Barack Obama: "Enemy of the Jews"

[parky76]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131258.html

this is what more then a few Likudnicks in Israel are saying.

President Obama, in order to get peace talks going again, demanded that Israel suspend settlement construction, even if temporarily.

Not one country on Earth considers ANY of the settlements legal or legitimate, not even those in East Jerusalem.

But of course, most rational people understand that in any peace plan, some settlements will be annexed by Israel, in exchange for Israeli land for the Palestinians. President Obama and myself included.

Nevertheless, it is only prudent for Israel to temporarily suspend settlement construction to get peace talks going again.

So how does the Israeli right-wing react to this? They accuse President Obama, and by extension the USA, of being "an enemy of the Jews".

Because our President wants settlement construction to be temporarily suspended, he is now an "anti-Semite"???

President Obama has declared time and again, his commitment to a safe and secure State of Israel. I do not doubt this commitment one bit.

President Obama has also declared that if Iran dared to attack Israel, the USA would defend the Jewish State. I also do not doubt this commitment one bit.

President Obama has not suggested even once, that the generous billions of dollars in aide that we give to Israel every year, would be reduced for any reason...even during these trying times.

So, Likudnicks, how exactly is Obama "anti-Jew"????

What gives you guys the right to suggest that being against Jewish right-wing extremist goals and agendas makes one "an enemy of the Jews"????

Such chutzpah. Such arrogance. Such a disgrace to the millions of Jews who have been the tragic victims of true anti-Semitism. These Likudnicks, and all right-wing Jews and Christians who spew this venom, should be ashamed of themselves.

[parky76]

oh, come on guys!! nothing?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by parky76

oh, come on guys!! nothing?

Bacon.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by parky76

oh, come on guys!! nothing?

Would this be the first response to every parky baiter thread.

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Would this be the first response to every parky baiter thread.

nope. most of the time someone actually does say something. where is Marc39 when you need him?

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by parky76

nope. most of the time someone actually does say something. where is Marc39 when you need him?

It was a wish. I will forever be reaching for the stars...

[INRM]

Well that is Israel's general practice. If criticized for it's policies and practices, immediately accuse opposition of anti-semitism, or nazism.


INRM

[parky76]

Originally Posted by INRM

Well that is Israel's general practice. If criticized for it's policies and practices, immediately accuse opposition of anti-semitism, or nazism.

its not the official govt. practice. but it doesn't need to be, when they can rely on loud and obnoxious Likudniks to do it for them.

"oh I am shocked..shocked and such disrespect for the President of the USA!! now take the $50 and keep it up."

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Bacon.

So much for that adage. ;-)

As for the OP, I'm not sure what a likudnick even is and lost interest in them shortly after finding out they were declaring that anyone was an "enemy of the Jews". I mean, come on, say "enemy of Israel", and maybe I'll hear it out. But of "the Jews"? That's a little like saying sanctions against Iran makes us the "enemy of Islam". These guys shot their credibility with me in the foot with a bazooka.

[Skeptic]

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...

This is not Jew-hatred, but rather Obama's weak character: he is a wimp towards those who defy him and are his enemies, under the delusion that this will make them like him, while he ignores or threatens his allies -- because that is easy to do and looks like "progress" and "even handedness".

The lesson is clear: if you say "yes" to Obama, he will just demand more and more (like after stopping the settlements, which got enthusiastic responses from the Israeli left, made him demand stopping building in Jerusalem). If you defy him, he will be your rug mat (like the desire to continue the talks with Iran at any price -- including completely ignoring and throwing to the wolves the Iranian protesters. Wouldn't want to make Ahmadejinad angry, now would we?)

He isn't an antisemite. He's just a coward. He's like the wife-beater who brown-noses the boss, only on a global scale. Such folks are a dime a dozen, so it's not surprising one of them eventually became president.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

He isn't an antisemite. He's just a coward. He's like the wife-beater who brown-noses the boss, only on a global scale. Such folks are a dime a dozen, so it's not surprising one of them eventually became president.

"Wife-beater"? How is he like a wife-beater?

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...

Because being all heavy-handed with them worked so well when Dubya did it...

Quote:

"Wife-beater"? How is he like a wife-beater?

I think Skeptic means that Obama is afraid of Iran, and takes his frustration out on Israel. Because, you know, Israel is such a weak, defenseless country that can't stand up for itself and all that.

