full of well written and interesting articles that even “they” cannot divorce themselves from the content.
But if I’m to take you at face value: you’re an Israel supporter, but you don’t necessarily want to read about Israel all the time. I get that. But then given that this isn’t a linear news broadcast on TV where you’re forced to listen/watch one segment in order to see the next, why not simply skip the Israel-centric articles? I’m just asking.
Frumious – I think you miss my point – there’s a concurrent PJM article by Abraham Miller and it couldn’t possible be more jewish-centric, and yet the author clearly makes no assumption that his audience is in the club. It is therefore quite approachable. I contrast that to articles which do the opposite. One style invites. One style dis-invites. May I suggest you peruse it with my suggestion in mind – here’s the link:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/no-anti-obama-jews-wanted-in-these-synagogues/
Here’s an excerpt:
“The American Jewish community has no chief rabbi. Jews have no pope. I sat once in synagogue as the rabbi delivered a stirring “drosh” (sermon), when suddenly he was interrupted by one of the congregants, who unabashedly said the rabbi misinterpreted the meaning of the biblical text.”
No assumptions made – inviting anyone who is interested to read – no hint of what I call the “hidden rake in the yard” – reading along when WHAM! you’re hit in the face by the fact that the author is not speaking to you…
I cite other authors at this site who seem(ed) to deliberately write to a Jewish audience – I don’t know if they’re always conscious of their framing, but PJM should be conscious of its audience. Chessler (good riddance) was obviously a man-hater who seemed to aim her rants at lesbians, man haters, hippies, and radical zionists, not big (or worthwhile) demographics for PJM i’d imagine – the fulminating mutant Rosenbaum (good riddance) was just a twisted nut job – but they both often showed no interest in speaking to a wider audience. What’s the point? – Just the other day Mr. Simon asked readership what can be done to get the message out. I’m pointing out something that, while seemingly subtle, is quite powerful in its ability to open or close those doors.
I’d like to point out that this is Barry Rubin’s article not Roger Simons. Though I like them both, please give credit where it is due.
Morton has made a very good point, one that should be made more often and kept in mind by pro-Israel supporters. It’s nice that a lot of Americans support Israel in part for religious feelings, emphasizing that over the broader points is not a good idea.
I’m Jewish but I’d support Israel even if the Israelis were Vietnamese…or Taiwanese. It’s a democracy, an ally, the Israelis actually like Americans and identify with America, it is beleaguered by people who oppose us and our values. There is a lot of hay to be made here.
A year so back I happened to see Sarah Palin on CSPAN at a conservative political conference. I have no idea what her religious views on the matter are, if she has any; she hasn’t said.
But she lauded Israel as a democracy, a country that is a firm and reliable ally, one that embraces our values, helps protect our interests, and whose enemies are our enemies. It deserves, she said the full support of every American.
And the crowd came rising to its feet, cheering wildly. All I could think was that I can’t think of any non-Jewish progressive group that would react similarly, even if it weren’t Sarah Palin saying it. And I can think of a few Jewish organizations, like J Street, where such words also wouldn’t prompt cheering.
how many Jews abhor Sarah Palin, and how venomous the contempt for her is that goes along with it.
I remember signing up to be one of the first “Jews for Sarah Palin.” I think that was the name of the organization — I believe it was out of Maryland. In any case, I never heard anything after signing up. Sigh. I’ve always been happy to support her (especially given the manner in which the press attacked her).
I, too, am belong to “Jews for Sarah” which is headed by Buddy Korn in southeast Pennsylvania. http://jewsforsarah.com
Sarah Palin is an Evangelical Christian and a solid supporter of the Jewish State of Israel. The Biblical case that the Creator of the universe gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people is overwhelming and compelling to a Bible believing Jew or Christian.
The economic and political arguments are equally persuasive.
Not in my house. And you woulld be surprised at her support generally. Conservatives who are frustrated by leftist Jews-and that includes frustrated Jewish conservatives-often lose focus on the rapidly growing number of Jews who have left the Democratic fold. Polls which consistently showed likely Jewish voters supporting Obama are down by approximately half. This startling erosion has occurred in a very short time, especially considering that many of these people are part of families which have been Democrats for generations.
