Advocacy group to Obama: Picking a fight with Israel could encourage anti-semitism

posted at 2:38 pm on April 17, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the Hill, a climate-of-hate communique from the America-Israel Friendship League. Don’t you hate it when mainstream political actors are held responsible for crimes committed by a violent fringe?

Personally, I blame Rush Limbaugh.

Israel’s announcement of its decision by a low level bureaucrat during Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel did not justify unduly critical comments. We acknowledge that Israel’s announcement was poor timing given the purpose of Vice President Biden’s trip to Israel and his deep commitment to Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister quickly recognized this unfortunate indiscretion and extended his public apology-an appropriate and proper response to the United States. But instead of this matter being put to rest and any further differences privately resolved as befitting close allies, the incident was used as grounds for criticizing Israel publicly, and perhaps attempting either explicitly or implicitly to humiliate its Prime Minister. Such actions are not justified against a close, democratic ally with whom policy differences arise. Both Democrats and Republicans on the AIFL Board were distressed by the actions of the government in this very public shaming of Israel. At a time when Israel is facing a very well financed and concerted campaign by its enemies to delegitimize its existence as a state (e.g., the Goldstone Report), the actions of your Administration were not in line with our values. Israel’s conduct cannot serve as a basis for any radical change in U.S. policy…

Our concerns are not only with the breach of good relations between two countries that we love and hold dear to us but we are concerned with the possibility that such extreme words coming from the United States following numerous apologies from the Prime Minister will give aid and comfort to those who seek to incite hatred of Israel and, indeed of Jews.

The United States, the world community and Israel face unparalleled challenges from Iran. This is not a time to exacerbate any real or perceived slights.

They’re not accusing him of deliberately inciting animus towards Israel, of course (even if he does, perhaps, harbor some himself), but then the “climate of hate” game has never depended upon deliberate incitement. If it did, there’d be relatively few opportunities to play it and it would lose its usefulness politically. Typically the basic charge is one of recklessness, not intent — that hostile rhetoric, in Bill Clinton’s words, falls on the “serious and the delirious and the connected and the unhinged alike,” and that we should be ever mindful of how the unhinged may perceive mainstream cues that their hostility is legitimate. How we’re supposed to gauge what someone who’s off his rocker does and doesn’t take as a “cue” is beyond me, but then that was oddly never much of a worry during the golden years of “Bush = Hitler” excess or, more recently, the heyday of crap about “evil-mongers” and a new Kristallnacht pouring from the mouths of bottom-feeders like Harry Reid and Frank Rich.

Anyway, the lesson, put simply, is don’t get too angry or else some crank you’ve never met and never would meet in a thousand years might get even angrier. Which brings us back to the AIFL’s letter to Obama: There are an awful lot of angry, Jew-hating cranks out there right now, more so than in any year since 1945 if the director of the ADL is to be believed. And since it’s hard to say for sure what cues, if any, a jihadist nut will take from White House anger towards Israel (a state led by jihadist nuts is easier to predict), there’s no reason to laugh off the AIFL’s concerns. I’ll make Obama a deal: If he wants to tell them to get bent, that he’s not responsible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being an opportunistic terrorist degenerate, I’ll back him 100 percent — just as soon as he has that chat with Harry Reid about “evil-mongers.” How about it, champ?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Advocacy group to Obama: Picking a fight with Israel could encourage anti-semitism

Earth to advocacy group: Not as much as selecting for President a man who spent 20 years in hyper anti-semite Jeremy Wrights church.

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 2:40 PM

There are an awful lot of angry, Jew-hating cranks out there right now, more so than in any year since 1945 if the director of the ADL is to be believed.

They should not be worrying about the ones who are “out there” but rather about the ones who are “in there”.

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM

And since it’s hard to say for sure what cues, if any, a jihadist nut will take from White House anger towards Israel (a state led by jihadist nuts is easier to predict), there’s no reason to laugh off the AIFL’s concerns.

Obummer’s habit of ticking off his “Muslim street cred” won’t help dissipate the perceived “White House anger towards Israel”…

ladyingray on April 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM

You think?

Inanemergencydial on April 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM

78% of Jews voted for Obama.

nondhimmie on April 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Anti-Semites don’t require outside encouragement. The voices in their heads do enough damage.

SKYFOX on April 17, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Which begs the question…

… Why didn’t the media ask if there were any Jews at the TEA Parties?

/

Seven Percent Solution on April 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM

78% of Jews voted for Obama.

nondhimmie on April 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM

… and all they got was this stupid bumper sticker!

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the region and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

HalJordan on April 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Oh yeah criticize the likudniks and you are an anti-Semite despite the fact that most Israelis do not support this government or its policies on settlements.

I guess second guessing Obama or any American leader’s decisions is anti-American.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I understand their point, and agree with your characterization of it, AP…

… but am I the only one who’s so, so, SO DARN TIRED of the fact that contemporary public discourse seems to have been reduced to taking turns yelling “No, you’re racist!”

Inkblots on April 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Apparently, in America, having Jewish parents makes you about as Jewish as being named Ronald Reagan Jr. makes you like Ronald Reagan. In other words, not much.

