Obama's Israel Problem

Barack Obama has an Israel problem. I won’t say a Jewish problem, because that wouldn’t be “politically correct.” As we all know, anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Semitism (or is it?).

Anyway, the President’s Israel problem couldn’t be more obvious and it seems to have increased, or should I say metastasized, in parallel with his popular decline, almost in the way that classic Jew hatred increased during times of economic downturn (Weimar Republic, etc.) Not that anyone who spent two decades in Reverend Wright’s church with its hero worship of Louis Farrakhan and generally racist tinge was likely to be philo-Semitic. But things have gotten worse.

Indeed, his very close friends at the New York Times are now reporting that the President, in the wake of the supposedly surprise announcement of new Jewish housing units in Jerusalem, “has seized control of Middle East policy himself.” They go on to note : “Mr. Obama, incensed by that snub, has given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a list of demands, and relations between the United States and Israel have fallen into a chilly standoff.”


Incensed by the snub? List of demands. Chilly standoff? In other words, as we say in Hollywood, this time it’s personal. But should it be? How odd. A week or so ago, I wrote a post describing Barack Obama as President Weirdo . Indeed here we have more evidence of this psychological disturbance, because this response to Israel is not in the realm of the rational. It is highly neurotic. Somewhere in the unconscious of Barack Obama are a stew of forces now directed (or cathected) on the Jewish state and its leader. Not a healthy state of affairs for anyone. (Well, maybe for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Until now Jewish leaders had been relatively silent on the matter. Some of the more famous ones in my hometown of Hollywood (Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, David Geffen – supposedly great friends of Israel) have been as quiet as clams. But finally one is speaking up. Ron Lauder of the World Jewish Congress has written a strong letter of protest to Obama, which was published Thursday in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post – not, interestingly, in the aforementioned pro-Obama newspaper that notoriously misreported the Ukrainian Holodomor and underreported the Holocaust. In his letter, Mr. Lauder writes:

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9436

No. No it isn't.

There are times that people claim that they are simply anti-zionist not anti-semetic. But I have seen cases where that simply isn't true.

To say flat out that anti-zionism isn't antisemetism is not completely correct. It is not a black and white issue.

One can also pretend he is one when he really is the other. But they are two separate things entirely.

I just get so tired of seeing them conflated. Calling a critic of Israeli expansion a racist is not only tiresome and disingenuous; it is also nearly always inaccurate. But I suppose it is an effective means of shutting down debate.

this piece is the opposite of edifying.

But is the point of this to call Obama an anti-Semite, which I would take great exception to?

More specifically, its rightwing, religiously fundamentalist government which shifts the blame to Obama.

The Netanyahu govt and the right wingers in Israel are Israel's problem.

This post is simply nonsense.

I won't say a black or african-american problem (that wouldn't be politically correct). As we all know anti-Obamaism after the slightest criticism of Israel isn't racism is it?

Well, it is when you write ridiculous sentences like this these - "A week or so ago, I wrote a post describing Barack Obama as President Weirdo . Indeed here we have more evidence of this psychological disturbance, because this response to Israel is not in the realm of the rational. It is highly neurotic. Somewhere in the unconscious of Barack Obama are a stew of forces now directed (or cathected) on the Jewish state and its leader. Not a healthy state of affairs for anyone. (Well, maybe for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)"

His domestic political problem is that he cannot afford to do what should be done: cut off all military and other aid to Israel and stop supporting their war crimes and illegal occupation.

Israel's Israel problem is that it cannot bring itself to make the corrections that would allow it to make peace with Palestinians -- i.e., it persists in behavior that will ultimately lead to its destruction.

stuff from right wing sources doesn't make a good argument.

And what is it that you think I'm arguing? Is it possible for you to do anything but follow me round this forum throwing insults around?

If a source is allowed to be posted in this forum, I don't need yr approval to post it.

we both know what you're playing at. and don't inflate your importance, dear. I hardly follow you around.

If yr not willing to say what it is you think I'm doing, then might I suggest you stop carrying on about why you think I'm doing something? It does come across as just a bit ridiculous and very petty, considering I wasn't aware that you harboured such hostility towards me and am a bit surprised by the vehemence of it.

When it comes to importance, I'm pretty sure that pointing out that yr apparently fixated on following me around screeching at me is pointing out the blatantly obvious for anyone who's reading yr posts in this forum and doesn't involve any delusions of self-importance that might end up with me rushing round telling people if they don't like the rules to leave or to yell at them for daring to have a problem with one partisan source being forbidden while other equally partisan sources are still allowed. If I did that, I'd definately be full of my own self-importance ;)

I would wager that Israel needs Obama a bunch more than Obama needs Israel, but we will have to wait on events.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arutz_Sheva

Arutz Sheva (Hebrew: ערוץ שבע‎) (Channel Seven) is an Israeli media network identifying with Religious Zionism. It offers online news in English, Hebrew, French and Russian in three formats: written, internet radio, and internet television. The Israeli government has never granted it a license to broadcast, prompting charges of government discrimination against the Religious Zionist public. Arutz Sheva sees itself as "the only independent national radio station in Israel" and a counterbalance to "the 'negative thinking' and 'post-Zionist' attitudes so prevalent in Israel's liberal-left media."<1> Based in Judea and Samaria, Arutz Sheva is seen as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement.<2>



That source is approved by the mods but EI, which reflects a more widely varied range of views of a much larger population in that area is not allowed. Says something. This is not a call to ban material from sites operated by batshit crazy, hate-filled, deluded religious zealots. Their views are a part of the reality in that region. Suppressing views expressed via EI is obviously based on something other than the objective of presenting the whole picture.

What the hell is going on?

An uneven playing field where those who own the field and set the rules do what they always do. But they, like Obie, try (poorly) to pass as unbiased. Knowing that is fact, the best those in the "peace through justice" camp do is stay within the ever-narrowing rules imposed by those who moderate this site, Eventually they will ban us, as they have many pro-justice voices before.

(edit: replace an 'a' with an 'i')

It's little more than a mouthpiece of autocratic warmongering regimes which deny the most basic human rights to their own citizens.

I've always operated pretty well within the rules here and haven't had much cause for complaint. Up till now I haven't thought there was any uneven playing field thing happening, and would like to think there actually isn't and there's some other reasoning for the decision about EI. While there's been decisions made over the years I've been here that I go 'WTF?' about, those decisions haven't been the sort that suggest any bias and most of the time I could see the logic behind the decisions even if I didn't much like the decisions. This decision about EI is coming across as very different, and while it's sending one poster in this thread into a series of frenzied head explosions that any of us dare have a problem with a decision that on the face of it appears to be one where a double-standard has been applied, I've PMed Lithos and asked him why that decision has been made and voiced my strong opposition to it. If I don't like what I hear back, or if there is no explanation for that decision, I'll seriously reconsider continuing to participate here, and while there'll be jubilation and glee from some in this forum that I may leave, I'd kind of hope that me having been a part of the furniture here since 2002 might make some stop and think...