Part I - A Revelation About the Past

It has been said, “Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.” The political philosophy of expediency illustrates a concept that is commonly known in the arena of international relations: “Realpolitik,” a German phrase that basically means “the reality of politics.” Politicians who subscribe to Realpolitik never not make decisions based upon morality or other such “sentimental” issues but solely upon the practical considerations, i.e., will such and such a policy benefit the United States and further its interests? The above adage could certainly apply to many of the most famous leaders of history and it especially pertains to the leaders of the 20th century.

This point is only too painfully evident in the newest revelation concerning President Nixon’s attitudes about the Jews, along with his cohort Henry Kissinger. The news regarding Kissinger-more so than Nixon- reveals shocking information that most ethical people ought to find disturbing—even horrifying. The Nixon tapes illustrate the President’s disdain for the American Jewish community, which he regarded as overly aggressive and abrasive. Yet, Nixon had a strong admiration for the Israeli Jew. Shortly after the Yom Kippor War, Nixon met with PM Golda Meir, who visited on March 1, 1973. Meir praised Nixon for his support of Israel during this crucial period of her history.

Immediately after she left, a conversation took place between Nixon and Kissinger that focused on the plight of Russian Jews. The question people asked at that time was, “Should the United States push the Soviet Union to allow their Jewish population to immigrate to countries of their choice in their efforts to escape persecution?” Kissinger, himself a German refugee, said, “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy . . . And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

While Nixon’s remarks are not that surprising, Kissinger is an altogether different matter. While he was in the White House, I recall how Jewish leaders often likened Kissinger to the biblical hero Joseph. But now we must admit this comparison was wrong. The Nixon tapes reveal that Kissinger is in many ways the antithesis of the biblical Joseph, who utilized his power to be a blessing not only to all the nations of the world, but also to his own people. As Jews, we cannot forget how Kissinger tried to sabotage Israel’s defense by arguing for delaying an airlift to aid Israel in order to make Egypt feel empowered to make peace. According to the NY Times, three years after the Yom Kippur War, Kissinger delayed the airlift because he wanted to see Israel “bleed just enough to soften it up for the post-war diplomacy he was planning.” (Golda Meir knew of the Egyptian sneak attack, but had hoped the world would be sympathetic toward Israel if they did not unleash a preemptive attack as they did in 1967. Bad mistake! Golda Meir and Moshe Dyan lost their mandate in disgrace.)

How could Kissinger- of all people-say that a Soviet genocide of the Jews might not even be considered “a humanitarian concern,” let alone “an American concern?” How could the United States not be “concerned” when any superpower engages in genocide?? Nixon quickly replied, “I know, we can’t blow up the world because of it.” Well, short of war-surely the United States could achieve its objective through other means. While I could excuse Nixon, Kissinger is worthy of moral criticism. As a Jew, Kissinger is clearly a man who represents the worst kind of Jew who is indifferent to the suffering of his people.

Fortunately, other American Presidents (with the exceptions of President Carter and Obama) have openly expressed the special bond they felt with the Jewish people. My father told me that when Eisenhower freed the death camps, he made the local German residents see firsthand what their people had done. Eisenhower had a conscience but Nixon operated on purely utilitarian principles. Ever since WWII, the matter of genocide has become an important “American” concern precisely because we are and have always been the moral guardian and champion of the oppressed world, which looks to us for moral support, help, and practical assistance.

True, Nixon really disliked any Jewish leader who did not support the his politics. Yet his snide attitude is not unique in the annals of American history. Decades later, Nixon’s comments were out matched by Secretary of State James Baker’s remark, “____ the Jews. They didn’t vote for us anyway!” (James Baker, under GHW Bush, son of Nazi sympathizer Prescott Bush.) Since Israel’s inception, the American State Department has always shown an ambivalent attitude toward the Jews as a voting block and toward Israel, as a Jewish state.