RBMN on April 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Oh yeah criticize the likudniks and you are an anti-Semite despite the fact that most Israelis do not support this government or its policies on settlements.

I guess second guessing Obama or any American leader’s decisions is anti-American.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Building within one’s political boundaries is not acceptable?

Ok…I think I got it…

Inanemergencydial on April 17, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the region and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

HalJordan on April 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM

It sounds like you are blaming Israel for all America’s problems in the Middle East.

KentAllard on April 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM

78% of Jews voted for Obama.

nondhimmie on April 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM

They should have joined the demand that the LATIMES release the tape.

Oh welz.

Reap it.

artist on April 17, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Earth to advocacy group: Not as much as selecting for President a man who spent 20 years in hyper anti-semite Jeremy Wrights church.

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Indeed, indeed. The big surprise in all this is the take of the Clintons. Obama is who he is. That the Clintons aren’t any smarter and more convicted on this topic are the big news.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Oh yeah criticize the likudniks and you are an anti-Semite despite the fact that most Israelis do not support this government or its policies on settlements.

I guess second guessing Obama or any American leader’s decisions is anti-American.

lexhamfox on April 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I just checked: Most Israelis think you’re changing the subject, cherry-picking polls, blurring distinctions, and making things up to suit your preconceived notions.

CK MacLeod on April 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I’m wating for Nancy Pelosi to go in front of the cameras and start crying because she is so concerned about the climate of hate that Obama is creating toward Jews. I’m sure it’s coming soon.

/s

JohnInCA on April 17, 2010 at 3:09 PM

HotAir commenter to advocacy group: Do you really think he doesn’t know that already?

DrMagnolias on April 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM

My big problem with this whole thing is the attempted insulation of Israel from any criticism by a claim that anyone who finds fault with how Israel treats segments of its own population is, ipso facto, an anti-Semite out to incite hatred of Jews, or, only slightly less worse, out to advocate the destruction of Israel itself.

I’m upset with the Israelis over the East Jerusalem thing — just as I am with them over the West Bank. That said, these things are problems with Israel’s internal rule of law, and while I find fault with Israel in these areas, I have no doubt that, were the Palestinians of the West Bank and of Gaza ascendant tomorrow, the Jews of Israel as a whole would fare much worse than any of the Palestinians currently living under Israeli law.

That said, I cannot sit by silently when Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have half of their house taken and given to Settlers because they failed to secure a building permit for the portion given away, even though that portion was built upon their property. It’s a type of eminent domain as bad as Kelo et al v. City of New London — a decision which certainly angered conservatives of nearly all stripes. Cannot sit by when Settlers, using falsified deeds, evict Palestinian families to take their property.

I hold Israel to the same standards I hold my own Governments (national, state, local, redevelopment agency, etc), and when it comes up short, I criticize it.

To put it another way, I don’t consider such criticism any different from the acts of those here, including myself, who criticize Obamacare (and, in the eyes of our adversaries, are therefore counted as potential terrorists).

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Advocacy group to Obama: Picking a fight with Israel could encourage anti-semitism

Earth to advocacy group: Not as much as selecting for President a man who spent 20 years in hyper anti-semite Jeremy Wrights church.

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 2:40 PM

I agree, it is utterly senseless how it was and remains that high majority among American Jews support/ed Obama. It’s senseless, it’s self destructive, it’s just…senseless.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM

There are an awful lot of angry, Jew-hating cranks out there right now, more so than in any year since 1945 if the director of the ADL is to be believed.

Yeah, and they’re Liberals, Democrats, Anarchists and Muslims.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I agree, it is utterly senseless how it was and remains that high majority among American Jews support/ed Obama. It’s senseless, it’s self destructive, it’s just…senseless.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Hey, I’m Catholic, and the Catholic vote went to Obama too. There’s no religious requirement for Facepalming Lessons.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM

That said, I cannot sit by silently when Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have half of their house taken and given to Settlers because they failed to secure a building permit for the portion given away, even though that portion was built upon their property.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM

This is pure bullsh*t.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

HalJordan on April 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM

So you are saying that our support for Israel is causing most of the violence against us and against our troops by Muslims incited by Israel and if we just stop supporting Israel that would go away? That sounds like blame Israel first.

Joe Bloggs on April 17, 2010 at 3:18 PM

That said, I cannot sit by silently when Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have half of their house taken and given to Settlers because they failed to secure a building permit for the portion given away, even though that portion was built upon their property.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Well, I can’t sit by silently when innocent Israelis have rockets rained down upon them continuously from members of these “peace-loving” Palestinians. Or when they name public squares after people whose soul accomplishment in life was to slaughter innocent men, women and children. But, hey, to each his own, right?

JohnInCA on April 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Hey, I’m Catholic, and the Catholic vote went to Obama too. There’s no religious requirement for Facepalming Lessons.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Yes, but Catholics are not Jews and vice-versa, and, Obama is decidedly “in love with Pokeystahn” as he is molded by the Nation of Islam.

I just see no logic in your response there…on this particular thread, about this particular issue.