Instead of heaping scorn on these people I like to encourage and welcome them. Many of them have delayed the move out of conviction that the right is the primary home of anti-semitism. the scornful comments here can only cement that belief.
Someone once described the reactions of the left to Sarah Palin to holy water being poured on a demon. A very apt description. Evil detests the presence of good, in any form, and will react accordingly.
There was an article somewhere, that sums the Jews hatred to Palin quite simply. Sara Palin is everything that an average Jewish woman isn’t: she likes nature, she has many kids, she hunts, she didn’t marry a doctor/lawyer…
Okay, the last one I’ve made up, but the rest, in my opinion, is quite accurate.
BTW, women in Israel do all these things (except hunting).
Not Jews…Liberal Jews.
Morton has made a very good point, one that should be made more often and kept in mind by pro-Israel supporters. It’s nice that a lot of Americans support Israel in part for religious feelings, emphasizing that over the broader points is not a good idea.
I’m Jewish but I’d support Israel even if the Israelis were Vietnamese…or Taiwanese. It’s a democracy, an ally, the Israelis actually like Americans and identify with America, it is beleaguered by people who oppose us and our values. There is a lot of hay to be made here.
A year so back I happened to see Sarah Palin on CSPAN at a conservative political conference. I have no idea what her religious views on the matter are, if she has any; she hasn’t said.
But she lauded Israel as a democracy, a country that is a firm and reliable ally, one that embraces our values, helps protect our interests, and whose enemies are our enemies. It deserves, she said the full support of every American.
And the crowd came rising to its feet, cheering wildly. All I could think was that I can’t think of any non-Jewish progressive group that would react similarly, even if it weren’t Sarah Palin saying it. And I can think of a few Jewish organizations, like J Street, where such words also wouldn’t prompt cheering.
We should not take the support of most Americans for granted but there is a lot that can be done to continue and enhance it exclusive of the Jewish nature of Israel.
As to Don’s likewise excellent point, I understand why foreign policy isn’t likely to be a major theme in the campaign. I am heartened to see that the Romney team is already showing much more initiative and vigor than McCain’s. But I wish they’d pay some attention, and if it were up to me–good reasons why it isn’t–I’d make a point of Obama assuring Medvedev that once he’s past the election he’ll show more flexibility. At least someone should ask him what sort of flexibility he has in mind.
As to a lot of areas, not just Israel, we’re going to see a second term that will make the first term look like the second coming of Scoop Jackson.
betrayal and scorn for poland is another foreign policy issue.
Who are his advisors? Where does Secretary Clinton stand/what input does she have???
Hillary Clinton is just Obama in a pantsuit. Remember that.
Tragedy for Israel or no, American Jews will still vote for Obama overwhelmingly. The Democrats can always count on the Jewish vote.
Perhaps by less than a 2:1 ratio, this time. That is quite a shift.
See this article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/liberal-jews-turn-obama_646349.html
Glad to hear it.
I will not believe it until I see it. Period. I have been down the “Maybe American Jews are finally waking up to the anti-Semitic monsters that they have marched down boulevards hand in hand with” road too damn many times.
I’ll believe it when I see it, not before.
ditto
I’d be curious how much that will change when Romney does what Obama’s never done, and visits Israel. If he really has a pair, he’ll go there and declare that he’ll move the embassy to Jerusalem.
1. “While it is a great exaggeration to say that Obama hates Israel or wants to destroy it..”
He may not want to destroy it, but I don’t think it’s a great exaggeration to say that he hates Israel. However, I understand that if you’re talking to someone who believes Obama is pro-Israel it may look like an exaggeration to them.