Part 2: Comparing Nixon and Obama

One gets the distinct impression from President Obama that caving in to the traditional enemies of Israel, demanding for Israel’s destruction, serves the real important and economic interests of the United States. Today, the Nixonian and Kissinger animus is much more directed at Israel than it is at the American Jewish community. President Obama has really inverted Nixon’s criticism. Most Jews and Americans are probably unaware of how Obama instructed his national security adviser John Brennan to henceforth refer to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel for millennia, as “Al Quds” — the Arabic Muslim name for the city. Jerusalem is now being described by the Secretary of State (for the first time in Israel’s history) as an “occupied territory.”

Although Obama has made many trips to numerous Arab capitals, to date Obama has yet to visit Israel. How can this diplomatic snub serve the cause of peace? Surely the leaders of Hamas view this snub as an endorsement of their genocidal ambition to destroy Israel. Our leadership is enabling some of the worst leaders imaginable in the Middle East who interpret Obama’s snub as reason for not engaging Israel in any kind of constructive dialogue. It only furthers the bellicose attitudes seen thus far.

Unlike Nixon who greeted Gold Meir with respect, Obama chose to snub Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minster of Israel and former PM Shimon Perez, at the White House during their visits. Beyond that, Obama via Hillary is funding hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to Hamas, an organization that remains dedicated upon the destruction of Israel.

To a serious onlooker, it seems that Obama wishes to intimate that Israel is no longer essential for American interests. Yet, nothing could be further than this untruth. Today, Saudi Arabia and Israel are working together to prevent the expansion of a militant Iranian regime from threatening to wrest control of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, which have been under Sunni Islam’s control for centuries. Israel is paradoxically the cure to the Middle East’s problems. America’s bond with Israel is based upon the values we share in common. These values are based upon our common religious Judeo-Christian heritage and these ethical and spiritual values must be reaffirmed all the time. Obama has done his best to minimize this special relationship Israel shares with the United States.

Realpolitik is a dangerous amoral attitude that needs to be exposed. Our founding fathers had a very different view of America-as the harbinger of hope and freedom-a role our country has relished since the beginning. We have evolved in many positive ways, liberated more people than the world has ever seen in all of its history. However, President Obama would much rather go around the world apologizing for the sins of the United States.

At a very important juncture of Iran’s history, I think Obama missed a golden opportunity that would have endeared him to the American people and its Middle Eastern allies. He should have publically condemning the Iranian regime from the outset. If the bully-pulpit worked for Reagan when he confronted the sins of Communism, it certainly would have worked for Obama! However, only after pundits and politicians began criticizing the President, he finally relented and gave a short but perfunctory speech against the Mullahs. Obama felt uncomfortable using the American bully pulpit to criticize the Iranian thug-regime. By the same token he offered no moral support whatsoever on behalf of the millions of Iranians, who risked life and limb throughout the cities of Iran-calling for an end of the illegitimate mullahcracy that has been enslaving Iranian people for more than three decades. President Obama is an enabler of thug-regimes and has yet to act like a real American President who is proud of his country. Continue Reading

As I mentioned in the previous postings, symbolism is very important to the proponents of the Ground Zero Mosque. Although many Jewish Americans see this as a constitutional issue regarding religious freedom, they should not lose sight what this mosque means to those who regard it as the beginning of a cultural and religious conquest of the “Great Satan” — America.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4225.htm
May 27, 2010 Special Dispatch No.2981

Iraqi Columnist in Arab Liberal Online Daily Elaph: The Hostile and Provocative Name Chosen for the Planned Ground Zero Cordoba Mosque Symbolizes Dreams of Expansion and Invasion of the Territory of the Other

Iraqi-American columnist Khudhayr Taher published an article in the Arab online liberal daily Elaph.com on May 18, 2010 in which he warns against the desire to turn the U.S. into a Muslim country. Taher called upon the American administration to ban the building of mosques, and especially the Cordoba Mosque, planned for construction near Ground Zero in New York, because, he says, these mosques pose a danger to the security of the U.S. as they are centers for spreading extremist and terrorist ideas.