P.S.: Jews are by ethnicity defined; Catholics are by profession of faith (in Catholic theology) defined — I just don’t follow what logic you’re using there.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM

This man or anyone else could not sit in Rev Wright church for 20 years and not be some what anti- semitic.The degree of anti-antisemitism that Obama has would also depend on his Muslim influence that he has had over his life.Only time will tell but it does not look good.

thmcbb on April 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM

That said, I cannot sit by silently when Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have half of their house taken and given to Settlers because they failed to secure a building permit for the portion given away, even though that portion was built upon their property.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM

This is pure bullsh*t.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I agree with Shy Guy.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM

I’m wating for Nancy Pelosi to go in front of the cameras and start crying because she is so concerned about the climate of hate that Obama is creating toward Jews. I’m sure it’s coming soon.

JohnInCA on April 17, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Everyone including Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi knows that the Tea Party Movement is being financed and controlled by the Jews.
- Jeremy Wright

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM

If there were no Joooos, Big Macs would be half price.

BL@KBIRD on April 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

78% of Jews voted for Obama.

nondhimmie on April 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Next time, not so much… I hope…

Khun Joe on April 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

P.S.: Jews are by ethnicity defined; Catholics are by profession of faith (in Catholic theology) defined — I just don’t follow what logic you’re using there.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM

A non-observant person born of Catholic parents and a non-observant person born of Jewish parents can equally hold beliefs completely contrary to their familiy’s religious beliefs and upbringing.

The fact that one born a Jew technically remains a Jew is according to Jewish law, which non-observant Jews do not abide by or hold relevant in any case.

Some of the best anti-Semites are Jews.

What’s so hard to understand?

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

If there were no Joooos, Big Macs would be half price.

BL@KBIRD on April 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

And Walmart would have a lot more price reductions and K-mart would have far more Bluelight Specials. Toyotas would stop a lot better too.

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Advocacy group to Obama: Picking a fight with Israel could encourage anti-semitism

More than the administration already is?

Speakup on April 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

If there were no Joooos, Big Macs would be half price.

BL@KBIRD on April 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

As would be the price of kosher chickens.

Wait a minute…..

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

<em>Toyotas would stop a lot better too.

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Aw, c’mon! Give us a brake, will ya!

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM

This man or anyone else could not sit in Rev Wright church for 20 years and not be some what anti- semitic.The degree of anti-antisemitism that Obama has would also depend on his Muslim influence that he has had over his life.Only time will tell but it does not look good.

thmcbb on April 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM

That’s why McCain really dropped the ball with his high-road, I won’t make an issue out of Jeremiah Wright approach.

The Wright influence can be seen in many things Obama does, from apologizing for America’s sins to weakening our superpower posture to his treatment of Israel. Even the way he disparages average Americans by ridiculing the tea parties.

It was a legitimate campaign issue, but McCain and many others let the MSM and Democrats decide for us what was legitimate and what wasn’t.

JohnInCA on April 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Toyotas GM’s would stop a lot better too.

MB4 on April 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Governemnt media quiet on that since they run GM right?

Inanemergencydial on April 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Governemnt media quiet on that since they run GM right?

Inanemergencydial on April 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Forgot the link

Inanemergencydial on April 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

This is pure bullsh*t.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Care to lick some?

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Hey, I’m Catholic, and the Catholic vote went to Obama too. There’s no religious requirement for Facepalming Lessons.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Yup.

ladyingray on April 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Care to lick some?

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Why? You’re so full of it, you have to give it away?

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM

The fact that one born a Jew technically remains a Jew is according to Jewish law, which non-observant Jews do not abide by or hold relevant in any case.

Some of the best anti-Semites are Jews.

What’s so hard to understand?

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Only the mother determines the born Jewishness of her offspring. A child born to a Jewish father and a Catholic mother is not automatically born a Jew, unlike a child born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father, regardless of the religion of the child.

Thus, Jewishness is an intransitive relation.

Or, to put it another way, Jewishness is carried in the mitochondria.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Why? You’re so full of it, you have to give it away?

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM

No, I’m selling. Thank you for buying.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

A non-observant person born of Catholic parents and a non-observant person born of Jewish parents can equally hold beliefs completely contrary to their familiy’s religious beliefs and upbringing.

The fact that one born a Jew technically remains a Jew is according to Jewish law, which non-observant Jews do not abide by or hold relevant in any case.

Some of the best anti-Semites are Jews.

What’s so hard to understand?

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

On RELIGIOUS terms, on a religious basis — Judaism, Orthodoy — I agree with you, BUT “Jewish” remains AN ETHNICITY. The religious aspect — whether one is Orthodox (religious as Jew, engaged in Orthodoxy in a sincere and practicing, observant fashion) is apart from the ethnicity aspect.

Born to a Jewish female, I believe, is the “ethnicity” defining aspect to “being Jewish” for people who define as Jewish by ethnicity and only by ethnicity.

The religious beliefs are apart from that…the cultural and ethnic aspects are what mostly, in my experience, describe most Liberals in the U.S. who are Jewish, or call themselves such, and that includes a lot of the Reformists, who are essentially engaged in a unique and uniquely Leftwing social process.

