Wednesday, June 3, 2015

The First Jewish President?

If no one ever calls you out on your lies you will eventually believe them.

Recently, former Obama advisor David Axelrod recounted that Barack Obama once declared himself to be:

… the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office….For people to say that I am anti-Israel, or, even worse,  anti-Semitic, it hurts.

As the old saying goes, the truth hurts, even for Jeremiah Wright’s protégé.

Responding to the claim, Nile Gardiner reposted a list he made in 2010 after the first fifteen months of the Obama administration.

Gardiner introduced the list:

In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of “smart power” has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s naïve approach since he took office.

The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.

I will spare you the insults and invective that President Obama has consistently heaped on the Israeli Prime Minister. At this point, I do not need to explain that while Barack Obama bows down to America’s enemies, he has singled out the nation of Israel for special opprobrium.

Among his many dubious achievements, count this one: Barack Obama has helped make the world safe for anti-Semitism.

I will only quote one item on Gardiner’s list. It concerns the role that Hillary Clinton played in the administration’s early efforts to blame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Israeli settlements.

Here is the Telegraph report on Hillary Clinton’s efforts, because-- you know it-- we will soon be hearing that the Clintons are the best American friends that Israel has ever had:

In a telephone call, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, ordered Mr. Netanyahu to reverse a decision to build 1,600 homes for Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem that sparked the diplomatic row. She also instructed him to issue a formal pledge that peace talks would focus on core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the borders of a Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli prime minister was urged to make a substantial confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton suggested this could take the form of prisoner releases, an easing of the blockade of Gaza and the transfer of greater territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control.

Note the verbs: Hillary “ordered” and “instructed” the prime minister of Israel to do what she wanted him to do.

It should be fairly obvious that the Axelrod statement has less to do with Barack Obama and more to do with the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

You see, Obama has succeeded in alienating many Jewish Democrats. The Clinton campaign needs their support and is now working to bring them into the fold. The first step is to send out a former Obama campaign manager to lie about Obama’s record toward Israel.


Sam L. said...

These people are self-deluded. Or perhaps pathological liars. Hard to tell, these days.

Ares, Ares. Not buying that.

priss rules said...

To the extent that 80% of Jews voted for Obama in 2008 and 70% did in 2012, and given that 65% of donations to the Democratic Party comes from Jewish-Americans, it's fair to say that Obama has been pretty popular with the great majority of Jews.

Also, his Iran policy has the full endorsement of J-Street that seeks a more of a conciliatory approach. J-street is just the more Liberal version of AIPAC.

Israel has 200 to 300 nukes and rejects any international inspections. Obama hasn't brought that up as an issue. Instead, he's working to prevent Iran from getting nukes through a deal. Good deal or bad deal, there's no doubt that he's far more pro-Zionist than pro-Iranian.

Sam L. said...

So he claims, priss. May I ask why you believe it?

priss rules said...

"So he claims, priss. May I ask why you believe it?"

Obama couldn't have risen so high so fast without key support of prominent Jews in the academia, media, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc.

In 2008, Goldman Sachs was one of his biggest backers.

What I believe is immaterial. I didn't make him. Jewish community play an essential role in making him president. So, if he is bad for Jews, Jews did it to themselves.

Ares Olympus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ares Olympus said...

It seems part of the confusion is that "Liberal Jews" are apparently rather different than "Conservative Jews".

Like someone said recently there were no Protestants on the Supreme Court, but 3 Jews and I looked it up, and turns out all three Jews are Liberal.

But back to Obama, he's picked two women for the court, one Catholic and one Jewish. It looks like Bill Clinton picked two Jews, both liberal, so perhaps Bill gets credit for the first black president and the first Jewish president?

People used to be afraid of Catholics running for President because he might take orders from the Pope, and so John Kennedy was the first Catholic (and only) I think. But now we have 6 of 9 of the supreme court Catholic! Wow!

Maybe Obama will be the bridge to the first Woman president OR the first Jewish president (or both!), but will she or he be conservative or liberal?

What if we have a liberal Jewish president who was merely neutral on Israel or Zionism? How could Israel handle that humiliation?
Antonin Scalia - Catholic, b.1950
Clarence Thomas - Catholic, b.1948
John Roberts - Catholic, b.1955
Samuel A. Alito - Catholic, b.1950

Anthony Kennedy - Catholic, b.1936

Sonia Sotomayor - Catholic, b.1954
Stephen G. Breyer - Judaism, b.1938
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Judaism, b.1933
Elena Kagan - Judaism, b.1960

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Re, Priss's last comment. It is absolutely true that Jewish Americans supported Obama strongly and wholeheartedly. It's not an exaggeration to say that the Obama anti-israel policies are something that jews did to themselves. Over the years I have often noted the point on this blog.

Sam L. said...

priss, I stated my question wrong. It should have been, why do you believe this:
"...he's working to prevent Iran from getting nukes through a deal. Good deal or bad deal, there's no doubt that he's far more pro-Zionist than pro-Iranian." That's his story, and he's sticking to it. I see no reason to believe it, nor to trust John Kerry.

High Arka said...

Given that...

1) the U.S. and the U.K. created Israel, and given that...

2) the U.S. has fought more than half a century of active or proxy warfare to topple any regional power that Israel's enemies, and given that...

3) the U.S. is often the only other country in the entire world that votes in favor of Israel at the U.N., allowing Israel to defy the rest of humanity, and given that...

4) the Israeli "economy" only exists because of constant U.S. foreign aid, including $3 billion a year in free military equipment transferred from non-Jewish American citizens, and given that...

5) Israel is the only country in the last century to have openly attacked the American military and killed American servicemen, and was not only not counterattacked, but was not even made to apologize...

...given all this, isn't it perfectly reasonable to expect that the U.S. could order Israel to do something?

That's all assuming you believe that silly story about Hillary--who's been a Zionist for the past half of her life, and one of the fiercest advocates for murdering dozens of millions of Iranians to appease Israel--"ordering" Israel to do anything in the first place. But even if you do actually believe such a silly media line from the politically-correct, Saddam-has-WMDs corporate media, wouldn't it still be appropriate for America to give orders under the threat of withdrawing $3 billion a year in military aid?