The Obama administration and the Jews: Does Hillary’s Reception at AIPAC Indicate a Possible Disillusion with the Democrats?
The annual AIPAC conference is over, and the major speeches have been presented. Hillary Clinton, despite receiving a most courteous reception by the audience — who all stood — upon taking the podium, found, as Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post, that her reception had “little of their past enthusiasm.” One has to recall the context of her speech. A scant week earlier, Secretary Clinton held a forty-five minute telephone scolding of Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu after learning of the announcement that Israel was preparing 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. As most everyone knows by now — or should know — the announcement was made without Netanyahu’s knowledge, and the Prime Minister quickly apologized to Vice-President Biden for the bad timing of the announcement and for any embarrassment it may have caused him.
Even more important, as Mortimer Zuckerman has pointed out, “After all, the housing contemplated is to be in a section of Jerusalem occupied almost exclusively by the Jewish community, about five blocks from the pre-1967 border. It’s in an area where Israel’s eventual sovereignty has been taken for granted in round after round of two-state negotiations, including President Clinton’s ‘parameters,’ in which Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty. Every peace negotiation has contemplated the formal inclusion of this area under Israeli control, much as Arab enclaves within Jerusalem have been envisioned remaining under Palestinian control. And the 1,600 units in question are urgently required to house a growing local population that has nowhere to go. An overwhelming number of Israelis support accommodation for the normal growth of the Jewish population in their sacred city.”
To put it as bluntly as possible, these 1600 units were never a point of contention, and it was the Obama administration that made them so, and both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were ordered by the President to read the riot act to Netanyahu. So when Secretary Clinton told AIPAC that “the Obama administration has worked to promote Israel’s security and long-term success,” as Milbank reported, “there was only silence in the room.”
The audience’s silence was most telling. And quite deserved. When the delegates to AIPAC cheered, it was when its Executive Director, Howard Kohr, told the audience that when Clinton had called Israel’s attitude towards Biden “insulting,” it reflected poorly on one who should have, as Israel’s friend, resolved differences privately, “as is befitting close allies.” And as for those 1600 units, he added, “Jerusalem is not a settlement.” At that point, the over 7000 delegates attending all jumped up and applauded.
In another part of her speech, Clinton’s would-be tough words about Iran received applause. One has to ask, however, just how meaningful they really are. Clinton told AIPAC:
And for Israel, there is no greater strategic threat than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. Elements in Iran’s government have become a menace, both to their own people and in the region. Iran’s president foments anti-Semitism, denies the Holocaust, threatens to destroy Israel, even denies that 9/11 was an attack. The Iranian leadership funds and arms terrorists who have murdered Americans, Israelis, and other innocent people alike. And it has waged a campaign of intimidation and persecution against the Iranian people.
The question is what the Obama administration will do about Iran. To that question, the Secretary said the following:
In addition to threatening Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran would embolden its terrorist clientele and would spark an arms race that could destabilize the region. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the United States. It is unacceptable to Israel. It is unacceptable to the region and the international community. So let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
It is important to remember that Mrs Clinton has a boss who really, really does not like Jews. The President has shown that he like muslims, communists and race baiting. What he does not like is Jews. The fact that many of his supporters are American Jews does Israel little good.
Some? Sure, but it won’t be a difficult count. Why should the administration worry about Israel and its supporters, their bluff has been called. It’s all well and fine to write about reactions at AIPAC. But unless you can describe a consequence, or one that’s likely, why should anyone care? In world of bare-knuckle politics, if you don’t punch back when punched, you’ll just get punched again – and you’ll deserve it.
Our president has created a new urgency regarding giving thought to what it means to be American, and therefore to have grown under the principles of the judeo-christian morality. This is a clarion call to Jews and Christians alike. As you come to be grateful for America, you also take your distances from those who see it as the poison which made the world sick.
Jews loyal to Israel no longer have a home within the Democratic Party. Barack Obama has issues with white people and considers them victimizers of the dark skin people of the world. The Palestinians are inevitably perceived as victims of mostly white Israeli imperialists. There are other issues—but they rank a distant second. The Jews loyal to Israel no longer have a home within the current Democratic Party. Barack Obama has issues with white people and considers them the victimizers of the dark skin people of the world. The Palestinians are inevitably perceived as victims of mostly white Israeli imperialists. Left-wing elites are obsessed with punishing whites for past injustices. The race card will constantly be employed. Jews are generally successful, and therefore must have ripped off disenfranchised non-whites. Payback is due. It was laughably silly to vote for Obama to increase racial harmony. The man is existentially committed to sticking it good and hard to whites. After all, he threw his own kind and generous white grandmother under the bus. What do you think he ultimately plans to do to you? Do yourself a favor. Imagine what would have happened to a white candidate who attended the church of a radical white pastor for roughly twenty years. It is senseless to continue giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Nobody should be infinitely loyal to any political party. It should always be conditional and this question repeatedly asked: what have you done for me lately? Does it still retain the values that attracted your original interest? Jews should especially be wary because they have been stabbed in the back countless times in the past.