“Being Catholic” isn’t something one is born into as an ethnicity (it’s not inherent to one’s biology as “being Jewish” is)…

That’s my only point.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM

@unclesmrgol: Jerusalem has granted 36,000 housing permits to its Arabs in recent years – an average of almost one building permit per Arab family I would bet – yet Arabs have built 6000 illegal structures, many of them large multistorey buildings. I’m sure plenty of Jews would trade whatever “eminent domain” rights you accuse them of exploiting for an equal respect for law on the other side.

Seth Halpern on April 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM

On RELIGIOUS terms, on a religious basis — Judaism, Orthodoy

ORTHODOXY ^^ not “Orthodoy”…argh.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:54 PM

No, I’m selling. Thank you for buying.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

By all means, add it to you accounts receivable. Enjoy your retirement with it.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Some of the best anti-Semites are Jews.

What’s so hard to understand?

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

I don’t believe I have any problems “understand(ing)” Anti-Semitism and who and what “being Jewish” is nor what it means to be a Catholic.

I just point out that the earlier poster made illogical assumptions associating the two in a post (here) about Israel.

In my experience, there are as many profane, insincere people defining themselves as Catholics (Nancy Pelosi comes to mind, along with many others like her) as there are, also, defining as Jews…BUT THE TERMS ARE DISPARATE (first is a religious insincerity, hypocrisy, profanity, second is an ethnic variation of defining terms, THEN the religious, but both aren’t the issue of this post, so the comparison is illogical).

This is one of those distorted points over the course of several comments that becomes quickly impossible to understand.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

@unclesmrgol: Jerusalem has granted 36,000 housing permits to its Arabs in recent years – an average of almost one building permit per Arab family I would bet – yet Arabs have built 6000 illegal structures, many of them large multistorey buildings. I’m sure plenty of Jews would trade whatever “eminent domain” rights you accuse them of exploiting for an equal respect for law on the other side.

Seth Halpern on April 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM

6000 illegal structures, many of them large multistory buildings. OK, so should the State give these buildings to Settlers, or should they make them demolish or return the land to its conforming state?

Seeing as I don’t have access to the interesting information you have, could you post a link?

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

As a person whose family store was taken by eminent domain for the Stadium Way offramp to Dodger Stadium, I have a peculiarly strong interest in property rights. When I see the disregard of those rights, I get quite upset. We got pennies on the dollar for our property, and I see these people getting nothing for theirs. Either is unfair.

You are welcome to justify theft anyway you care to, but it’s still theft.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

By all means, add it to you accounts receivable. Enjoy your retirement with it.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

I gave the money to Obama. He’s speaking for me in this particular instance.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

I’ll only bother with your first link, to the Palestinian paper going by the Hebrew name of “Ha’Aretz”.

Why don’t you read the article yourself and explain to us why the illegal Arab tenants should not be evicted from property which does not belong to them.

Lots more stories and info here.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Hmmm. I wonder what President Intafada has to say for himself. Is he amused by irate Jews, or is that feeling held in reserve just for the Tea Party?

EMD on April 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Lots more stories and info here.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM

You betcha:

If this were not the case, you wouldn’t be seeing the exercises of Jewish sovereignty that are taking place in areas like Shimon HaTzadik/Sheikh Jarrah, the Mount of Olives and the City of David/Silwan. None of these moves has aroused any opposition in the Knesset.

Hmm. I wonder what those code words mean. They sound like something familiar, from another generation….

Liebensraum. That’s the word. Liebensraum.

Two links are from the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, while the others are from the LA Times and the Guardian. While all newspaper stories should be viewed in the light of primary sources, there are none here, so we need to rely upon a large number of secondary sources, each offering a bit of the data we need.

What we find here is what I call a taking — a use of eminent domain to separate a property owner from his property. And, judging from the last article, the documents used to perform the taking were falsified.

How the Settlers got land supposedly under the conservatorship of the Trust is yet another indication that the evicted inhabitants of the property are facing discrimination by the state.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Today a group of Jewish activists and academics launched a grassroots movement called Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin in response to Obama’s harsh attitude towards Israel and the Israeli people and why they call the Obama administrations “tacit acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran and its weak approach of combating Islamic terrorism.”

The site is http://www.JewsForSarah.com

This endorsement has come on the aftermath of an article published by Jewish-American writer Norman Podhoretz in which he endorsed Palin.

technopeasant on April 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Thus, Jewishness is an intransitive relation.

Or, to put it another way, Jewishness is carried in the mitochondria.

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.

SKYFOX on April 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Advocacy group to Obama: Picking a fight with Israel could encourage anti-semitism

Obama: “You say that like it’s a bad thing.”

greggriffith on April 17, 2010 at 6:48 PM

The main problem, i fear, is the persistent Jewish belief (aided by Roosevelt propaganda of the 1930s) that Nazis were fanatic right-wingers, when, in fact, the OPPOSITE is the case. Therefore any “right-winger” must, ipso facto, be a “closet Nazi”.

in truth the word “Nazi” is a contraction for the German word National SOCIALIST. There has never been nation that has embraced socialism to the extent of Hitler’s Germany which outpaced even its biggest left wing competitor, Soviet Russia.