3. US-Israel bilateral relations remain good because they have a life of their own. There are many interests involved – strategic, military, technological, commercial, intelligence gathering. Israel is a strong ally. It has the strongest regional military and one of the strongest air forces in the world. Mossad might be lame, but it’s one of, say, the 10 least lame intelligence agencies. The American military uses a lot of Israeli technology and there are many joint projects. Many American corporations have plants in Israel that can’t be easily moved to, say, Jordan because they’re not only assembly lines, they have important innovations of their own that make good money for the American owners. American aid is spent buying American weapons, which means the American military industry wouldn’t rejoice to see it gone. It also gives the US a big leverage (more like a loaded gun pointing at Israel’s head), not only in the most obvious areas, such as making very dangerous concessions, but also on matters such as what technologies Israel sells to which countries. Occasionally Israel can also be “persuaded” to remove Israeli competitors from lucrative international technology bids the American companies really want to win. Israel is also a natural ally. I mean, if Bin Laden was hiding in Israel it is extremely unlikely that Israel would have kept the information to itself or that the US would think it’s best not to inform Israel about his presence fearing Israel might not cooperate. But for some reason Bin Laden didn’t choose to hide in Israel, but chose another American ally.
Of course, a determined and actively hostile president can sever many of those relations if he has the support of the congress, which Obama currently doesn’t. However, for the relations to continue and even grow it doesn’t require a direct involvement of a pro-Israel president – it only requires the continuation of existing policies, and for the presdient to stay out of the way. Security and intelligence relations grow because of the growth of the jihadist threat. Technology relations grow the more Israeli technologies grow, mature and diversify. If, for instance, the American military uses more Israeli technologies it’s not because the president is pro-Israel, but because Israel develops some innovative top-notch technologies. It doesn’t take a pro-Israel president for the military to want them or for the military industry to want to have a joint project. It will take an actively hostile president to unnaturally prevent the use of Israeli technologies or partnerships.
“I mean, if Bin Laden was hiding in Israel it is extremely unlikely that Israel would have kept the information to itself or that the US would think it’s best not to inform Israel about his presence fearing Israel might not cooperate. But for some reason Bin Laden didn’t choose to hide in Israel, but chose another American ally.”
Could Bin Laden’s decision have anything to do with the fact that if he had crossed the border into Israel he would have been shot on the spot?
At its inception, when Israel was feeble and socialist, it was the darling of the Left. Several wars of survival later, when it transformed itself into a powerful and capitalistic democracy, it became anathema to the Left. Those uppity Jews just don’t know their intended place.
Indeed, well said.
Exactly right.
“What to Say When You’re Handed the Obama-Is-Good-for-Israel Talking Points”
Let me try a few –
How about….
– “You are currently on medication, right”
– “We are talking about the Israel that is actually in the middle-east, right? The one on the Mediterranean? Just checking.”
– “And by ‘good for’, you mean ‘worst thing that could ever possibly happen, right’?”
– “Um, that’s nice…. that’s reeeeal nice. It’s real nice that he is good for Israel that way.” (while searching frantically for nearest door)
Feel free to chime in.
All good choices, Andrew X, but I suspect the option of searching frantically for the nearest door is the only realistic one. Have you noticed the glazed look in the eyes of those making such claims? There’s a cult-like quality about this level of devotion that no amount of reasoned discourse will penetrate. These people are desperate to believe, which makes them the “true believers” Eric Hoffer warned of.
When someone is determined to walk off the edge of a cliff, the wisest choice is to just get out of their way or you’ll go over the edge with them. You can’t save people who don’t want to be saved.
It all comes down to how Obama sees Israel. Instead of seeing Israel as part of the solution in the Middle East and a democracy that should be the model for all other nations in that part of the world, Obama sees Israel as the problem and the major roadblock standing in the way of that ever elusive “peace” in the Middle East. THAT is the problem.
Israel is the only stable democracy in the Middle East, yet Obama (who has always been a Muslim sympathizer, if not outright supporter) could care less. He sees Israel as he sees the United States, as an oppressor that has taken advantage of the “poor” arabs over the last 60 years. He does not see Israel as the tip of the spear in our never-ending war against the Islamists, terrorists, and religious fanatics that inhabit that part of the world. Hopefully, a President Romney will have a better outlook on Israel. Not only will that help Israel, but it will allow us to have an important base of operations in the Middle East if the arabs or the Iranians decide it’s time to throw out all of the westerners, Christians, and Jews from the Middle East. Don’t think that will ever happen? Well, just wait and see the major crisis that takes place after Iran gets a nuclear bomb. It will make the Cuban Missile Crisis look like a joke.