Please ignore the previous post. There were a few editing problems:
Jews loyal to Israel no longer have a home within the current Democratic Party. Only self-hating Jews will be tolerated. Barack Obama has issues with white people and considers them the victimizers of the dark skin people of the world. The Palestinians are inevitably perceived as victims of mostly white Israeli imperialists. Left-wing elites are obsessed with punishing whites for past injustices. The race card will constantly be employed. Jews are generally successful, and therefore must have ripped off disenfranchised non-whites. Payback is due. It was laughably silly to vote for Obama to increase racial harmony. The man is existentially committed to sticking it good and hard to whites. After all, he threw his own kind and generous white grandmother under the bus. What do you think he ultimately plans to do to you? Do yourself a favor. Imagine what would have happened to a white candidate who attended the church of a radical white pastor for roughly twenty years. It is senseless to continue giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Nobody should be infinitely loyal to any political party. It should always be conditional and this question repeatedly asked: what have you done for me lately? Does it still retain the values that attracted your original interest? Jews should especially be wary because they have been stabbed in the back countless times in the past.
Excuse me but I must be terribly naive. I continue to ask WHY THE HELL THE JEWS NEED TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES TO ANYONE. THIS IS THEIR COUNTRY. WE HAVE FASCISM RUN RAMPANT IN AMERICA AND IT’S ALL COMING FROM THE LEFT. THE LEFT, UNFORTUNATELY, HAS MANY INFLUENTIAL JEWS. ONE WONDERS HOW, WHEN THEY DECRY THE HORROR OF HITLER, THEY CONTINUE TO SUPPORT CONTEMPORARY VERSIONS OF THAT MONSTER. OR IS THEIR JEWISHNESS AN ALLEGIANCE OF CONVENIENCE ONLY IN THE FURTHERANCE OF A FASCIST AGENDA?????
‘It is also revealing that at the AIPAC meeting, the words that most stirred the crowd … were those of a leading Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham, who reiterated the argument that “no government in the United States should ever look at Jerusalem as a settlement.” As Milbank reported, “the place went wild.”’
“Revealing”? It was an AIPAC meeting, for gosh sakes!
If we are going to talk about “BHO’s administration and the Jews,” we must also be strong enough to talk about the “Jews” (as we separately talk about the “BHO administration” and the “muslims.”)
The question is, are we that strong yet and secure enough to finally have an open discussion about these hot topics, without having the terms “racist” “antisemitic” and “islamophobic” being thrown at us? I really doubt it. PC still runs wild, the same PC that is driving the rest of us to extinction.
A big part of Judaism is charity, helping the poor, doing the right thing. The Bible is seen as having only 10 commandments, in reality there is over 630 listed. They cover a lot of territory; however, this wasn’t enough. The rules were geometrically expanded by the Talmud which is the source of Western ethics. Doing the right thing was so ingrained in our culture that it was easy to identify with the Civil Rights Movement in America. Fortunately that struggle is over. Its been replaced by another movement which has nothing to do with Civil Rights. The new left has taken over the old calls and made them their own. Unfortunately this new left movement resembles nothing of the real Civil Rights struggle. In the guise of doing the right thing it has usurped the movement and the people who were part of it. It smacks more of getting even. With who? White Middle Class America is who. I’m sorry to see so many well intentioned Jews clinging to the old Democratic Party. Its not the same Party we were used to. Its been hijacked by the left.
Honduras 2.0.
Obama will still get 80% of the Jewish vote in 2012. It’s a DNA thing.
It’s been a good run, thanks for everything.
Glug glug glug… The piggy-niggy is taking the whole country down with him…
The ever perceptive David Thomson 4. said:”Nobody should be infinitely loyal to any political party. It should always be conditional and this question repeatedly asked: what have you done for me lately? Does it still retain the values that attracted your original interest? Jews should especially be wary because they have been stabbed in the back countless times in the past.”
YES, YES, YES! Unconditional loyalty is true believer blind faith. In the end, true believers are cannon fodder.
Pedro 9. said: “Obama will still get 80% of the Jewish vote in 2012. It’s a DNA thing.”
You are right about the 80%, but it’s not DNA, it’s denial. When you have been comfortable for decades, it’s hard to admit disaster is at the door.
Oscar #7, I agree with your observations about the civil rights movement, but where did you come up with “over 630″? The Talmud (which elaborates on, rather than “expanding” the mitzvot) speaks of 613, as do all of the decisive authorities, including Rambam, Sefer haChinuch and Sefer Mitzot Gedolot.
9. Pedro
As well as 90% of the Black vote. It’s funny that when it is raised, the topic is changed.
I guess in the eyes of the sharp end of the spear who view the past as benighted, candor can only go so far.