Therefore when Jews embrace socialism they are truly grabbing a tiger by the gonads.

MaiDee on April 17, 2010 at 6:57 PM

P.S.: Jews are by ethnicity defined; Catholics are by profession of faith (in Catholic theology) defined — I just don’t follow what logic you’re using there.

Lourdes on April 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Excellent point.
Though I’m now a Catholic and before that I was protestant I was born Jewish. Edith Stein-my patron saint-was martyred at Auschwitz despite converting to Catholicism 20+ years before. To an anti-Semite Judaism is a race-and you can’t change your race.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 17, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Allah, there is a segment of violent nihilistic fruitcakes to which your opinion in the above post applies. But what the AIFL, ADL and others refer to is to rational and systematic fanatics such as Dinnerjacket, Hamas, Hizballah, some members of the Arab League (e.g. Syria).

They see that in fact there is day light between Israel and America, so this encourages them to escalate if not their violence, then their non-violent “struggles” – their non cooperation with the west, their covert wars and work against western interests in the name of “Zionist occupation”. They think that if they continue their delegitimization campaign, and their “three no’s”, then a few years down the road there’ll be even more day light. And by the time the next US president comes around, there won’t be help in the UNSC, or as strong military ties.

Little by little, incrementally, the US and Israel will part way.

That is what the AIFL was talking about.

I don’t like how you link the Democrats’ hypocrisy on Rush’s statements to Israel feeling very much alarmed by the very real consequences that Obama’s public negative statements on Israel will have.

AlexB on April 17, 2010 at 7:45 PM

78% of Jews voted for Obama.

nondhimmie on April 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM

He’s down. Gore got 79%. Clinton got 78%. Hell, McGovern, a committed anti-Zionist, got 64%.

American Jews don’t care any more about Israel’s welfare than I do about Ireland.

spmat on April 17, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Excellent point.
Though I’m now a Catholic and before that I was protestant I was born Jewish. Edith Stein-my patron saint-was martyred at Auschwitz despite converting to Catholicism 20+ years before. To an anti-Semite Judaism is a race-and you can’t change your race.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 17, 2010

Born Jewish and now a Catholic? At what point did you decide you didn’t have enough guilt in your life? ;-)

SKYFOX on April 17, 2010 at 9:20 PM

“Picking a fight with Israel could encourage anti-semitism.” Er, that ain’t a a bug, it be a feature, nome sayin’? — The Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright, still on cloud nine over the historic ramifiliations over Brother Obama’s election

Travis Bickle on April 17, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Hmm. I wonder what those code words mean. They sound like something familiar, from another generation…

unclesmrgol on April 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Let me help you free of charge, since your bullsh*t sales apparently do not afford you to buy a dictionary:

sov·er·eign·ty
Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty \-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sov·er·eign·ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein
Date: 14th century

1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : autonomy c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

I hope that helps you with the mystical magical “code words” of the joooooooooooooooz.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM

If the 78% haven’t learned by now, even though his name is hussein, then they never will get it.

Bambi on April 18, 2010 at 12:04 AM

AlexB on April 17, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Good post, and Obama’s tiff with Israel has already encouraged Fatah to stage riots protesting Israeli construction.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 12:16 AM

Good post, and Obama’s tiff with Israel has already encouraged Fatah to stage riots protesting Israeli construction.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 12:16 AM

What kind of construction, pray tell?

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 1:31 AM

I hope that helps you with the mystical magical “code words” of the joooooooooooooooz.

Shy Guy on April 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Actually, it doesn’t help at all. I agree that, with sovereignty, you can do anything to the people you please. And, having done it, the rest of us, over whom that sovereignty is lacking, are free to comment or even to act, as Obama has done.

The phrase used by the guy you linked is not Israeli sovereignty but Jewish sovereignty, and that implies a act favoring a particular religion with respect to the allocation of land, of building permits, etc. Not a concept which makes me think there’s any amount of fairness going on in the articles you cite. Remember: that quote came from something you linked, not something I dredged up…

Again, for two millenia, your people had a toast — “Next year in Jerusalem”. What makes you think the Palestinians are any less resilient, any less patient? And, given the western-style birthrate (1.7) of Israeli Jews as opposed to the third-world birthrate (2.8) for Muslim Palestinians, how long will the Jews be a majority in Israel? It should be noted that, in spite of massive immigration by Jews to Israel, the percentage of Muslim population in Israel has grown from 8% (in 1955) to over 16% today.

Again, Israel’s Jewish majority can accomodate by playing fair with the Palis in their midst now, thus setting the stage for amicable relations in the future, or risk far greater problems in a few years when they become the minority, and they are faced with either accepting their minority status or performing their own Holocaust.

As far as I can figure, the mystical magical code word will not work much longer the way you want it to.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 1:53 AM

The phrase used by the guy you linked is not Israeli sovereignty but Jewish sovereignty

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 1:53 AM

Gasp! Israel, a Jewish State.

Who woulda’ thought!

and that implies a act favoring a particular religion with respect to the allocation of land, of building permits, etc. Not a concept which makes me think there’s any amount of fairness going on in the articles you cite. Remember: that quote came from something you linked, not something I dredged up…

But I have no problem granting priority to Jews to build and settle in the land of the Jewish people.

