Last week’s Jerusalem Post op-ed piece by Marc Stanley, chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, gave American Jews some interesting advice: even if President Obama is screwing Israel, we should just lie down and enjoy it.
The Democratic chair’s myopic “no matter what” support of President Obama’s policy toward Israel is wrong for the United States, the future of Jewry in America, and Israel.
Stanley tries to take on Jews disappointed with the president’s performance using name-calling and quotes without context. He bashes any Jew who has the nerve to criticize the president:
The small anti-Obama wing of the Jewish community has long found refuge in Web sites like American Thinker, where their fictional understanding of the presidency is confirmed (a representative title: “Obama’s hostility to Israel is clear”). But there are some times when elements of their argument spill into more respectable platforms, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Maybe Mr. Stanley’s problem is that he gets all his news from the Times and Post, because he proceeds to tell half-truths about Obama’s actions regarding Israel:
U.S. President Barack Obama and his administration are making an unprecedented effort to reach out to the Jewish community. The president has made moving the Middle East toward peace a priority and has spoken of the “unbreakable” bond we share with Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons “futile,” and last week Obama had some of his most senior foreign policy figures meet with top Israeli officials — in Israel.
Let’s take a look at that paragraph. True, the president has spoken of the unbreakable bond we share with Israel — so did most U.S. presidents since 1948, including Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush.
What Stanley ignores is that it’s the actions that matter. After expressing his “love,” Obama proceeded to make Israel a pariah of nations, breaking a preexisting agreement with Israel over settlements and publicly bashing Israel for sticking to the agreement regarding natural growth of settlements. Clinton did call Iran’s pursuit of nukes “futile,” but then she went on to say that America would protect its allies with its defense umbrella, indicating that the U.S. would accept a nuclear Iran. And last week’s visit from his senior advisors was not a friendly meet and greet, but an arm twisting session. The four horsemen of the “Obamalypse” visited with two purposes in mind: to prevent Israel from defending herself against Iran and to strong-arm Israel into not adding to existing settlements and to stay out of Jerusalem.
Stanley also takes issue with a Times op-ed:
One can’t get past the title of Benn’s op-ed in the Times without being struck by the question he poses: “Why won’t Obama talk to Israel?” Benn asserts that “neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience.” He then dramatically writes, “The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we [Israel] got silence.”… If Benn did not hear that Obama aimed elements of his Cairo speech at Israelis, he was not listening.
Here I agree with Stanley — Obama was talking to Israel from Cairo. He flipped them the bird and threw them under the bus.