The “closed” meeting between President Barack Obama and 50 representatives of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week was hailed by the chairman Alan Solow and executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein as an “extraordinary session,” providing “open lines of communication with President Obama and his administration” and an “opportunity to articulate the views of American Jews on issues that face the country.”
In a similar vein, the White House said the meeting reaffirmed “America’s unshakable support for Israel’s security, opposition to any effort to delegitimize or single it out for criticism, and a commitment to achieve a peace that will secure the future for Arabs and Israelis alike.”
In contrast to the 2009 meeting, J Street was not invited.
From all reports, Obama went out of his way to persuade participants that he was committed to Israel. More importantly, he unequivocally reaffirmed his commitment to maintain US military aid at the current record levels.
However, despite his positive remarks, it would appear that he remains committed to a policy of applying one-sided pressure to make further unilateral concessions.
Participants thanked the president for having exercised the US veto at the UN Security Council. But in response to expressions of regret at the harsh anti-Israeli statements made by US representatives before and after the vote, Obama stated that White House officials consider it imperative for the US “to do something to show balance” in view of the delicacy of Arab public opinion during these “sensitive” times.
It was also disconcerting to learn that despite the recent tsunamis in the Arab world, Obama still sees a linkage between the turmoil – including the threat from Iran – and the need for concessions to the Palestinians.
This distortion of reality is accentuated when viewed in conjunction with recent US statements downplaying radical Islamic fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which the State Department now describes as “moderate,” despite its clear objectives of creating a Shari’a state and destroying Israel.
EVEN MORE alarming was a JTA report quoting Obama making a patronizing call to the Jewish leaders to speak to their friends and colleagues in Israel, and to “search your souls” as to whether its government is serious about making peace.
Steven Warnick, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, observed that Obama “did talk about the fact that Israel is the stronger party here, militarily, culturally and politically. And Israel needs to create the context for it to happen.”
The president was obviously implying that it bears primary responsibility for advancing the peace process.
Obama also reaffirmed his long-standing view that PA President Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate peace partner, but said “the Palestinians don’t feel confident that the Netanyahu government is serious about territorial concessions.”
In stark contrast to his efforts to understand what motivated Abbas, Obama failed to credit the unprecedented concessions offered by our democratically elected prime minister, whose policies are supported by the vast majority of the people.
Indeed, if the opposition held the reins of government, its approach would barely differ.
Binyamin Netanyahu was the first prime minister to introduce a 10-month freeze on settlement construction, in response to US pressure. Nevertheless, throughout this period, Abbas refused to negotiate with him.
Thus, when Obama urged further concessions, insisting that “both sides” make a “greater effort,” it would have been appropriate for a Jewish representative to ask him whether he saw parallels between the corrupt and duplicitous leadership of Abbas and Hosni Mubarak, whom he recently disowned.
What further concessions can be made to appease the Palestinians, who still refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, reject demilitarization and doggedly insist on the ‘right’ of all refugees and their descendants to reside in Israel? Should Netanyahu agree to return to the indefensible 1948 armistice lines? These lines (although erroneously referred to as 1967 borders) were described by Abba Eban as the “Auschwitz borders” and were never intended to be permanent.
Should Netanyahu disregard UN Security Council Resolution 242, which understood that those borders would need to be adjusted? Does Obama expect Israel to unilaterally withdraw? We have seen the results of Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza – the empowerment of Hamas and the intensification of rockets and terrorism, culminating in the Gaza war.
ISRAEL’S LONG-TERM viability remains highly dependent on US support – more so today than at any period since the creation of the state. It is highly gratifying that the American public and Congress are strongly supportive. But in the White House, we have a president whose priority is to appease the Islamic states, and even engage with radical Islamists, which inevitably conflicts with support for the Jewish state. Thus the burden of responsibility for Israel advocacy and resistance to sacrificing it on the altar of expediency now rests with our American Jewish supporters.