Wait. It isn't.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...

I'd like to point out that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, and that in any case Obama has opposed the Iranians getting nukes.

Obama has never mentioned Israel's nuclear weapons, BTW. On the nuclear issue, he is much more tolerant of Israel having such weapons than of Iran. So this is a rather bizarre accusation.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I'd like to point out that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, and that in any case Obama has opposed the Iranians getting nukes.

Obama has never mentioned Israel's nuclear weapons, BTW. On the nuclear issue, he is much more tolerant of Israel having such weapons than of Iran. So this is a rather bizarre accusation.

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do.

[Puppycow]

ADL Calls Israeli Settlement Freeze 'Courageous And Unprecedented'
Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies

Seems that American Jews, at least, are not so down on Obama as their Israeli counterparts.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do.

Quote:

"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable and we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening," Obama said Friday, in his first press conference as U.S. president-elect.

How is it softer?
Besides, the US is pushing for sanctions on Iran, while at the same time the US defends Israel at the United Nations.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

...snip...

Why is that odd for the President of Iran?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...

This is not Jew-hatred, but rather Obama's weak character: he is a wimp towards those who defy him and are his enemies, under the delusion that this will make them like him, while he ignores or threatens his allies -- because that is easy to do and looks like "progress" and "even handedness".

The lesson is clear: if you say "yes" to Obama, he will just demand more and more (like after stopping the settlements, which got enthusiastic responses from the Israeli left, made him demand stopping building in Jerusalem). If you defy him, he will be your rug mat (like the desire to continue the talks with Iran at any price -- including completely ignoring and throwing to the wolves the Iranian protesters. Wouldn't want to make Ahmadejinad angry, now would we?)

He isn't an antisemite. He's just a coward. He's like the wife-beater who brown-noses the boss, only on a global scale. Such folks are a dime a dozen, so it's not surprising one of them eventually became president.

You know, I thought that the decision to freeze settlement in the West Bank was made by some chap called Netanyahu, who is currently Prime Minister of some little country whose name escapes me right now.

Still apparently Obama said that it was a good idea OMG!!! I guess that's kinda like wife-beating, in a not-remotely-like-like-wife-beating sort of way. Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid. What will you do for hyperbole then?

At present, it seems that you accuse Obama of "brown-nosing" the Iranians and beating up the Israelis based solely on the shocking fact that he agrees with a decision made by the Prime Minister of Israel.

Sheesh.

[Dubbi]

Parky,

Haaretz is a left of center newspaper. Majority of right-wing Israelis and right-wing American Jews don't consider Obama to be an anti-Semite. My grandparents voted for McCain, yet when asked about Obama's win, they responded that they're fine with it as they find Obama to be an overall mensch. You'll also notice that the article mentions that Netanyahu distanced himself from this nonsense. I think you're desperately seeking to argue with the meshuge segment of the right wing, which is uncommon in Israel and less likely to appear on JREF. Might I suggest a different forum?

[Liszt]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

You know, I thought that the decision to freeze settlement in the West Bank was made by some chap called Netanyahu, who is currently Prime Minister of some little country whose name escapes me right now.

Still apparently Obama said that it was a good idea OMG!!! I guess that's kinda like wife-beating, in a not-remotely-like-like-wife-beating sort of way. Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid. What will you do for hyperbole then?

At present, it seems that you accuse Obama of "brown-nosing" the Iranians and beating up the Israelis based solely on the shocking fact that he agrees with a decision made by the Prime Minister of Israel.

Sheesh.

Brilliantly put, Dr A.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Bacon.

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

Given the long-term effects of bacon abuse, for the patient, weaponizing bacon would be redundant.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

Not sure, but the self-defense classes to protect against them would be delicious.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

Dip your bullets in the drippings, of course, as Black Jack Pershing (allegedly) did in the Philippines.

@ Cynic: thanks for getting the joke/ref.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Hmmm.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do.

I dunno. We expect better of those who know better. With the rest we do what we can to encourage them to wisen up. It's probably a little patronizing (by definition!) but I think the best diplomacy mimics parenting. Show that you care, encourage development, but don't be afraid to correct where necessary.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

"Wife-beater"? How is he like a wife-beater?

In the sense that he bullies those who are his allies and friends.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

In the sense that he bullies those who are his allies and friends.