I don’t see why the fact that Israel happens to be a democracy should matter to anyone who’s not an Israeli: how the Israelis choose to govern themselves is, I think, their own business. In fact, Israel should still have my full support even if it were a military dictatorship. That’s because, to me, the important thing about Israel is not that it’s a democracy — as I see it, the world is full of democracies and would not be the poorer for having one less — but that it’s a permanent place of refuge for the Jewish people, in a world where their very right to live is a question that continues to excite controversy. I think in such circumstances it would be morally shameful to hinge your support for Israel on its having a managed, propaganda-driven democracy (as all modern democracies must be) rather than, say, an aristocratic republic or a hereditary monarch.
I agree that he does see the US much like he sees Israel and, based on his policies, I believe that he actively dislikes the United States and would like to see our country destroyed as we have traditionally known it. He may not use the words “Great Satan” and “Little Satan” but actions speak volumes.
Respectfully, Barry….and I mean very respectfully…I’ll concede that it is an exaggeration to say that Obama hates Israel, the minute the LA Times releases the tapes they are holding hostage at the Rashid Khalidi fete…and it shows no hatred of Israel at that function or it shows Obama openly rejecting such hatred.
I will concede that Obama is not intent on destroying Israel the moment I become convinced that Obama is not intent on destroying America, or at least our free market democracy, capitalism and our Constitution.
I will concede that it is an exaggeration that Obama wants to destroy Israel when he repudiates Robert Malley, Ali Abuminah, Bill Ayers and the other “second flotilla” originators, and George Soros instead of hiring them and seeking their counsel.
I will concede that Obama is not intent on destroying Israel when he deems it worthy to visit her and openly declares that he wants NASA to engage in a “Jewish outreach” program.
I will concede that Obama is all the things that he says, when he allows us to examine the whole of his lifetime, in which his closest advisors weren’t raised in Iran, his dinner companions weren’t virulently anti-Semitic, his pastor, mentor and dearest friend wasn’t on record with venomous anti-Jewish comments, or that he repudiated those people openly and consistently.
Our Propaganda and Lies Ministry covers for Obama on every front. But it does so on these topics with a fury. Obama’s is an unexamined life. And it is especially unexamined when it comes to Jew hatred and anti-Israel sentiments.
The only Jew that Obama likes is a small c communist or traitorous one. If they are radical leftist first and Jew second or not at all, he uses them, as tools and weapons.
Until the day comes that I see something other than empty platitudes and political expediency oozing from him, I guess I will continue to believe the “exaggerations” that this is no friend of Israel and the Jewish people.
Right on all counts. Well said.
Amen, Amen, and Amen.
“I’ll concede that it is an exaggeration to say that Obama hates Israel, the minute the LA Times releases the tapes they are holding hostage at the Rashid Khalidi fete…”
and one more AMEN for that!
Modern liberalism unchecked will lead to the destruction of the West. And that ultimately includes Israel. If the Jewish people can wake up to this fact, an unpleasant one given their overwhelming intellectual support for a bankrupt modern liberalism, the West may be able to resurrect itself. But it needs the support of the Jewish people.
Regarding the “Jewish vote:” I think it’s a fuzzy concept, rather like the “Catholic vote.”
Clearly there are Jews and Catholics who are deeply influenced by their religious tradition, which in the case of Jews would entail (among other things) a profound concern for Israel. But these traditionalists, if you will, constitute a minority within the greater group.
There are also many Jews and Catholics who may self-identify as such when it is expedient, but who in fact have no commitment to anything these words traditionally entail. Some of these may even be actively ANTI-Jewish or ANTI-Catholic.