Obama seeks to be reelected, and has displayed a willingness to forgo ideology in pursuit of this objective.
Jews represent a small but important strategic group in US politics. They have considerable leverage, but if in a meeting with the president representative leaders fail to respond to bizarre and patronizing remarks, they will cease to have any impact.
Strategizing a policy under such circumstances is no easy task.
Jewish community leaders must carefully weigh responses to government policies they consider to be contrary to Jewish interests. Speaking up may jeopardize future access, but responsible leaders must never refrain from respectfully doing so.
The awful legacy of Rabbi Stephen Wise, whose blind adulation of Franklin Roosevelt during the Holocaust resulted in one of the darkest pages in American Jewish history, has been internalized by a postwar generation of proud American Jewish leaders prepared to stand up and be counted. Yet given American Jewry’s long association with the Democratic Party, standing up to a president like Obama represents a formidable challenge.
However, their response will undoubtedly have an historic impact on the future of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
To illustrate how little these two individuals know about what is going on in the US – or know and are deliberately misrepresenting the information, please click on the following links:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Quote:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 20% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That is the president’s lowest rating since September.
Unquote.
Baseless and uninformed comment unrelated to the facts.
Based on his baseless and fact-free comments about what caused the financial crisis, Yamit has no idea what he is talking about. On the other hand I have described what happened in great detail, based on facts and not liberal Democrat talking points from the George Soros funded web sites.
Because all those that have been tried have not improved the quality of life for the most people most of the time over the long haul.
What is fallacious and intellectually bankrupt is the insinuation that we cannot learn by studying what others have done.
Bullcrap. Your selective use of facts taken out of context are well known here.
How would you know if any other system is better or worse than what you have today in America? Only by trying another system and comparing the results can you make such a definitive and fallacious statement.
You have your facts and I have mine. I can back mine up with solid stats, you read off of conservative taking points. HINT: It’s what you ignore that is most relevant and you ignore a lot.
Catarin you are just skimming the top of the Republican iceberg. Truth be told Wall street owns both parties and the FED!
What wall street Investment bank cleaned up because of Bush? What Investment Bank did h. Paulson run before becoming Sec Treasury? Who led the Democrats and voted for the bailouts:? What notable wall street Investment bank was allowed to fail?
Bush was the primary culprit and the Democrats led by Obama finished it off.
AE doesn’t know what he is talking about. He reads Tea party talking points so often he has them down to memory. America is paying almost 4 billion dollars a day just on interest payments and his stupid tea party republicans are trying to cut a few billion off the budget and can’t.
The billionaires and banks are laughing all the way to the Cayman Islands.
As usual, Democrats like you blame the ones who are left to try and clean up the mess instead of the ones who made the mess in the first place. Like Reagan had to spend billions to re-build the US armed forcs that were decimated by Carter, and Bush had to bear the brunt of 9/11 which was caused by Clinton’s massive cuts in defense spending to arrive at his budget surpluses and refusal to acknowledge radical Islam and their attacks on US interests throughout the 90’s.
Unfortunately for you, the facts show that the entire financial was created by Democrat social engineering policies under the Community Reinvestment Act by forcing the banks to make loans they would never make otherwise.
In my opinion, Bush and Paulson should have let the banks fail – which really means selling their assets for pennies on the dollar. That way the managers and stockholders of the 500 or so banks – out of some 8000 plus banks and financial institutions in the USA – which were stupid enough to comply with the Democrat threats of facing federal lawsuits if they did not lend to low income people, would have paid the price for their stupidity, instead of all American taxpayers who had nothing to do with creating the problem. The same bankers who were bailed out made huge bonuses by growing their loan portfolios by making crappy loans and then selling those to Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae.
Bush had nothing to slik over. Not only did he liberate two previous enemies of Israel, the federal deficits averaged 3.5% of GDP under Bush – they are almost 12% now, and the unemployment rate averaged 5% – it is almost double that now.