Yet this is far unlike so many of the Arab and Muslim countries granting zero rights for non-Arabs and non-Muslims to build in their countries. Read any good Jordanian or “Palestinian” law books lately?

Yet you only like your whine in one particular flavor.

Again, for two millenia, your people had a toast — “Next year in Jerusalem”. What makes you think the Palestinians are any less resilient, any less patient?

Is it the Catholic in you? Does it eat you up that we’re back? Completely ruined the church’s thinking since 1948?

Look up the first Rashi in Torah commentary, if you want to know where I’m coming from, mister.

Shy Guy on April 18, 2010 at 2:42 AM

One more comment … national politics are very quarrelsome and involve grandstanding and accusing the other side of hypocrisy. But pro-Israel groups in America are bipartisan. For example, look at the letter to Obama reminding him that Israel’s an ally — it was signed by 76 senators and 333 congressmen. Frankly, I don’t know of any other issue in America that is that bipartisan.

While internal national politics are full of the kind of rhetoric that you are attributing to Reid against Rush, international politics are conducted at a different, more polite level of discourse. So when the pro-Israel groups, which are bipartisan in nature as I’ve mentioned, said what they did, it wasn’t a yet another partisan shot at Rush from Democrat operatives… it was genuine, without a milligram of hypocrisy. And it was not wrong either.

As for your “if ADL is to be believed” comment re anti-Semitism being at its highest level today since 1945, you probably don’t follow incidents of anti-Semitism as closely as Jewish groups do so you might not be aware. Things are pretty bad. Especially in Europe where the Arab immigrant there are scaring the local Jews to make aliyah to Israel, and encouraging the white anti-Semites in Europe to bring their Jew hatred to a more mainstream level. (“if the Arabs can get away with it, so can we”…)

Obama should really re-evaluate his approach. On a tactical level he’s been great to Israel with all the weapons deals… but on a strategic level he’s putting Israel at a huge risk. It’s the first time ever since I’m actually worried about this old alliance.

AlexB on April 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM

On a tactical level he’s been great to Israel with all the weapons deals… but on a strategic level he’s putting Israel at a huge risk. It’s the first time ever since I’m actually worried about this old alliance.

AlexB on April 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM

What are you talking about?

Shy Guy on April 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM

Shy Guy on April 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM

wtf??? :(

This G-ddamned Obama…

What the bloody f8@# is going on?

AlexB on April 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM

AlexB, ask yourself what made you think otherwise.

Shy Guy on April 18, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Obama’s essentially indirectly selling night vision goggles to Hizballah, which is a very hot commodity for them and puts Israeli soldiers at a bigger risk than they’re facing already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar'it-Shtula_incident

AlexB on April 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM

And what’s going on is the anarchic de(con)struction of America, sorry to say.

Shy Guy on April 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM

AlexB, ask yourself what made you think otherwise.

Shy Guy on April 18, 2010 at 12:47 PM

News reports quoting Israeli gov’t officials saying that Obama’s been great with providing Israel with good weapons deals. Also, his appearance as POTUS-candidate at AIPAC at 2008, and his speech in Sderot that year.

Also, as Allah’s been documenting for a while now, Obama’s been out-Bushing Bush with his foreign policy moves. See, I don’t live in the States and don’t really care or follow about his domestic policies. A lot of grief Obama gets is because of those policies. So when I look at him is through clear glasses. But he’s shown himself to be very very dangerous. His charisma and “I don’t give a f@#$ what the rest of you think, I’ll do it anyways” attitude are scaring the sh!t out of me right now.

AlexB on April 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Is it the Catholic in you? Does it eat you up that we’re back? Completely ruined the church’s thinking since 1948?

Look up the first Rashi in Torah commentary, if you want to know where I’m coming from, mister.

Shy Guy on April 18, 2010 at 2:42 AM

No, it doesn’t bother me that “you” are back. I’m merely pointing out that there are others capable of two millenia of patience (if that’s what it takes) also, and they have a much higher birthrate which may well make it much less than two millenia before they are “back in Jerusalem”.

You are welcome to sneer at that thought, or to read things into my comments which aren’t there, but it doesn’t change what is happening, the fact that what is happening is unfair, and, as we’ve learned in this country, the fact that unfair has reverberations that last for years.

As for my religion, a claim by you that Israel respects other faiths falls flat on its face when it razes a Catholic church for a park. As for the First Rashi, if the land of Israel was truly given to the Jews by God, then how could they have been taken away by the Exile? If God is arbitrary (gives to whomever He pleases), then you guys must really have done something wrong during the Exile to really piss off God to the point where He evicted you. So, on the other side, all the death and suffering to the Palestinians resulting from the War of Independence is merely the result of God transferring ownership back to his People.

Of course, us Christians, with our New Convenant, think that God has extended the concept of his People to all of humanity, but we won’t go there any more than I just have. Let’s just say that I don’t think God was acting in this (or any) war — that was man. From my frame of reference, God did not cause the Exile any more than he caused the War of Independence.