The word "bully" probably isn't accurate here. Regardless, I think that sends the message that bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated. This is better, I think, than the message we traditionally send out, which is that if you're in the Allies Club, anything you do it OK, but if you're not, anything you do will be interpreted in the worst possible light and possibly punished.

[Darth Rotor]

Parky, if Barack Obama is the enemy of the Jews, then why did 70-80% of the Jewish vote go to Obama in the 2008 US election? Are the vast bulk of Jews practicing self-haters, who vote for their enemy? I mean, parky, come on, Hussein is his middle name. You don't need to be Einstein to figure this one out.

It is tiring using that much sarcasm.

DR

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Parky, if Barack Obama is the enemy of the Jews, then why did 70-80% of the Jewish vote go to Obama in the 2008 US election? Are the vast bulk of Jews practicing self-haters, who vote for their enemy ?

according to the Likudnicks? you betcha!!

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Dubbi

Parky,
I think you're desperately seeking to argue with the meshuge segment of the right wing, which is uncommon in Israel and less likely to appear on JREF. Might I suggest a different forum?

do you know how many times I have been called a self-hating Jew, for exposing racism of right-wing Israeli rabbis and politicians?

do you know how many times I have been accused of falsifying my Jewish identity, because of standing up for the 2-state solution and being opposed to the settlements?

you are a new member, so you're lack of experience at JREF is understood.

[Vorticity]

Quote:

Barack Obama: "Enemy of the Jews"

Enemy of the Jews? C'mon, what's the big deal? I mean, seriously, who isn't?

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by puppycow

How is it softer?

The call for an immediate freeze of all settlement was a precondition to negotiations, IIRC. In the context of the negotiations in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, this was a stronger demand than any in recent memory and, as such, not something the Israelis would necessarily agree to. (Understatement.)

Now, in the context of the Iranian/American standoff, what are Obama's preconditions to negotiation?

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

The call for an immediate freeze of all settlement was a precondition to negotiations, IIRC. In the context of the negotiations in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, this was a stronger demand than any in recent memory and, as such, not something the Israelis would necessarily agree to. (Understatement.)

Now, in the context of the Iranian/American standoff, what are Obama's preconditions to negotiation?

These are different things, really. Between the Israelies and the Palistinians, it's important that both sides be taken seriously, which also means that both sides need to be treated equally. We normally treat Israel as special and beyond repproach. Besides being a refreshing change of pace, this is also correct.

With regard to Iran, this is different in that it's between us (and I suppose the world) and Iran, but it's over an issue that doesn't involve Iran's neighbors. While it's completely understandable that we don't want Iran to possess nuclear capability, it's also irrefutable that no one has any damned business telling them they can't have it. If we're to encourage them to stop, we need to ask as if we recognize that basic fact.

ETA: BTW, Sporanox, where did you get that avatar? I really like it.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Cynic

These are different things, really. Between the Israelies and the Palistinians, it's important that both sides be taken seriously, which also means that both sides need to be treated equally. We normally treat Israel as special and beyond repproach. Besides being a refreshing change of pace, this is also correct.

There are reasons to be partial to Israel, but never mind them. The trendy thing these days is to desire pragmatism. Obama's approach stalled the negotiations. Therefore, according to a pragmatic viewpoint, this is incorrect.

Quote:

With regard to Iran, this is different in that it's between us (and I suppose the world) and Iran, but it's over an issue that doesn't involve Iran's neighbors. While it's completely understandable that we don't want Iran to possess nuclear capability, it's also irrefutable that no one has any damned business telling them they can't have it. If we're to encourage them to stop, we need to ask as if we recognize that basic fact.

You think nuclear capability doesn't involve Iran's neighbors? That's hilarious. Never mind that their president has called for the annihilation of Israel; Iran is a Shi'ite regime, a minority in Islam. A number of its neighbors in the ME are Sunni. Iran possessing a nuclear bomb would set off a chain reaction of untold consequences.

A basic fact, indeed.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Cynic

The word "bully" probably isn't accurate here. Regardless, I think that sends the message that bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated.

Funny. He seems to send the exact opposite message to Iran: for example, he totally ignored the Iranian protesters; and he rushed to Iran with yet another proposal for "negotiations" about whether it will be really nice and stop its nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran completely ignored all previous such negotiations and broke all previous agreements.