As I have show above using REAL facts, your so-called “facts” are from the George Soros propaganda web sites and Democrat party talking points, i.e. they are all distorted self-serving bullcrap, out of any rational context.
This is typical of liberals which is why they gave us Obama in the White House, by twisting every fact about him. Dershowitz even called him “…a strong supporter of Israel”. No one would vote Democrat if they knew their real agenda of government control domestically, which has never worked anywhere else, and a weak foreign policy and national defense, so that we can become as weak and useless as Europe..
It was Bush and Henry Paulson, before they left office, who arranged for the payments to the big banks. Didn’t you watch the newscasts? The gripe after was they had asked for nothing in return from the banks. Bush did slink out of the White House, very eager to turn the mess over to Obama.
Check your facts so you don’t have to make up stories.
Poppycock. Obama and the Democrats were in control of the Legislature when the financial crisis happened and had previously been burrowing like termites into the foundations of America for years before that by creating, supporting and defending the absurd Community Reinvestment Act forcing the banks to lend to low income people who were unable to pay even their sub-prime monthly payments as soon as the economy went through its down cycle.
Don’t be an ignorant putz. Obama took the economy he helped and made it exponentially worse, and it is getting worse with no end in sight unless the Republicans can swing the pendulum sharply to the right. In the international area he has made the US look weak and a laughing stock among the same Muslim dictators he was bowing in front of, kissing their arses and apologizing to.
Fortunately, in spite of the morons like you who voted for him, the American people have caught up with Obama’s lies and tricks and his popularity is tanking. Read this link and weep, you morons who voted for him.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
George Bush and Dick Cheney are responsible for the terrible shape our country is in. When they left office the deficit was at seven trillion. That covers two wars without taxes being raised, at least a billion in lost cash in Iraq, and the tacit understanding of their government officials to not rock the boat on financial dealings NO MATTER WHAT! Before Bush left office, he and his treasury secretary arranged for those huge loans to banks and investment companies, then he slunk out of sight like a dirty dog. Fortunately, the loans are almost all paid back, due to the Democrats’ efforts. Bush virtually ignored every aspect of the economy except for the welfare of his buddies who required huge doses of cash to remain above water. Some of these high fliers deserve to be in jail. How crooked do you have to be to bundle high risk mortgages together then sell them as safe investments? These are the people who put us under when the housing boom went bust.
It comes out now that many many people were suspicious of Bernie Madoff’s schemes, but Bush’s hands off policy allowed him to go on for years. His officials and cabinet officers were not allowed to make decisions of their own but had to check with the boss first. I’m positive the SEC (Security and Exchange) Commissioners knew what was going on but dared do nothing about it.
So Obama has spent another seven trillion to keep the U.S. from going under. That includes more money for Bush’s wars, money to bail out our biggest companies and money to help the average Joe stay afloat. We should have let the banks fail and immediately started shoring up the Middle class. U.S. cities would be full of rioters, like the Middle East, if Obama had not supplied a safety net. Now most of the world is in trouble. I say many countries took their Qs from America, spending like drunken idiots thinking if it worked for America, it would work for them.
Remember Dick Cheney’s “Deficits don’t matter!”? He was right. They didn’t matter one iota to him because his fortune was safely secured. The Republicans played a huge role in allowing Bush free hand. Now they try to blame everything on Democrats but it was they who were as financially irresponsible as Bush who have landed us here.
In my view, Obama has done a damned good job keeping the ship of state steady while going through one crises after another. You bastard Republicans can’t pull the wool over our eyes. We know. Now hear this: Obama is the president of every kind and ilk of human being who resides on this planet. All sorts of people live in America. Being who he is, he cannot come out in favor of one people but must work with all people to bring about justice and equity.
Poppycock. It works better than any other system out there.
Intellectually bankrupt comment devoid of any facts.
