Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

I remember the tornado that went through Rock Island, IL a few years ago, where the winds moved at 140 miles per hour; the entire city had thousands of trees land on top of houses; the city looked like a war zone and it took three years for it to recover. The destruction was devastating, but as bad as RI’s destruction was—it was nothing compared to the aftermath of a massive tornado that killed over 116 people, injured 400 and flattened the entire city of Joplin, MO.

Amazingly, the city’s residents only had 20 minutes to prepare themselves.

Yet, throughout the ordeal that has occurred—the wind’s noise was so loud, it drowned out the sound of the sirens.

While all of this was going on, President Obama visited an Irish pub, where he spoke to a large crowd in Dublin. He also took a helicopter trip to the tiny village of Moneygall, home of his great-great-great grandfather. Locals cheered and the Irish watched on live TV as Obama downed a pint of Guinness and Irish ale.

Frankly, I find President’s behavior bizarre. Why didn’t he visit the victims of Joplin, MO? Many years ago, President Bush took a tremendous amount of criticism for not visiting New Orleans immediately after Hurricane Katrina in September, 2005. The USA Today records:

“WASHINGTON — President Bush has shown that he can be empathetic, sensitive and decisive. But those qualities eluded him for days after Hurricane Katrina, and the lapse could become a defining moment of his White House tenure . . .Bush decided He didn’t cancel his vacation until two days after Katrina struck and didn’t visit the region until four days after the storm . . . Bush’s critics say his response to the hurricane proves that he’s not a leader . . . ‘Oblivious, in denial, dangerous,’ House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday” (September 5th, 2005).

I am wondering: What will the polls say about Obama’s peculiar behavior? Where is his empathy? I wonder: Why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi said anything about Obama’s behavior in Ireland, in light of the human carnage that we are witnessing in Joplin, MO? The President’s behavior is surprising. Surely the President could have taken a later flight (being President comes with certain perks). After everything has been said and done, I think the American heartland will express their disdain on next Election Day.

Since writing this article a few days ago, I was just informed that the economic impact these tornadoes have had cumulatively on the agricultural heartland of America may actually be analogous to the Katrina devastation.

Clearly, some of Obama’s Jewish mentors should teach the President how a mentsch behaves in a time of catastrophe.

Continue Reading

Recently, in his new Middle East policy speech, President Obama insisted that Israel help create a “contiguous Palestine.”

Contiguous is an interesting word; Obama wants the borders of Gaza and the West Bank to be joined together. But this raises an interesting question: If Israel allows the Palestinians to have their contiguous state, will Israel be contiguous? Anyone familiar with a map of Israel knows that if Gaza and the West Bank become contiguous, then Israel has effectively been cut into two.

Obama also mentioned he wanted to see the Palestinians and Israelis agree on a “land swap.” Does he realistically believe that the Palestinians would ever cede East Jerusalem to the Israelis? Granted, the Al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem is under Jordanian jurisdiction, but does the President really think Israel is going to trade land that has always belong to the Jewish people? In 1948, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and annexed it—despite the fact it was an original part of Israel as defined by the United Nations in 1948. In 1967, King Hussein of Jordan personally gave Israel the keys to Hadassah Hospital, because it was obvious the rightful owners of Jerusalem had returned home.

When President Obama speaks about a land swap, he makes it sound like the Israelis and Palestinians are much like farmers exchanging animals. Jerusalem is not a piece of ordinary “real estate.” However, Obama has already gone on public record in declaring East Jerusalem as “occupied territory” (see my earlier blogs on this matter). Are we to go back to the good old days when the Jordanians used Jewish cemeteries as latrines? Are we to go back to the times when Jews and Christians were denied entrance into East Jerusalem? Does he think we’re stupid or something?

Obama acts as if the Arabs never started the 1967 war, when Arab armies attacked Israel from Gaza Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

Since the “Arab Spring” has unfolded in the Middle East, we have seen how Obama abandoned President Mubarak of Egypt, a man who more than any other individual in the Middle East has kept peace between Egypt and Israel. Every change the President has encouraged in the Middle East has strengthened the hand of Iran. Yet, despite Iran being the most oppressive country in the Middle East, Obama treats the mullahcracy with respect; he offered absolutely no support to the pro-Democracy movement in 2009 when the people took to the streets, hoping that the American president would give support to their cause.

It was a golden opportunity for the President to shine, and yet he preferred to remain blind, deaf, and dumb when it came to confronting the mad mullahs of Iran.

One must wonder whether President Obama seriously thinks his plan will serve the cause of peace or not, and the answer is obvious. He is determined to weaken Israel to the point that it will be incapable of defending her borders. He is willing to sacrifice Israel to placate the Arab world, who will most certainly view such a victory as a sign from Allah that the West will also collapse under the weight of Muslim intimidation.

Does it ever occur to Obama the kind of mayhem legions of suicide bombers would do to Israel if the people were at their mercy. Think of what Hitler did to the Jews. Think of what happened in Rwanda. Obama’s hatred of Israel is obvious; his mannerisms are duplicitous. There is no room for error. Israel could very be easily defeated in a new war based on the 1967 boundaries-or worst-as Obama envisions.

Most of my liberal Jewish friends who campaigned for Obama are now disillusioned and petrified with fear; they have abandoned their support of Obama.

If Obama really wanted to make a meaningful statement about his policy in the Middle East, he would have made the following points:

(1) There will be no two-state solution, but a three state solution that will be contingent upon Hamas recognizing Israel’s right to exist. The same applies to the West Bank government of Abbas as well. Without recognition of Israel’s right to exist, there will be no peace agreement, and certainly no Palestinian statehood.

(2) Any degree of financial or military support for Egypt is contingent upon Egypt keeping the Camp David Accords. Obama, to date, has never made such a proclamation. Should the Muslim Brotherhood win big in Egypt, they have said the first act of legislation will be the repudiation of the Camp David Accords. If Egypt can renege on its peace treaty with Israel, why shouldn’t the Palestinians do so as well? It will take more than a piece of paper that says, “Peace on it . . .”

(3) There will be no “Right of Return” to Israel from the Palestinians displaced by their Arab leaders who refused to accept them.

(4) To the Palestinians, “Grow up and take responsibility for your peoples’ misery. You are largely responsible for your own wretchedness.”

(5) There will be no ‘Arab Spring” that does not respect human rights, women’s rights, and the rights of minorities-regardless who they are. There will be free press and the right to dissent . . .

(6) Not a nickle will go any Palestinian government that teaches its children hatred of Jews, or supports terror.

Continue Reading