As for my Church’s position which you castigate, I offer this defense. Pope Pius allowed (to Bishop Roncelli — later Pope John XXIII) the issuance of false Certificates of Baptism to over 15,000 Jews who would otherwise have perished in the Shoah; those Jews went to Palestine through Turkey. In addition, the Pope himself sheltered Jews both in the Vatican itself and at Castel Gondalfo, his summer home. When the Nazis ordered the Jews of Rome to ransom themselves with 100 pounds of gold, the Jews were only able to gather 70 pounds. The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, turned to the Vatican, who provided the 30 extra pounds required by the Nazis. The Rabbi was so impressed with the brothership of Pope Pius that, at the end of the war, he converted to Catholicism. As for how Israel itself viewed the Catholic Church’s support of the Jewish people, lets try 1958, and the words of Prime Minister Golda Meir upon the death of Pius:

”During the 10 years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with their victims.”

Commiserating with the victims does not extend to cases where those victims proceed to create new victims. Such behavior is unjust, and the Church condemns it.

But I have no problem granting priority to Jews to build and settle in the land of the Jewish people.

Yet this is far unlike so many of the Arab and Muslim countries granting zero rights for non-Arabs and non-Muslims to build in their countries. Read any good Jordanian or “Palestinian” law books lately?

Yet you only like your whine in one particular flavor.

Three points. First: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Second: If the United States were a Christian nation, and allowed preference to Christians in the utilization of property — going so far as to take property from Jews and give it to Christians, would it be fair and correct? In that question, I’m describing here an America which is an echo of Nazi Germany, where the possessions (and, in the end, the very lives) of its Jewish citizens were seized. That echo of Nazi Germany is not in the USA now, thank God. But it is in another place — a place where the people ought to know better, having faced the same trial themselves. Third: Preferential treatment by religion by the government is not an American sentiment — it violates our Constitution. This is the sentiment you are endorsing. As an American, I can’t silently abide such behavior by either our Government or by any Government which we support.

Are you an American? If not, it would explain quite a few of your comments.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 12:59 PM

What kind of construction, pray tell?

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 1:31 AM

That would be the house construction in Jerusalem that you oppose, because for you one Jewish state is too many and 21 Arab states are too few.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM

That would be the house construction in Jerusalem that you oppose, because for you one Jewish state is too many and 21 Arab states are too few.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Ah, and taking property from one person, one house at a time, and giving it to others, will somehow cure this problem, creating two Jewish states and less than 21 Arab states.

Got it.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Ah, and taking property from one person, one house at a time, and giving it to others, will somehow cure this problem, creating two Jewish states and less than 21 Arab states.

Got it.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Building a house doesn’t take property from anyone, something you blithely ignore in your bizarre fantasy world where Jews living in the land of Israel constitutes a theft of land.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Building a house doesn’t take property from anyone, something you blithely ignore in your bizarre fantasy world where Jews living in the land of Israel constitutes a theft of land.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Ahh. Then, in your bizarre fantasy world, it was entirely proper that Christians living in the Christian land of Germany should have taken the possessions of the Jews.

Sorry, you did not win the cupie doll this time. Please try again.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Ahh. Then, in your bizarre fantasy world, it was entirely proper that Christians living in the Christian land of Germany should have taken the possessions of the Jews.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 3:45 PM

And now you’re reduced to Nazi smears. Since the beginning of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, the Jews in Israel have been scrupulous in purchasing their land, rather than seizing it by force. The state of Israel also acquired land that wasn’t owned by individuals, but only by governments (Ottoman, British, Jordanian) that no longer have control of the territory. None of this is “stolen land” or depriving others of territory.

In the 19th century, antisemites accused European Jews of being “cuckoos” who were living on land that properly belonged to Europeans. Now, antisemites accuse Israeli Jews of being “settlers” living on land that properly belongs to Arabs. When the bulk of Jews lived in Europe, antisemites delegitimized Jews living in Europe; now that almost half of Jews live in Israel, antisemites delegitimize Jews living in Israel. That’s the only difference between antisemitic arguments then and now.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 4:12 PM

And now you’re reduced to Nazi smears.

Since the beginning of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, the Jews in Israel have been scrupulous in purchasing their land, rather than seizing it by force.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Nazi smears. For merely pointing out the similarities in land rules based upon religion?

And, as for scrupulousness, google Canada Park. There used to be a Catholic church in the area — I wonder where it went?

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM

In the 19th century, antisemites accused European Jews of being “cuckoos” who were living on land that properly belonged to Europeans. Now, antisemites accuse Israeli Jews of being “settlers” living on land that properly belongs to Arabs. When the bulk of Jews lived in Europe, antisemites delegitimized Jews living in Europe; now that almost half of Jews live in Israel, antisemites delegitimize Jews living in Israel. That’s the only difference between antisemitic arguments then and now.

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I see — because the first accusation was wrong, the second one, ipso facto, must be wrong too — because it is being partly made by non-Jews. Jews would never take the property of others — that’s left to the Arabs. That’s an amazing feat of logic, sir. Absolutely amazing. Talk about Nazi smears — or, should I say, anti-Semitic smears.

