Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against the Jews

mugsisme ↓

Thu, Jun 11 2009, 10:48 pm

Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against the Jews

This article, believe or not, was written by a reform rabbi! I think that some of the points he makes are very worth while to see and read.

I forwarded it to my father, who is a die-hard liberal/democrat. My brother said I am wasting my time. There is NOTHING that Obama can do that will cause criticism or harsh words from his following. We both feel that this leads so some disrespect. *IF* he (or some of you die-hard Obama supporters) were to say, Hey, I am not happy with this or that, then I would probably believe you. But it is sort of strange to see that no matter what he says or does, there is nothing wrong with him. It seems like you all seem to think he is god, just like the guy from Newsweek.

I am very curious to see what ladies here think of this article, and if you agree with this rabbi. Is Obama creating an atmosphere that is conducive to hatred of the Jews by his words and his actions?

ora_43 ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 4:41 am

Thoughts in no particular order:

1. Contrary to popular belief, "reform" does not always mean politically liberal (although the movement's political branch is associated with all kinds of liberal causes -- but still, this particular reform rabbi might be a republican, it does happen).

2. There's a guy from newsweek who thinks Obama is god? Please explain (unless you mean that both Obama and the guy from newsweek are god? but I'm assuming that was just unintentionally confusing grammar).

3. I supported Obama, although I didn't vote for him and I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a hard-core supporter. And I will admit to being very disappointed with what he's done so far. I thought/hoped he would focus on domestic issues, and that his relative new-ness would lead him to tread cautiously in the international arena. I was completely wrong. I'm not happy with what he's done domestically (w/the economy), and he's very aggressive regarding Israel.

4. I thought the speech was good in some ways but awful in others. It was good that, in Cairo, he made pointed statements about leaders in the Arab world who repress their people. It was very, very bad that he referred to sixty years of "Palestinian suffering."

In general I don't see much of a difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to Israel, but in this case I really do not think that Bush Jr or McCain would have made similar statements.

5. I think it's absurd to suggest that the Holocaust Museum shooter was influenced by Obama's beliefs. If anything, he may have been influenced by Obama's criticism of Holocaust deniers. But the guy hated anyone not white, Obama included. He's as likely to have been influenced by Obama as to have been influenced by Jewish leaders, IMO. It just seems very very unlikely.

6. I do think that Obama's linking Israel's creation to Arab suffering, and the fact that he didn't say "terrorism" when talking about attacks on Israel, etc, could be taken as support by people who claim to be anti-Israel (and possibly believe themselves to be merely anti-Israel) but are actually anti-Semitic. I don't think his views will have any significant affect on the white supremacist variety of anti-Semites.

bubby ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 6:56 am

Thanks for posting it. He's 100% right. Obama is scaring the **** out of me, but all the Jewish Obama worshippers out there won't hear a word against him. Will they still be saying that as the Muslims (Nation of Islam, Black Panthers et al) herd us into "safety centers"?

I told my DH that when 1938 happens we walk away from our home here (it will be stolen anyway), but we're trying desperately to sell it now & move to EY.

We conservatives are not allowed any opinion or point of view that differs from the Obama devotees': hence the "Fairness" Doctrine. This where our lefty liberal friends start calling us names & accusing us of buying into that nasty anti-Hussein hype & being anti-American & traiterous. Gee, where did I hear that before? Which segs nicely into the tattoo thread. And I don't mean a butterfly on a rear end.

Clarissa ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 9:00 am

princessleah wrote:

I know there's no point in my posting in a thread like this, but suffice it to say:
Any author that paints the CRUSADES as heroic Christians beating back the evil Muslims loses all credibility in my book.

Exactly.

(deleted section -- never mind)

Yup, Crusades. Fine, heroic times:

http://www.aish.com/literacy/j.....s.asp

I'm interested in seeing who does the name-calling in this thread. Obama-supporters (aka "lefty liberals") seem to get accused of it a lot on Imamother, but all I can see is the opposite happening, ahem. In fact, at least once on every political thread (always started to say how terrible Obama is), someone says they're not entitled to their anti-President Obama opinion, but I never see such opinions squelched here. Quite the contrary. Just one of the funny ha ha things about Imamother. Lots of free speech between whining about not having free speech. So carry on! Political discourse is great, if you enjoy it.

Anyway, I'm going to come back just to enjoy the emoticon party, and nothing more. I'm guessing only one or two Obama supporters will come back and actually post responses to this one, if that many. Most have grown tired of these threads. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, of course. After all, we all know that anti-Semitism began with this administration, just like swine flu, the rise in obesity and the increase in the use of [filth].

↑ bubby ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 9:10 am

But once again I ask...is it "fair" that we conservatives are bombarded with Obama-worship to the point where is is compared to G-d & if we dare to challenge these statements we are out of line? The "Fairness" Doctrine is a one-way street, which equals totalitarianism & suppression of free speech. I forget, isn't that some amendment to the Constitution (which, the way things are going, is rapidly losing its status.) I suppose all the rhetoric is OK, because it's YOUR point of view, and therefore, the only one that is valid.

What I don't get is how you all think that is morally right. Isn't it amazing that bigots, racists, & assorted ne'er-do-wells only come from the right, but if you change the criticism to reflect a leftish point of view, all of a sudden those words are perfectly acceptable. Ad hominem attacks on right wing conservatives is politically correct, but G-d help us if we breathe a word against Obama in any shape or form.

nylon

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 9:20 am

There's a lot of problems with that article. First, he's making a lot of assumptions--for example, that he was trying to make an equivalence between the Shoah and what happened to the Palestinians. I don't think that's what he meant, and it's really not obvious.

The Palestinians did suffer for 60 years. The problem is not in acknowledging Palestinian suffering. It happened. The problem is that Israel is normally given sole blame for it, when really, their so-called Arab "brethren" need to do a little self-examination. Israel didn't make the Arabs keep the Palestinians in camps for decades. Obama only acknowledged suffering; he did not place blame. There was no other timespan he could have chosen, I think. It was the politically safe choice, and true too. Palestinian suffering began the minute the Arabs decided to turn down the partition plan on behalf of the Palestinians, and to fight a war instead.

Second, he talks about the nerve of criticizing countries trying to ban the niqab... well, the French and Turkish laws are against the hijab, which is a very different matter. If it's illegal to wear a hijab it's also illegal to wear a tichel, no? At least get your facts straight, rather than misrepresenting a law to try to score a point.

The rest of the tone of the speech was nothing that previous presidents haven't said. They all do the butter-up-the-Arabs approach. I'm sure I can find a GWB speech where he says nice things about Muslim history and culture--I seem to remember him doing it. It's called diplomacy. And no American president has ever been anything but downright fawning when it comes to the Saudis. As long as they keep selling us oil and support us on various Gulf-related security issues, things will work the same way.

People accuse Obama supporters of being blinkered--I think the same could be said of opponents!

↑ princessleah ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 9:36 am

nylon wrote:

I love this post. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Besiyata Dishmaya ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 9:42 am

ora_43 wrote:

1. Contrary to popular belief, "reform" does not always mean politically liberal (although the movement's political branch is associated with all kinds of liberal causes -- but still, this particular reform rabbi might be a republican, it does happen).

The popular belief of reform being liberal democratic is taken for granted since most secular Jews worldwide are liberal democrats. Of course not all, just like not all religious Jews are conservative or republican.

Quote:

In general I don't see much of a difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to Israel, but in this case I really do not think that Bush Jr or McCain would have made similar statements.

I agree with most of your thoughts but I don't believe Bush or McCain would've spoken with so much venom against Israel as Obama who is showing open anti-Semitism and hatred towards Israel. Obama selected the most anti-Israel, self-hating "Jews" as his advisors and ministers against Israel. Smart cookie, this Obama. Non-Jews with the same qualification would surely not do such a good job and boy what an outcry there would have been.

Quote:

6. I do think that Obama's linking Israel's creation to Arab suffering, and the fact that he didn't say "terrorism" when talking about attacks on Israel, etc, could be taken as support by people who claim to be anti-Israel (and possibly believe themselves to be merely anti-Israel) but are actually anti-Semitic. I don't think his views will have any significant affect on the white supremacist variety of anti-Semites.

As soon as Obama took over, for the sake of his Arab brethren he replaced the "t" word, "terrorism", with "extremism" to soften their wild behavior.

↑ bubby ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 10:03 am

Of course, nylon, that's exactly what I'm saying. We conservatives are ALWAYS wrong. Obviously. How could we be anything but, when we don't bow down before this G-d (as he has been called by more than one commentator & goodness knows how many mere mortals)

I keep going back to the "Fairness" Doctrine, simply because it is designed to remove any opposition in the media to Obama (the man, the President, his policies & his administration). As we have seen even very recently, control of the media swiftly leads to control of the people. Fair means balanced. Eliminating conservative talk radio is the first step toward total control & supervision of news and opinions. Quite clearly, it isn't "fair". Very dangerous stuff, but he will get away with it because most conservatives are not in a position to do anything about it.

The attacks from the left are unbelievable, yet they get away with everything. David Letterman says the most disgusting things about Sarah Palin's daughter. Again, he can because no body censures him. So he gives a weak "sorry." Too little, too late. Imagine if someone dares to challenge Obama about...let's see, his attendance at a Muslim school; secrecy over his place of birth; his past (and who knows if it's still in the past) relationship with his anti-semitic pastor; dictating to banks about TARP $$. I can come up with more, but why bother? Those of you who don't want to face these anomalies, won't.

Just a couple of days ago, a man had his Facebook account yanked because he had the gall to post anti-Obama stuff. Can one of you honestly say that was acceptable? Or FAIR?

↑ Clarissa ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 10:11 am

I just went to Facebook and typed "anti-Obama" into the search line, and found 477 hits of groups there. Some of them have very racist things in them (one has a picture of a monkey for him) and they're still up. I guess FB better step up the censorship, because the 477 hits probably don't even reflect all of the anti-Obama groups there, and certainly not individual sentiments.

One of the biggest groups (and it didn't even turn up on the list of 477, I found it another way) is "Anti-Obama and Da*n Proud of It," and it has over 18,000 members. So I think freedom of speech is still safe. Except, of course, for the fact that they banned all photos of nursing moms, but that's a story for another thread.

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Fri, Jun 12 2009, 10:24 am

Frumom wrote:

"Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians."

This quote is from the article. If he really said this (see next paragraph) I cannot believe that Obama supporters who read this are still going to deny that he has some scary, warped ways of thinking.

At the same time, newsmax.com is not the most reliable source of news. Was this quote or any others posted anywhere else?

Quote:

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

He compared the two by juxtaposition. Common psychological technique. 6 million Jews were murdered, Palestinian Arabs don't have their own (second) homeland.