Cheap shot devoid of relevent facts. Here are some facts. The deficits averaged 3.5% under Bush – close to their long term averages – they are approaching 12% after 2 years of Bush. The unemployment rate averaged 5% under Bush, it is almost double that now. Bush prevented any more attacks by Al Qaeda on the US after 9/11, which were set up by Clinton’s policies that weakened the US intelligence apparatus and banned them from sharing intel with the FBI. Bush liberated two countries from Muslim tyrants who were sworn enemies of Israel.
Bush openly pledged US military support for Israel in case of a nuclear threat from Iran.
Yup. It was stupid enough for non-Semites. But a whopping 78% of liberal American Semites also voted for the most anti-Semitic president in US history, whom not one of them would hire to invest their money or run their businesses.
Since you’re not a Samurai, at least slap yourself:-)) It will make Shy Guy happy – he is so bitter most of the time.
Sorry. You’ve exceeded your maximum weekly quota.
I’m here to eat crow. In the Sunday paper today there’s an article about how groups funded by the U.S. and some European countries, for the purpose of coaching young people ’round the world how to go about attaining democracy, played a part in bringing down Mubarak’s presidency in Egypt. These groups have been working for 25 years, beginning with the Solidarity Movement in Poland in 1985.
It appears Mubarak’s election in 2005 was so fraudulent and crooked these groups began to take Egyptian protestors under their wings and teach them the ins and outs of organizing protests and other tools so they might succeed in pushing out totalitarian leaders. These groups were active in Jordan too, because government was closed to the local people. In Jordan they did not want to push the King out but confront him on establishing a more open democratic government.
Good thing I’m not a Samurai. Otherwise I would have to commit Hera Kiri.
Well, Yamit, I guess that opens up the question of what constitutes “qualified”, in the case of national leadership.
I don’t put so much merit in diplomas and such (and I say that holding several myself). It seems that in Obama’s case, that is about the only significant qualification he had.
After all, some woman named Butler shot up an office full of her colleagues a couple of years ago, when it appeared they wouldn’t give her tenure. Oh, but she was a Harvard grad.
When I talk about qualifications, I’m talking about demonstrated patriotism – as in willing to or better still, actually having made major sacrifices for one’s country – demonstrated executive leadership/accomplishment, demonstrated moral and political courage. On these metrics, I’d say Palin stands head and shoulders above Obama, never mind how much certain segments of clueless, elitist snobs in the media and elsewhere dump on her.
I’m not saying intellect or education count for nothing – they have their place – but by itself, this is not of much use outside of the classroom. Obama’s qualifications amounted to little more than this and public speaking ability. He was a passable lawyer, a college professor, and maybe he could have had a career in sales. He had NOTHING else to recommend him. I’m also not saying that others like McCain didn’t have their own blemishes – nobody is perfect – but as against Obama, by my metrics outlined above, pretty much any past president looks good, while Obama’s immediate competition in ’08 was positively stellar by comparison (McCain OR Palin).
And then there is even worse in Obama’s case, his “anti-qualifications”, if you will: His long list of associations and even stated views in line with “anti-patriots” like Rev. Wrong, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi…the list was VERY long.
As bad as Bush was – and I was no fan of his, believe me – Obama has surely set a new low. At least Bush didn’t hate America, and pretend – as Obama and his supporters apparently do – that hating America is somehow some kind of “enlightened” form of patriotism!
So much of what was wrong with Obama was soooooo obvious before the fact. The media was complicit to an extent in not even coming close to adequetely covering this, but this is no excuse. FOX at least did a pretty good job. The information was out there. People owe it to themselves to find out who the hell they are voting for. So, we return to my thesis of ‘greatest act of mass stupidity in history…’
Two things: It shows how democracy in large populous countries is unworkable and GWB can rival anyone in being unqualified for the job of POTUS.
