Media Reaction To Obama's Mid East Speech Reveals Progressive Movement's Jew-Hatred

It's always nice to know where one stands, and over the past three days Jewish Americans have been told by the Progressive Movement exactly their role,  their place is to shut up or leave the country.

On Thursday, President Obama threw Israel under the bus with his declaration that negotiations should start with the premise of Israel returning to the 1967 borders. At the same time he unilaterally ripped up an agreement between Israel and the United States made during the last administration.

As expected supporters of the Jewish State were very upset, and they cheered Israeli PM Netanyahu when he stood up for his country during a White House press op the next day.

But to the progressives this act of insubordination by Netanyahu was deplorable. And the support of Bibi Netanyahu by some American Jews proved was a reason to bring out their anti-Semitic meme that Jews are not really Americans, they are frauds whose first loyalty is to Israel not to the United States. They also brought out their bigoted contention that the powerful Jewish lobby controls the government and the media.

George Soros funded M.J. Rosenberg, who regularly uses anti-Semitic buzz words claiming the Jews control the government and the media was quick to announce that the outrage displayed by friends of Israel was both bogus and a product of what anti-Semitics describe as their dual loyalty, although Rosenberg calls them "Israel-firsters"

And suddenly all hell broke loose. But not immediately. Initially, the right-wing of the "pro-Israel" claque praised Obama for not saying anything that challenged Netanyahu but then Netanyahu said that he was outraged by the reference to the 1967 lines.

And then the robotic Israel-firsters switched their line as quickly as Red 1930's folk singers changed their lyrics when Moscow complained of deviation. (Stop bashing Nazi Germany; we just signed a pact with it).

This is not to say that MJ is an anti-Semite or one of those "self-hating Jews," he is a capitalist. He understands generally the progressive left is anti-Israel and the progressive media is a major source of income. Heck George Soros pays part on his salary. So in order to prove his loyalty to the progressive media he acts with venom toward Israel and stereotypes his own people. Rosenberg is just trying to show his progressive handlers that MJ stands for Malign Jews.

Our "friends" at the daily Kos said that the anger regarding Obama's words was based on the fact that he was the first President to stand up to that powerful and nefarious "Jewish Lobby."

They don’t trust Obama because he is more objective than past US Presidents, and he is less afraid of the Jewish lobby. Republicans are salivating because they see Obama is in trouble with the Jewish lobby. Mr. Romnney accuses Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus,” and Glen Beck is planning a rally in Israel.

Some notes to the Kossaks, the Beck rally was announced before the President's speech, Beck spells his first name with two "n"s, Romney spells his last with one, and the only Jewish lobby I know of that exists outside of the minds of anti-Semites is in my shul, and quite honestly it needs a paint job.

The article continues....

Here is what Nathan J. Diament is director of public policy at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America advises Mr. Obama in Politico.

Israelis and their U.S. supporters want to believe the president is in their corner — the U.S. is the most important, and often only, ally Israel has in a hostile world. We do not want the president to be dispassionate and “even-handed.” Only then will Israelis be ready to take risks for peace.

So Obama must not only say he is in Israel’s corner; he must find a way to make Israelis and their American supporters feel he is in Israel’s corner.

I wonder where his loyalty lies

...The bottom line is, as long as there is a powerful Israeli lobby, there are Fox News and Neocons, there are unprincipled Republicans, and there are fundamentalist Christians, America will ignore what is in its best interest and continue to support Israel.

A commentator for the Newark Star Ledger Dr. Aref Assaf said:

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the one issue foreign lobby that has and for decades distorted America's foreign policy. Our president must know that pro-Israel lobbies, headed by AIPAC, exist for the sole purpose of diverting precious American military, financial and political support to Israel and to maintain a status quo contrary to American policies and ideals. The cost of such support has even cost American lives and earned us the enmity of the Arab and Muslim world.

Gee whiz those Jews are good!

Andrew Sullivan who never let the truth get in the way of a good story said it was the Israeli control of the American Media that created the hysteria around the President's speech:

None of this makes sense until you realize that Netanyahu had been given a heads-up by the administration. So it's pretty obvious that it was the Israelis who immediately got their US media mouthpieces to spin the speech as some sort of attack.

Now before I go on, some of you Media Matters types are thinking "sure criticize Israel and you are called an anti-Semite." So let me be perfectly clear, criticizing Israel does not make one an anti-Semite. Questioning the Jewish people's loyalty to America or conjuring up a nefarious Jewish lobby that controls the world does make someone an anti-Semite.

A review of the progressive media would show that this may be this is the biggest outbreak of the "dual-loyalty," and "powerful Jewish lobby" slanders since 9/11 when  things got so bad it infiltrated sports programming. For example in the days after 9/11 sports jocks Mike Francesa and Chris Mad Dog Russo were suggested that American Jews take a loyalty oath,  and were protected by their station management.