Heh.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Nazi smears. For merely pointing out the similarities in land rules based upon religion?

And, as for scrupulousness, google Canada Park. There used to be a Catholic church in the area — I wonder where it went?

I see — because the first accusation was wrong, the second one, ipso facto, must be wrong too — because it is being partly made by non-Jews. Jews would never take the property of others — that’s left to the Arabs. That’s an amazing feat of logic, sir. Absolutely amazing. Talk about Nazi smears — or, should I say, anti-Semitic smears.

Heh.
unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM

You haven’t pointed out any similarities, merely engaged in moral equivalence and obfuscation, which are your usual modus operandi, and in this case a particularly disgusting sort of moral equivalence. I note that you don’t disagree with the proposition that Israelis are living on stolen land; you merely object to being grouped with the earlier antisemites who made the same arguments about Jews in Europe that you make about Jews in the land of Israel. The most you can do to support your claims is to cherry-pick certain legal disputes over land whose outcomes you dislike, as though the relevant Israeli legal authorities never decide against Jews in cases where one side is Jewish and the other gentile. And here you don’t even have such a claim, but rather the construction of a park in the 1970s(!).

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 6:04 PM

you merely object to being grouped with the earlier antisemites who made the same arguments about Jews in Europe that you make about Jews in the land of Israel. The most you can do to support your claims is to cherry-pick certain legal disputes over land whose outcomes you dislike, as though the relevant Israeli legal authorities never decide against Jews in cases where one side is Jewish and the other gentile. And here you don’t even have such a claim, but rather the construction of a park in the 1970s(!).

DKCZ on April 18, 2010 at 6:04 PM

The construction of a park in the 1970′s is proof enough, especially when those whose property was taken fought through the Israeli court system to keep their lands — and failed.

As for grouping me (or my arguments) with anti-Semites, that’s your mind speaking a twisted truth. I’m merely pointing out recurring problems with the Israeli legal system, where those problems are buttressed by governmental intervention.

I’ve commented using examples. You may think my examples are insufficient — in which case, you are certainly welcome to counter with some of your own showing equitable treatment of Arabs, rather than religious arguments or attacks against my religion.

My examples show the seamy underside of Israel — the side against which I see Obama protesting.

I’m an American, and I believe that religion has no place in Government, other than as a foundation of a system of ethics which is applied equally to every citizen, regardless of race, creed, sex, or national origin. My America does not favor Christians, and I would expect an Israel worthy of permanent alliance to not favor Jews.

I do not view Israel as that golden city upon the hill as you do. I view it as an imperfect mirror of that city. It’s certainly much further along than the failed state of Palestine, but as long as it chooses the Middle Eastern path of religious favoritism, I certainly do not count it as the epitome of western democracy.

I think America is, and that American interests certainly diverge from Israel’s at that fracture point.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 7:37 PM

The construction of a park in the 1970’s is proof enough, especially when those whose property was taken fought through the Israeli court system to keep their lands — and failed.

Those whose property was taken were provided with compensation. The taking was done for military reasons, since this area had been the staging ground for attacks on the Latrun corridor, connecting Jerusalem to Israel. This decision wasn’t inspired by some kind of religious animus on the part of the Israeli government and didn’t involve Israeli citizens.

As for grouping me (or my arguments) with anti-Semites, that’s your mind speaking a twisted truth.

I’m merely pointing out recurring problems with the Israeli legal system, where those problems are buttressed by governmental intervention.

You keep shifting from condemning all of Israel as being illegitimate on “stolen land” to making a limited criticism of its legal system and back again. The former is an antisemitic argument used against Jews since the 19th century, merely having shifted the geographic location of its argument to correspond with the demise and movement of Jews. The latter is entirely different.

I’ve commented using examples. You may think my examples are insufficient — in which case, you are certainly welcome to counter with some of your own showing equitable treatment of Arabs, rather than religious arguments or attacks against my religion.

The onus isn’t on Israel and its supporters to prove that it isn’t biased; it’s on you to prove that it is. There are a great many court cases in Israel, and finding those where the losing side was Muslim and the winning side Jews or the Israeli government doesn’t prove that the legal system is prejudiced. You could as easily point out those cases where the homes of Jews were destroyed by the Israeli government after Israeli authorities determined they were constructed illegally and then claim that Israel is biased against Jews. The faulty reasoning is the same.

I do not view Israel as that golden city upon the hill as you do. I view it as an imperfect mirror of that city. It’s certainly much further along than the failed state of Palestine, but as long as it chooses the Middle Eastern path of religious favoritism, I certainly do not count it as the epitome of western democracy.

I think America is, and that American interests certainly diverge from Israel’s at that fracture point.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 7:37 PM

You’ve been repeatedly arguing in comments that the United States should distance itself from Israel vis-a-vis Arab states and/or Iran as a result of what you see as an imperfect Israeli legal system. Leaving aside the deeply un-conservative nature of condemning a country for not being perfect, if you thought the US should adjust its foreign policy according to the moral failings of other states, then you would be calling for the US to abandon all support of the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. and to completely take Israel’s side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

DKCZ on April 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM