Comments on: Obama Meets With the American Jewish Community

By: lateguest

lateguest — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:37:37 +0000

When antisemitism in US grows to the heights of those of Western Europe in 1930s and American Jews will be looking for the place to run to, the only alternative will be to emigrate to Israel. That, if it will still exist. By then all Europe will be Muslim. Chingis Khan conquered part of Europe by force, nowadays Muslims just get an airplane ticket. It's that easy. Liberals like Bendavid remind me of some very naive Jews of Nazi Germany. They tout that Hitler will keep his promises and leave them alone. BIG MISTAKE!!!. Israel is the only chance for the world Jewry to survive. What good is to turn to pray toward Jerusalem if everything Jewish there is destroyed? Oh, yeah. Those are our's bombs that help Israel to keep Muslim radicals in the Middle East otherwise the Sears Tower would be gone too.

By: nikoskole

nikoskole — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:42:12 +0000

The United States Shift on Middle Eastern Policy.

An article from the Los Angeles Times published in The Age (Australia) on the 15/7/’09 clearly showed the White House and its President Barack Obama are trying to shift away from the Bush Administration’s policies for the Middle East and away from the neoconservatives warmongering.

The Obama Administration is demanding from Israel to stop its expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories in “the pursuit to Middle East peace.” At the same token it’s trying to reduce the anti-American sentiment in the Arab and Islamic world. This shift from Obama and his administration has come under fire from various Jewish leaders and Jewish organizations in a recent meeting in the United States.

What may have angered the Jewish leaders is Obama’s statement that he would do nothing to change the U.S.-Israel relationship at an AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) campaign meeting.

The Bush Administration had also demanded from Israel to “halt all construction of settlements in the West Bank” and advocated for the “creation of a Palestinian State.” Unfortunately, Bush was unable to persuade Israel and the various Jewish organizations to change their hard-line policies towards the Palestinians; he ended up following them in the end.

Obama and his administration may be contemplating reducing the billions of dollars in economic and military aid to Israel as the recession deepens. The U.S. may be better off adopting the strategy of offshore balancing. This is where it eliminates exercising its might in the region and another showdown with another Middle Eastern state, Iran. It will also show to the Arab world that the U.S. is not Israel’s lawyer in the region. This shift could bring peace into the war ravished region.

By: Reflecting On Serious Self-Reflection « Around The Sphere

Reflecting On Serious Self-Reflection « Around The Sphere — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:45:46 +0000

[...] Spencer Ackerman in the Washington Independent: I’m also reliably informed that Obama conspicuously used the term “even-handed” to describe his approach to securing Mideast peace. Now, to anyone not steeped in the noxious brew known as the American debate over Israel, that term is a complete no-brainer. Who could be against being even-handed, after all? Well, for one, Abe Foxman, who’s made the term out to indicate some bias against Israel. Foxman raised a fit in 2003 when Howard Dean, then the 2003 frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said his Mideast policies would be “even-handed,” something that eventual nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was happy to exploit. And when Obama tapped George Mitchell to become his Arab-Israeli peace envoy, Foxman complained that Mitchell, a former Senate Majority Leader who worked tirelessly on British-Irish-Northern Irish peace, was “meticulously even-handed.” Yes, in the meshuggeneh parallel universe inhabited only by American Jewish anxiety over Israel — it’s actually not so bad; uncensored episodes of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” are in constant syndication — being “meticulously even-handed” is a bad thing. Obama, however, lives in the real world. [...]

By: Bendavid

Bendavid — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:04:05 +0000

Why should tax payer in the USA worry about a tiny state like Israel that have been terrorizing the whole region in the middle east for 60 years, occupying others countries, killing innocent and making more than 1.5 million Palestinians Homeless (in the 3ed generation). Israel always preferred expansion over peace with neighbor. The best evident is statement policy. The argument being threatened by the Arabs does not count anymore. Israel has so much atomic power to blow up the whole world. I don't know how you can trust a regime that denies the fundamental rights of Palestinians to return back to their homes where as just being Jew gives you the right to live in Israel, regardless of the financial support you get once you decide to live there. Off course all this support payed by the USA tax payer.

By: strangely_enough

strangely_enough — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:10:36 +0000

Because it's our money that is going to Israel and our bombs they are killing innocent civilians with. That's why.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:16:13 +0000

Why should America be “even-handed” between a democratic country trying to survive and a group of Arab countries and terror organizations who have been trying to destroy it for 60 years? Should America have been “even-handed” between Germany and Czechoslovakia, or the Soviet Union and Georgia? “Even-handedness” between a country that simply wants to live and an agressor country is not moral righteous, it's moral obliviousness. Very disappointed with Obama, who clearly lied in the campaign about 1. His dedication to restoring the rule of law in our illegal and unconstitutional treatment of terror suspects and 2. His support of Israel.