Then there is the mushy middle. That’s the group that we most need to reach out to, and I think Rubin provides us with excellent arguments — both right here in this article and in many other PJM things he’s written. Our influence may only be marginal, but that’s better than nothing. Many an election has been won or lost at the margins.
s – http://www.310LOAN.com – Affordable Payday Loans Fast Approval, No Credit Check
512
As far as I am concerned, there will be no surprise to Obama’s predictable and massive defeat
Victor Redlick
10:33 PM (15 hours ago)
This is not about Israel specifically, but about Obama and the epic malaise he is nevertheless responsible for, domestically, internationally in all aspects.
Because the most incompetent and unAmerican-like Obama has done nothing else but relentlessly campaign to be re-elected president -for the last 42 months without let up (instead of administrating presidentially, as the job unequivocally calls for) and because he will now continue to do so right up until the November 2012 election; how are Americans,and yes now 62% Jews, instead of 78% in the last election, especially Democrat voters – certainly not Independents or Republicans – supposed to feel that absolute necessary pumped up urgency that comes with any election, as the time comes to crank things up, on behalf of their incumbent candidate, like now?
Under such uniquely questionable circumstances, never witnessed before in modern history, there won’t be any appearance of gearing up into overdrive, as there unquestionably should be to:
psychologically twig people’s interest;
put them in the usual fervently supportive mood, and then further,
to alert them to the fact that there is a reason for them to prepare themselves for what is turning out to be – now more than ever – the demise of Obama racing to stay in the White House, in what would portend to be an even more unbearable and most gruelling second term – should the people live to see such an unenviable catastrophe.
I have never seen any U.S. president con his fellow Americans with such disingenuousness, as the results inarguably show, non-stop, through an entire 4 year term with such disastrous implications.
By concentrating on only campaigning and virtually never administrating;
by selling the country’s future revenues to the creditor Communist nation of China on the innocent backs of generations of young Americans to come;
and by robbing the United States of whatever dignity it had left on the political world stage,
summarily unseating him should be nothing less than a given fait accompli. The Senate will be controlled by Republicans while Democrats and the mainstream media will be relegated to insignificance; as they should be.
I have predicted he will lose resoundingly and continue to do so with the same high level of predictability.
American Jews will not still vote for Obama.
Obama has also leaked important military secrets that involve Israeli intelligence.
The only thing Obambi has managed to keep secret is his own background. He’s managed to blab every other secret we or any of our allies have.
The biggest danger in the world today is the misguided support for Islamists by the West. The economy cannot trump the ever-encroaching terrorism and need for world domination by Islam. Of course when the mullahs pass on nuclear suitcase bombs to cells all over the world, we’re all in severe danger.How is everyone so calm about this impending catastrophe?
What to say? You mean when I stop laughing?
No one has commented on the ‘why now’ for the sanctions. Saudi said that if Iran has nucs they will get them too. Since they financed the Pakis on this one, they could move pretty quickly.
One thing you have to realize is that many Jews inside and outside Israel really are very much for mollycoddling Muslims in hopes of winning their friendship. Dershowitz has written on the settlement issue in the WSJ today.
Israel is double minded, and hence unstable, on this issue.
Regarding the military support, I’m surprised you didn’t mention the very evident motive for Obama: convincing Israel that they can rely on the United States so they can concede everything to the Palestinians…
Years ago the Episcopalian Church was called “The Republican Party at Prayer”(O.K. so times have changed). Similarly the Unitarians and the Reform Jews can be described As “The Democratic Party at Prayer.”
This is still true and as a consequence membership has declined. Reform Jews have a special problem because they still have an interest in Israel. That is why some thing like “J Street” has traction.
Many of these people will be surprised when they discover they might not be on a first class train to the relocation camps or given the job of KAPO. If they’re assimilated enough to have tatoos, they might make lovely lampshades.
I’m impressed, I must say. Actually not often do I encounter a weblog that’s each educative and entertaining, and let me inform you, you’ve gotten hit the nail on the head. Your idea is outstanding; the problem is one thing that not sufficient people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy that I stumbled throughout this in my seek for something regarding this.