Search This Blog

Showing posts with label US Presidential Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Presidential Candidates. Show all posts

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Netanyahu featured in Obama campaign clip


Prime minister, President Peres, Minister Barak seen praising US president in reelection campaign video targeting Jewish voters. Footage taken from previous, unrelated interviews 
 
Orly Azoulay
 
Published: 01.22.12, 10:25 / Israel News
Unlikely advocate: Although he is not known for his particularly close relationship with US President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is nonetheless seen praising the president in the latter's new reelection campaign video, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.

A clip produced by the president's reelection campaign targeting Jewish voters features a long line of Israeli senior officials seen praising Obama. The video's "stars" may be surprised to find themselves included in the clip, as they never gave interviews for the campaign. The footage was taken from interviews they previously gave to US media outlets and it is highly doubtful their permission to be included in the clip was sought.


The video, titled "America and Israel – an Unbreakable Bond" shows Netanyahu thanking the president for his commitment to Israel and peace. It also shows Obama putting his hand on Netanyahu's shoulder and the two walking outside the White House.

Watch Obama's reelection campaign video 



The video is part of Obama's efforts to court the Jewish vote and more importantly to attract contributions from Jewish donors.

Also featured in the clip is President Shimon Peres who is seen saying that judging by Obama's actions he is friendly towards Israel. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is given particular focus as he speaks passionately about the president's contribution to the struggle against terror.

"Go and ask Obama bin Laden and other a dozen other quite pretentious terror leaders whom you cannot contact today because of the readiness of this administration to take action, not just to talk, but at the right moment to take action."

He also remarked, "He's an extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to its security. This administration is excelling in this (aspect) and it could not have happened without the immediate, direct support of the president."
Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon said, "I can tell you in a very categorical way that we have not had a better friend than President Obama." 


The seven-minute clip presents Obama as a president unshakably committed to Israel's security and features footage from Obama's single visit to Israel as part of his previous presidential campaign in 2008. He is seen at the Western Wall, Yad Vashem and flying in a helicopter with Barak and Kadima's Tzipi Livni.

The video also shows Obama's various addresses to the Jewish community and at the UN General Assembly where he outlines his commitment to Israel on various issues such as military aid, Iranian sanctions, the fight against the Goldstone Report, the veto at the Security Council and more.
The clip's producers are confident the video will have a positive impact on Jewish voters.




http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4178760,00.html

Saturday, January 14, 2012

The phony war over which US party loves Israel most

 
 
10 January 2012
 
Man points at television screens showing Barack Obama
The Obama administration and its predecessor ramped up unprecedented levels of military aid to Israel.
 
No Aid to Israel?” wonders a recent Facebook ad sponsored by US President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. “Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich say they would start foreign aid to Israel at zero. Reject their extreme plan now!” the ad implores, directing people to sign a petition to that effect on my.barackobama.com (“Stand against “zeroing out aid to Israel””).

After signing the petition, the caption underneath a beaming photo of the president declares that “Any plan to cut foreign aid to zero across the board is dangerous and ignorant. It’s up to us to get the word out about it. Donate now to help us spread the facts about the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan to wipe out foreign aid to allies like Israel.”

As Salon writer Justin Elliott correctly notes, “the Obama ads are incredibly dishonest. First of all, the Republican candidates were talking about setting foreign aid at zero each year as a starting point in discussions about how much to give, not setting it at zero as a matter of policy” (“Obama’s dishonest Israel ads, Salon, 12 December 2011).

However, the Obama campaign is far from unique in employing a breathtakingly simplistic strategy of artifice and vituperation (both against opposing candidates and against Palestinians) to bolster their pro-Israel street cred in a transparent ploy to attract campaign donations and votes. US support for Israel, once a carefully nurtured bipartisan consensus, is fast degenerating in the context of the 2012 presidential election into a mud-slinging partisan contest as to which party, in the words of Mitt Romney, who leveled the accusation against Obama, is more guilty of having “thrown Israel under the bus” (“Mitt Romney accuses Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus”,” CBS News, 19 May 2011).

Last month’s presidential forum organized by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) managed to ratchet up the rhetoric another notch. Invoking the ghost of Neville Chamberlain, Michele Bachmann accused Obama of having “confused engagement with appeasement.” Romney blamed Obama for “immeasurably set[ting] back the prospect of peace in the Middle East.” Rick Perry asserted the administration has unleashed a “torrent of hostility towards Israel.”

Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich took to the airwaves the next day to dub Palestinians an “invented people.” Unnoticed until recently, Rick Santorum topped all other comers when he stated in November that “all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians” (“Pro-settler Santorum claims Mexico and the West Bank,” Salon, 6 January 2012).

This rhetoric occasioned Arab American Institute founder James Zogby to lament that “all of this goes beyond the normal platitudes offered up in an election year. It was dangerous, shameful and crass pandering, making it clear how far today’s GOP has moved from the reality-based foreign policy of the Bush-Baker era” (“GOP candidates discuss Israel-Palestine,” 12 December 2011).