Following is a translation of excerpts from the article:

“In these days, the issue of the Muslim decision to build a mosque near the place where the crime of the cowardly September 11 terrorist attacks took place has come up. We must note that a hostile and provocative name [Cordoba] has been chosen for this mosque. It is well known that the first Cordoba Mosque was built by Muslims in a city in Spain, after they occupied this Christian country, killing its men and capturing its women to bring them to Arab countries as slaves and servants to serve their sexual pleasure. The Arabs and Muslims have never ceased to take pride and bask in the glory of this imperialist history, which they consider to be a symbol of their strength and power, and they are unashamed of the fact that the annals [of their history] are full of shameful crimes.

“Today, it seems as though some Muslims in America are enamored of the dream of bringing back this ugly imperialist Muslim history, which is based on occupying peaceful peoples, on trying to force them to change their religious beliefs by the sword, on killing the men, and on abducting the women from their homes and bringing them to their own countries. Choosing the name ‘Cordoba House’ for the mosque to be constructed in New York was not coincidental or random and innocent. It bears within it significance and dreams of expansion and invasion [into the territory] of the other, [while] striving to change his religion and to subjugate him… Continue Reading

It is difficult to understand the terror of September 11, 2001, without taking into serious consideration the fundamentalist theology and ideology of Wahhabi Islam. The origin of this sect goes back to the 18^th century’s founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792). Like other fundamentalists, Wahhab’s reformation stressed that every idea that Islam subsequently after the time of the third century (ca. 950 CE), must be considered false and expunged from Muslim doctrine. To be a “true” Muslim, one must simply follow the original teachings of Muhammad.

Wahhabi viewed the Muslims of his time as retrogressing to a pre-Islamic polytheism where its followers prayed to saints, made pilgrimages to the tombs of pious people, and numerous other practices that seemed to threaten the absolute monotheism of Islam.

Today, the chief foe of Wahhabism are the forces of modernity, secularism, and the idealism of the Enlightenment. (Curiously, the Wahhabis have no difficulty accepting the benefits of Western military technology!) In battling these modernistic adversaries, they are prepared to utilize even violence to eliminate the pagan competition.

Wahhabi believed that ritual laxity undermined the spirit of Islam and that only a return to true Islam held the key to a Muslim revitalization and renewal. However, those Muslims who did not adhere to the true fundamentals of Islam were not really considered, “authentic Muslims,” and ergo, then killing them is a licit act since they do not really follow the principles of Islam like they do.

When we read about the terrorist attack on the sacred Sufi shrine in the Pakistani mosque in Lahore on July 2, 2010, killed 42 and injured 175. This mosque was built by Sufi mystics, who happen to be the most peaceful and tolerant of all Islamic sects.

Most Americans and Western countries oppose the 19th and 20th century Muslim reform movements which reinterpreted aspects of Islamic law in order to bring it closer to standards set by the West, particularly with regards to topics like gender relations, family law, personal autonomy, and participatory democracy.

When we look at the supporters of the proposed Ground Zero mosque, we must ask ourselves whether this project is being financially underwritten by followers of the Wahhabi or not. Despite its small size, and despite Islam’s great ethnic religious diversity, the Wahhabi claim that their path is the only path of true Islam — and anyone who defies this teaching is an infidel. Continue Reading

Sacrilege at Ground Zero

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
08/15/2010 22:46

No German of good will would think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there – and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That’s why Disney’s early ‘90s proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.”

Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message, or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

BUT THEN, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi – spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history – perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi – yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called US policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician….The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want – but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz – and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

– The Washington Post

Hello everybody! I have been busy trying to get my new office ready here in Chula Vista, but I had to post this very important article by Caroline Glick, who happens to also be one of my favorite writers on Middle Eastern affairs.