There is no central leadership of Jews that set policy, believe me, because if there was anti-Semites such as Al Sharpton, Michael Scheuer, Andrew Sullivan, and Pat Buchanan would have stopped appearing in the mainstream media a very long time ago,  along with purveyors of Jew-hatred such as MJ Rosenberg and his boss Mr. Spooky dude.

It is very strange that while the progressives question the loyalty of Jews when they support the an Israeli Prime Minister questioning the policy of an American President, when they supported Mexican President Felipe Calderon stood before a joint session of Congress and ripped Arizona for its controversial immigration law. There were no accusations of dual-loyalty toward the Mexican-Americans who supported Calderon's "rudeness."

I wonder how these same progressives acted 27 years ago when Archbishop Desmond Tutu "thoroughly trashed" President Reagan's South African policy, during a similar "photo-op" as the Obama/Netanyahu one.

The fact is that Israel and American Jews are held out differently by the progressives in America,  they are their happy little targets who are allowed to give them financial and electoral  support every election year,  only to get in return a "Kick Me" sticker on our backs.

Its time my liberal friends in American Jewry wake up and smell the gefilte fish!  The progressive movement is a major source of Antisemitism in this country.  The Huffington Post and Daily Kos are two of the most anti-Semitic website on the web, and the progressive media watch-dog Media Matters features the anti-Jewish ranting of MJ Rosenberg.

The Progressive Obama administration continues to take advice from people within the administration like Samantha Power who rails against the "Israel Lobby" controlling the government and people outside the administration such as Robert Malley who has made the same charge. It's time for American Jews to stop voting for people who hate them.

During the George H.W. Bush administration, Secretary of State James Baker was asked about the Jewish vote, he exclaimed "F**K the Jews, they won't vote for us anyway."  Today the progressives believe "F**K the Jews, they will vote for us whatever we do."  It’s time for Jewish voters to prove those claims wrong and vote the progressives out of office.

EXCLUSIVE Interview with Rep. Peter Roskam About Israel, Unified Palestinian Govt., And US Foreign Policy

The past few months have seen unexpected developments in the Middle East, the continuing “Arab Awakening,” Egypt's slide toward being controlled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, Syria and Libya in revolt; it seemed as if for the first time in recent history the Israeli-Palestinian dispute represented the calmest place in this violence-prone area of the world.

That all changed in early May when the Palestinian Authority, run by the “moderate” terrorists of the Fatah party, agreed to reunite with the more overt terrorists of Hamas who rule over the Gaza Strip.

While this was happening, President Obama has been preparing for a major speech regarding Middle East Policy (tomorrow), a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Friday) and an address to the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The Palestinians on the other hand, have been politicking at the United Nations trying to ensure passage of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.

This morning Politico carried an op-ed composed by two members of the House GOP leadership: Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Peter Roskam (R-Ill) Deputy Majority Whip and Co-Chair of Republican Israel Caucus.

The two Republicans pointed out the radical violent nature of Hamas describing it as a

..terrorist organization whose founding charter instructs, “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him.”

They said that because of the unification agreement that would give Hamas governmental power within the Palestinian Authority, the United States should cut off the Authority’s financial aid.

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement empowers Hamas terrorists and endangers Israel. The U.S. must use every tool in our diplomatic arsenal to make clear that we will not tolerate a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

It is our duty, as leader of the free world, to do no less.

I had the opportunity to interview Congressman Roskam this morning. We discussed the Politico op-ed as well as other key issues regarding American foreign policy as it relates to Israel and the Middle East. Below is that interview, beginning with an overview of the situation provided by the Congressman.

Rep. Roskam: The urgency of this is difficult to overstate. All of these events are conflating. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the United States has an incredible role to play.


For those who historically have said Israel is our best friend in the region, and we have shared values of democracy, this is the time to stand with Israel and make it very clear that it’s the PA who have made this choice. It is the Palestinian Authority that has made the choice to put itself outside of the mainstream.


The current law says that the United States will not support terrorist organizations. When the Palestinian Authority makes an affirmative decision to put itself in a relationship with Hamas, it’s making a choice to put itself outside the category of those who receive financial support of the United States taxpayers.

I think it’s really that simple. And it is incredibly important, that when President Obama lays out his agenda tomorrow, he is clear. It is incredibly important that with the Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to the United States that we are clear the burden is on the Palestinian Authority. They have made their decision recognizing that they have put support from the United States in jeopardy, and there are consequences for their actions.