A case can be made that many viewed McCain Palin a worse choice and Bush better than both Kerry and Gore. Gore actually got more of the popular vote. Stupid system where ones vote is not always counted.
Catarin:
I stand by what I said.
I said greatest MASS act of stupidity, not greatest act stupidity by itself.
Voting in a democratic national election is a mass act, about the best example of a “mass act” one can find.
For most of recorded history, national leaders were not chosen in this fashion.
So, for example, one cannot say that even the rise of Hitler was a “mass act” in this same context. He had a base of support, but even so, in the last free German national election prior to his seizure of power, a plurality of Germans rejected the Nazis.
In our case, during the election of ’08, the majority of American voters either did not vote at all – which was pretty stupid by itself considering the stakes involved – or voted for Obama.
I cannot think of a single instance in recorded history, where a freely elected leader in an established liberal democracy, achieved political victory despite being as outrageously unqualified for the job as Obama was. And in the case of Jewish American voters, his hostility towards Israel was there for all to see with even the most cursory research. As to the “guilt by association” defense trotted out by his supporters at that time, I have never seen such transparent and meaningless sophistry as that taken seriously as a valid defense.
I am 49 years old, and am well-educated in the subjects of both modern history generally and American history in particular. I challenge you or anyone to come up with an example of a national leader, put into power within the context of an established liberal democratic process – again, by definition, a “mass act” – who has proceeded to do so much damage in so short a time frame, in aggregate terms, taking into account both foreign and domestic policy, to the interests of the country he is supposed to be leading. And clearly, there has been no American president more hostile to Israel, a fact that could have been predicted by attentive barnyard animals, yet the Jews here supported him anyway.
No, I stand by what I say. I am being quite literal. I invite you or anyone else here to come up with a better example of “mass stupidity” than what I’ve described above. Lotsa luck!
Not quite, but pretty close within the context of recorded US history, which was the context here.
Did Obama disown President Mubarak? This is baloney. Obama did not rule over Egypt. All he could do was accept the outcome of the efforts of the Egyptian people. Most of America’s leaders considered Mubarak to be a friend of the U.S. And he was. Obama had nothing to do with Mubarak’s downfall but must accept the realities of Egypt’s present.
The greatest act of mass stupidity in recorded history? Anyone who believes anyone who claims to know the greatest act in recorded history.
J Street will probably get a private meeting.
BHO is on the campaign trail and will say what it takes to get his votes.
The Jewish guilt feeling, a weapon of self destruction for many. That is why most are on the left.
It is very saddening that apparently, no one present at the meeting stood up to call out the president on his outrageously delusional appreciation of the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. However, while it is noteworthy that J-Street was not invited (they’ve already been outed as Saudi/Soros stooges…we’re still waiting for that to catch up with Obama), neither was ZOA. I doubt that ZOA would have sat idly by.
Obama is not going to get re-elected. The only say he stays in office is either through a Marcos-style indefinite suspension of elections in response to some kind of manufactured “crisis”, or an A-jad style rigging of the election. I don’t put either past Obama, though they seem unlikely at present, as he would not have vetoed that draft UNSCR a couple of weeks ago had he not been sensitive to re-election related political pressures.
As long as Obama still thinks he has a chance of being re-elected, he is vulnerable to public pressure from supporters of Israel. If at some point, he concludes he is not getting re-elected no matter what, he will become very, very dangerous.
Bottom line: Obama is a knee-jerk liberal left academia Israel hater, groomed and encouraged accordingly by open and not-so-open agents of Saudia for pretty much the whole of his adult life, and perhaps even before that. With this in mind, it is vitally important to maintain pressure on him so as to prevent him from going too far, but past a certain point, we have to remember that his visceral hatred of Israel is something that he cannot be “reasoned” out of. His mind is not going to change. His re-election prospects is the only pressure point of any use in his case.
Elections have consequences.
Greatest act of mass stupidity in recorded history: The behavior of American voters in 2008…and especially, Jewish American voters.