The connection between Obama and his administration with Hamas is very disturbing. Frankly-it is downright amazing in light of the 9/11 attack on our country, yet Obama continues to court the very terrorists organizations that carried out this devastating attack upon our country.

Enabling evil is a serious and moral crime. Churchill said it best, “Appeasement is throwing someone else to the crocodiles in the hopes of being eaten last.” Our spineless presidential adminstration embodies this sick pathological attitude Churchill warned the future generations about.

Recently, we discovered that about 50% of the American Jewish community supports Obama-a far cry from the 80% who supported him during the last election. Now, let’s see if we can cut his support to 5% of the Jewish community. Unfortunately, many Jews love the Democratic Party more than they do the State of Israel. While it is true, Israel’s flirtation with Haredi Jewish leaders certainly does not engender warm and fuzzy feelings toward Israel, nevertheless, I believe this moment of history is a very special one. Our ancestors prayed for our eventual return to our homeland, are we going to trade our spiritual home for a pot of political-flavored lentils?

Remember: Supporting Hamas is like supporting the KKK.

==========================

How Hamas rises in the West

By Caroline B. Glick

It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. Here’s why

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Since the navy’s May 31 takeover of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisers have deliberated around the clock about how to contend with the US-led international stampede against Israel. But their ultimate decision to form an investigatory committee led by a retired Supreme Court justice and overseen by foreign observers indicates that they failed to recognize the nature of the international campaign facing us today.Led by US President Barack Obama, the West has cast its lot with Hamas. It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama’s friends, former Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fund-raiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is James Abourezk, a former US senator from South Dakota.

All of these people have open lines of communication not only to the Obama White House, but to Obama himself.

Obama has made his sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood clear several times since entering office. The Muslim Brotherhood’s progeny include Hamas, al-Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Last June, Obama infuriated the Egyptian government when he insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo. His administration’s decision to deport Hamas deserter and Israeli counterterror operative Mosab Hassan Yousef to the Palestinian Authority where he will be killed is the latest sign of its support for radical Islam.

Continue Reading

The following article is almost identical to a talk I gave earlier this week. I would only add that Turkey’s denial of the Darfur genocide should come as no surprise-especially when considering the indisputable fact that Turkey murdered over two million Arameans during WWI. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Put in different terms, the French Jewish philosopher writes that the human face is remarkable in one respect-nobody can really see one’s face without the help of a mirror. However, the Other person can see more of your face than you will ever directly see. This analogy fits the political problem as well. It takes a great deal of courage and objectivity for people inside a conflict to see the point of view of one’s neighbor. Israel’s concern for stability in its country is perfectly legitimate. Turkey is the instigator here, and let us hope and pray that the Turkish people act and remove this Hellian leader out of office.

Now, let’s see if we can get the other 50 % of the Jewish community to get rid of him and his leftist buddies.

After some thought, the idea occurred to me that the Flotilla is yet another type of smoke-screen intended to deflect the world’s attention from Iran and their race to build a nuclear bomb. As with baseball or tennis, it pays to keep our eye on the ball.

===============
Photo by: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Remember the sci-fi thriller, Independence Day? In one scene, President Thomas Whitmore appeals to the captured alien, and offers to share the planet in peace. He asks the alien, “What do you want us to do?” The Captured Alien says: “Die!!” Whitmore says, “Blast them!”

This episode reminds me a lot of the current crisis with Hamas, who is winning the PR war against Israel. No matter what Israel offers the Palestinians, nothing short of national suicide or genocide will satisfy the radical Muslim blood-lust. Steeped in a millennial hatred of the Jew, Europe supports Hamas because they hate seeing the Jew as vibrant and more virulent than they are. I realize these words probably will sting the sensibilities of leftists-Christian and Jewish-but that’s too bad.

Europeans have proven time and time again why the Holocaust occurred on their continent. In my opinion, the political left of Europe is bereft of a moral backbone, not to mention, a conscience. Obama’s lack of support speaks volumes. If reelected, you can be sure that Obama will be leading the chorus against Israel. A recent report says that 80% of American Jews voted for Obama. Now, he has only 50%. Frankly, he should have only 5%. Are we that foolish? Obama is Jimmy Carter redux.

Can we do better? YES WE CAN!

RMLS

=================

Charles Krauthammer on the president’s Israeli response
Thursday, June 03, 2010

HH: I’m joined now by Charles Krauthammer, who is a Washington Post columnist as well as a Fox News All-Star. Charles, earlier today, Jimmy Carter said that these tragic deaths are a terrible reminder that the failed policy of besieging Gaza mainly hurts civilians. He went on to say there is no way to realize the goal of a two-state solution as long as the people of Gaza remain isolated and deprived of their basic human rights. He certainly isn’t standing with Israel, is he?

CK: Yeah, and he also knows no history. I mean, his animus towards Israel overrides even logic in his case. The fact is that long before the blockade, long before any of this, Gaza, run by Hamas, is committed to the destruction of Israel. It has never accepted a two-state solution, so it is totally fatuous to say that in the absence of a blockade, or there was some change in Israeli policy, Hamas would ever agree to a two-state solution. It has repeated its opposition to Israel’s existence, and its determination to fight to the end to its destruction at every opportunity for thirty years. So what Carter says is the usual nonsense coming from him on the Middle East, and it’s worse than nonsense. It’s highly, highly prejudiced nonsense.

HH: Less than an hour ago, CNN released tape of Larry King asking President Obama about the Carter statement. Let me play you that tape, Charles, from CNN.

LK: Former President Carter has condemned the Israeli raid against those ships in the flotilla trying to break the blockade of Gaza.

BHO: Right.

LK: Where do stand on that? A former American president has condemned it.

BHO: Well, the United States with the other members of the UN Security Council said very clearly that we condemned all the acts that led up to this violence. It was a tragic situation. You’ve got loss of life that was unnecessary. And so we are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened, and I think the Israelis are going to agree to that, an investigation of international standards, because they recognize that this can’t be good for Israel’s long term security.

LK: Premature, then, to condemn Israel?

BHO: Well, I think that we need to know what all the facts are, but it’s not premature to say to the Israelis, and to say to the Palestinians, and to say to all the parties in the region, that the status quo is unsustainable. We have been trying to do this piecemeal for decades now. And it just doesn’t work. You’ve got to have a situation in which the Palestinians have real opportunity, and Israel’s neighbors recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns, and are committed to peace. Continue Reading

Note: I especially think the media needs to know that not even Egypt wants to see an end to the Gaza/Hamas embargo, which would ultimately serve to undermine their government because of the Muslim Brotherhood’s close ties to Hezbollah, Iran, and Al Qeida. This is-or ought to be-a real no-brainer, but the Turkish government seems to be totally deficient in that department. If anything, the blood of these “victims” is really on the hands of the Turks.

Here Is Daniel Gordis’s excellent article that appeared in the NY Times today.

============================

We lost the 2006 war in Lebanon, believing - incorrectly - that our venerated air force could win the war from the skies. The strikes on Gaza in December 2008 were a military success, but we have utterly failed to convince the world that it was a defensive effort precipitated by eight years of Hamas’s firing Qassam rockets at us, killing and maiming and destroying any semblance of a normal life for Israelis living near the border. And then came Monday’s attack on the flotilla trying to break through the naval blockade of Gaza.

Yet, despite widespread criticism at the way the raid was conducted, few here doubted that stopping the flotilla was the right thing to do. Life in Gaza is unquestionably oppressive; no one in his right mind would choose to live there. But there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; if anyone goes without food, shelter or medicine, that is by the choice of the Hamas government, which puts garnering international sympathy above taking care of its citizens. Israel has readily agreed to send into Gaza all the food and humanitarian supplies on the boats after they had been inspected for weapons.

Thus this flotilla was no “peace operation.” It was intended to break the blockade or to increase international pressure to end it. Its leaders, with the connivance of the Turkish government, set a trap, and Israel blundered smack into it.

But that does not make the blockade wrong. Hamas is a terrorist organization that completed its takeover of Gaza through brute force. It executes its political enemies at will. It is one of the world’s most misogynist regimes, allowing the murder of women for the slightest infraction of family honor.

Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from Israeli territory and has held him for four years without giving the Red Cross any access to him, in violation of the most basic international standards of conduct. And, of course, Hamas openly insists that it will countenance no long-term peace with Israel; the resistance will not end, it says, until Israel is destroyed.

Like every other country, Israel has as its foremost obligation the protection of its citizens. Given that, why should it have allowed the flotilla to enter without inspecting its goods? If the United States were to impose a blockade on Iran (which seems unlikely), and another country dispatched a string of ships in a similar operation, is there any chance the United States Navy would let them through without inspection?

Israel will, of course, endure tremendous international condemnation for this week’s events. Sadly, though, we Israelis are becoming somewhat inured to such criticism. And we know that we dare not capitulate now.

It is no accident that Turkey sent the flotilla at this time. It is clearly cozying up to Iran these days, even teaming with Brazil to offer Tehran a deal on atomic fuel that would allow the mullahs to maintain their effort to build a nuclear arsenal. Ankara’s warmongering talk this week was not intended for global consumption; it was meant to show Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Turkey is playing a new role in the Middle East.

Iran finances Hezbollah and Hamas and does everything it can to weaken and marginalize Israel, inching toward its vision of a world without a Jewish state. The West has known of Iran’s nuclear intentions for well over a decade, but has effectively done nothing. Israelis understand that we - and we alone - will have to ensure our security and our survival. Continue Reading

I cannot stand pretentious politicians -especially when they think they can manipulate the gullible American Jewish community, who routinely respond to Obama’s overtures like a Pavlovian dog. Wake up my people!

Obama is no Messiah. However, I would say that he is more like a Pied Piper, or better yet-a flimflam man.

Obama would sooner vilify Israel than deal with the “axis of evil” or confront their super-power enablers. Today’s Jerusalem Post’s edition of Caroline Glick’s brilliant article says it quite well. I dare say, “I told you so!”

Obama knows that if he wins the next election, he will continue his insane rhetoric of blaming his failed policies on Israel. I pray that my fellow rabbinic leaders will show some testicular strength in condemning Obama and his court Jews who have sold Israel and the Jewish people down the river.

The Jew is nothing more than a political means to a presidential end.

Note that Rahm Emanual recently celebrated his son’s Bar Mitzvah at the Western Wall! What a phony! Isn’t the Jewish part of Jerusalem, “occupied territory,” according to Obama, Biden, and Hillary? Let’s not give Obama a Kosher hechser-he is as kosher as Rubashkin.

Can we do better? YES WE CAN!

Let’s make Obama pay in November! A separation of powers in our government will protect not only Israel, but also the entire free world.

————————————————————-

Photo by: AP

Column One: Netanyahu, Obama’s newest prop

By CAROLINE GLICK
05/28/2010 15:25

Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.

Talkbacks (65)

The Democratic Party is feeling the heat for US President Barack Obama’s hostility towards Israel. In an interview with Channel 10 earlier this month, Democratic Party mega-donor Haim Saban characterized the Obama administration as ideologically aligned with the radical Left and harshly criticized its treatment of Israel.

Both Ma’ariv and Yediot Aharonot reported this week that Democratic congressmen and senators are deeply concerned that the administration’s harsh treatment of Israel has convinced many American Jews not to contribute to their campaigns or to the Democratic Party ahead of November 2’s mid-term elections. They also fear that American Jews will vote for Republican challengers in large numbers. Continue Reading