Jeff Dunetz: Well you certainly made that clear in the op-ed, but at times the administration hasn’t been as clear. For example, in his Cairo speech two years ago, the President seemed to have downplayed the role of Hamas terrorism. He reached his hand out to Hamas and it was eventually slapped away. Do you think President Obama “gets it”?

Rep. Roskam: The President has an opportunity tomorrow, to demonstrate that he gets it. It’s important for the administration to look at these past events since the Cairo speech, and understand that the world does not respond merely to speeches, the world responds to clear policy. That is why it is essential that the President lay out what we have put forward in the op-ed when he makes address tomorrow.

Jeff Dunetz: In the op-ed you mention the possible unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood resolution by the UN in September. I understand that the Administration has promised to veto the resolution should it get to a vote in the Security Council--but is there anything the United States can do to prevent it from getting that far?

Rep. Roskam: The United States can actively work against the roll call to prevent it. It is not enough, in my view, simply to veto it. The United States should be actively advocating against it. There is a role to play, and this is extremely important in the short, medium and long term because it is inextricably linked to the U.S. security interests for us to do that. So I believe the administration has a chance to weigh in, to whip the vote in the UN and literally work the roll call.

Jeff Dunetz: It seems that there is a different tone in the House this year. In the last Congress the only ones vocally standing up for Israel were people like Congressman Pence, Eric Cantor and you---members of the GOP Caucus. This year it seems, at least in my observation, that there is more bi-partisan, more Democrats are speaking out. Do you agree with that observation?

Rep. Roskam: I think what happened is--and now I am only speculating I cannot pretend to speak for Democrats in the House--but it looks like some of them are becoming increasingly disappointed in the past deference they paid to the administration and are recognizing that administration policy is now under-performing. They are becoming more vocal as a result. It could be that exhibited a natural deference to an administration of their party, and now realize that the policies are not as fruitful as they had hoped, as expected, and as was represented to them, so they are making a decision to be more independent. That is complete speculation on my part.

Jeff Dunetz: What does the Congress want to hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu when he speaks before the joint session next week?

Rep. Roskam: I wouldn’t presume to tell the Prime Minister what to say.

Jeff Dunetz: It's OK on my blog I tell him what to say almost every day. He doesn’t listen to me though.

Rep. Roskam:: My hunch is he is going to call on the U.S. Congress to stand with Israel; he will communicate the good faith efforts, which time and again, the Israelis have pursued as it relates to peace, the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to engage substantially in that, and that Israel is not, nor should it be in a position to bid against itself. He will also speak of his deep gratitude for the support Israel has had in the United States Congress.

Jeff Dunetz: Another big issue relating to Israel is Iran’s nuclear program. Do you see the sanctions working?

Rep. Roskam:: They seem like a real mixed bag. The question of Iran comes up in the context of the larger democracy movements in the Middle East. The administration essentially waved off any intervention on behalf of the Iranians who were trying to throw off the oppressive regime and let that falter and, I believe, squandered an opportunity. In contrast, they engaged substantially in other areas of the Middle East and you wonder what is the benefit of that for the U.S., how does that help our security interests in the long run. So in answer to your question about Iran, it’s a mixed bag at this point.

Jeff Dunetz: Is there a discussion of new, harsher sanctions in Congress?

Rep. Roskam: Not in my circles, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t more discussions happening.

Jeff Dunetz: In the op-ed you also spoke of the incitement against Israel that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are using to motivate their populace against peace. Is there anything Congress can do to encourage them to stop?

Rep. Roskam: The biggest restraining influence that we can be as the House on behalf of the American people, is to forgo U.S. financial support. That speaks volumes as compared to resolutions.

Jeff Dunetz: There is a GOP majority in the House so it might be possible to get a suspension of financial support through there. But what about the Senate, what is the likelihood of getting such a bill through the Senate?

Rep. Roskam: You know what? I just don’t know. The administration is going to have a lot of influence on Senate action.

Jeff Dunetz: So what is the bottom line? Do you see the President being bold tomorrow when he makes his speech? Or is he going to, well he never stopped campaigning, but is he going to worry that he is in the middle of a re-election campaign and worry about angering supporters of either side?

Rep. Roskam: I think the President has an opportunity to be bold and to be clear. Bold clarity on good policy is also good politics. It is my hope that he does that and does it for the right reasons.

---------------------------------

Based on our discussion, I believe that the House Republican leadership as represented by Congressman Roskam does "get it." He understands the strategic value of a strong democratic state of Israel in what is probably the most dangerous region of the world for United States interests--especially as Iran continues to pick up power and allies from those counties going through the "Arab Awakening."

While the Congressman seemed hopeful that the President would do the right thing in his speech tomorrow, my ingression was that he was more hopeful than confident.

Unfortunately, I agree.