It is only "bad behavior" (building a house for Jews where he doesn't like it) by allies and friends that is dealt with harshly and is "not tolerated". Bad behavior by totalitarian thugs -- like building an A-bomb to wipe out said Jews -- gets Obama groveling, all in the name of "realistic power politics" and "pragmatism".

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

There are reasons to be partial to Israel, but never mind them. The trendy thing these days is to desire pragmatism. Obama's approach stalled the negotiations. Therefore, according to a pragmatic viewpoint, this is incorrect.

The proper application of pragmatism requires the proper application of perspective. In the game of go, there is a circumstance called atari in which the placement of a stone results in taking territory, but your opponent's next placement will reverse it to the initial conditions. Following a more myopic pragmatism results in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat and the larger goal of the game is lost. So to preserve a larger sense of pragmatism, the rules stipulate that such situations are avoided. Feeding into the same cycle of letting Israel do whatever they want and treating Palistine like a red-headed step child, however "pragmatic", has proven to be an atari-style stituation for years.

Originally Posted by Sporanox

You think nuclear capability doesn't involve Iran's neighbors? That's hilarious. Never mind that their president has called for the annihilation of Israel; Iran is a Shi'ite regime, a minority in Islam. A number of its neighbors in the ME are Sunni. Iran possessing a nuclear bomb would set off a chain reaction of untold consequences.

A basic fact, indeed.

Slippery slope (even if you're right). Regardless of the consequences, Iran has no real obligation to listen to us just because we said so. Their autonomy is their right, and if we want them to willingly give up one of their rights, we need to give them a reason to. Demanding that they concede the argument as a condition of having the discussion not only isn't pragmatic, it's childish.

ETA: in the above discussion involving go, I'm basically refering to prevention of "ko fights". I'm not sure about the terminology, but I hope you get my drift.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Funny. He seems to send the exact opposite message to Iran: for example, he totally ignored the Iranian protesters; and he rushed to Iran with yet another proposal for "negotiations" about whether it will be really nice and stop its nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran completely ignored all previous such negotiations and broke all previous agreements.

It is only "bad behavior" (building a house for Jews where he doesn't like it) by allies and friends that is dealt with harshly and is "not tolerated". Bad behavior by totalitarian thugs -- like building an A-bomb to wipe out said Jews -- gets Obama groveling, all in the name of "realistic power politics" and "pragmatism".

I'm not sure how your philosophy leads to anything that isn't war, Skeptic. Are you suggesting your proposed tactics would work on the US? Why or why not? And if they wouldn't work on the US, why would you expect them to work anywhere else? Can you elaborate?

[FireGarden]

I think Israel needs more "enemies" like Obama and Carter (remember that anti-Semitic peace maker?) and fewer "friends" like Bush.

(Real) Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Cynic

The proper application of pragmatism requires the proper application of perspective. In the game of go, there is a circumstance called atari in which the placement of a stone results in taking territory, but your opponent's next placement will reverse it to the initial conditions. Following a more myopic pragmatism results in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat and the larger goal of the game is lost. So to preserve a larger sense of pragmatism, the rules stipulate that such situations are avoided. Feeding into the same cycle of letting Israel do whatever they want and treating Palistine like a red-headed step child, however "pragmatic", has proven to be an atari-style stituation for years.

Forgive me for not believing that a move widely recognized (even by the NYT) to be the diplomatic equivalent of slipping on a banana peel is a brilliant tactical adjustment in a long-running go game.

Quote:

Slippery slope (even if you're right). Regardless of the consequences, Iran has no real obligation to listen to us just because we said so. Their autonomy is their right, and if we want them to willingly give up one of their rights, we need to give them a reason to. Demanding that they concede the argument as a condition of having the discussion not only isn't pragmatic, it's childish.

Who said that the precondition had to be "you will never produce a nuclear bomb?" That would indeed be a childish maneuver, because Iran denies trying to produce a bomb in the first place.

Besides that, a nation like Iran really has no inherent right to atomic weaponry. If the regime has consistently been provocatively and idiotically dangerous ever since they came to power, there's no reason to let them have the nuclear button. Because we have one? Give me a break.

Quote:

ETA: in the above discussion involving go, I'm basically refering to prevention of "ko fights". I'm not sure about the terminology, but I hope you get my drift.

I think so. You mean we want to avoid a stalemate, yes?