Obama’s clear legacy of support for Israeli policy

Notwithstanding this political hot air, no political elite, whether in the Democratic or Republican Party, can legitimately be accused of “throwing Israel under the bus,” least of all Obama. On behalf of protecting Israeli occupation and apartheid, the president has employed the only US veto at the UN during his term to derail a mild condemnation of Israel’s illegal settlements and backtracked on his hope to see Palestine admitted as a member of the UN this year, while deploying the full arsenal of US diplomacy to block the initiative behind the scenes.

Also lost in the heat of this faux electoral debate is the fact that the Bush and Obama administrations, with a bipartisan rubber stamp in Congress, have tag-teamed to ramp up to unprecedented levels both military aid to Israel and the joint research, development and field testing of anti-missile projects financed separately by the Pentagon. According to the terms of a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries in 2007, the US is scheduled to provide Israel with $30 billion in tax-payer funded weapons between 2009 and 2018, a 25 percent average annual increase over previous levels (Memorandum of understanding, 2007 [PDF]).
While presidential candidates make risible claims that the other party is abandoning support for Israel, this increasing partisan sniping is no laughing matter to those advocating for a strong US-Israel relationship. In September, the Center for Strategic and International Studies released a policy paper by Haim Malka, deputy director of its Middle East Program, warning that this “partisan wedge is likely to deepen, posing considerable challenges to Israel and the US-Israeli partnership.”

This burgeoning fear led two stalwarts of the Israel lobby — the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee — to issue a National Pledge for Unity on Israel, which beseeches “national organizations, elected officials, religious leaders, community groups and individuals to rally around bipartisan support for Israel while preventing the Jewish State from becoming a wedge issue in the upcoming campaign season” (“National pledge for unity on Israel”).

However, instead of calming the waters, the pledge initiative served only to roil them more. The ultra-alarmist Emergency Committee for Israel’s Bill Kristol responded in Washington Jewish Week with a dismissive “You must be kidding” statement, accusing the organizations of needing “a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy” (“Should Israel be a partisan issue in American politics?,” 2 November 2011).

Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, declared that “This effort to stifle debate on US policy toward Israel runs counter to this American tradition.”

Far from rethinking US policy on Israel

Yet Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of “liberal” Israel lobby group J Street, lamented in The Washington Post that this debate is redefining what it means to be “pro-Israel” and rendering it the “exclusive property of the political right. In doing so, they are breaking new ground. Their agenda is not to ensure bipartisan support for aid to Israel or nurturing US-Israeli ties based on shared interests and values” (“What pro-Israel should mean,” 16 December 2011).

Instead, he rather naively accused the candidates of “seek[ing] political advantage,” as if everything that politicians do were not based on their political calculus of what is expedient to them.

While fretting about Israel as an electoral issue has been confined largely so far to the self-described “pro-Israel” crowd, an open and honest debate about US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians desperately needs to take place in the broader body politic as well.

However, this debate must be one which is more substantive and critical than the cotton candy served up in this electoral circus. For far too long, the US political system has treated Israel as a sacred cow, leading to unconditional military and diplomatic support for its illegal 44-year military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and its human rights abuses of Palestinians.

Now that Israel is becoming just another issue over which the parties squabble, even if it is to trip over each other in a modern day redux of “who lost China?” (a debate over communism that raged for much of the twentieth century), US support for Israel is becoming in the process normalized as a political issue.

Proof of this normalization occurred after the bipartisan failure of the super-committee to produce a deficit reduction plan, triggering across-the-board budget cuts in 2013. Because of this deadlock, regular appropriations of US military aid to Israel are set to substantially decrease for the first time since President Gerald Ford’s 1975 “reassessment” of US policy toward Israel.

Obama was to have requested a record-breaking $3.1 billion in military aid to Israel in his Fiscal Year 2013 budget, the level at which weapons to Israel was expected to plateau until 2018.

However, according to Nathan Guttman, writing in the Jewish Daily Forward, Israel will lose an estimated $250 million yearly from its military aid package when across-the-board budget cuts take effect. Surprisingly, Guttman notes, AIPAC, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the US, has yet to publicly protest the upcoming cuts in military aid to Israel, because it “may fear a backlash if Israel is singled out for special treatment in the face of broad cuts favored by both Democrats and Republicans” (“Israel faces $250 million slash in aid,” 2 December 2011).

Even as these tangible cuts to military aid to Israel are in the offing, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby also may have noted to its chagrin that inane electoral posturing over Israel has also seeped into the hallowed halls of Congress itself, thereby undermining the bipartisan consensus on Israel it has so laboriously constructed over the years.

According to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation’s 112th Congressional Report Card, 35 of the 37 Members of Congress rating -5 or worse are Republicans — the only Democrats deserving of the dubious distinction are Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) and Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey’s ninth Congressional district). This demonstrates that the most significant Congressional initiatives on Israel and the Palestinians last year were largely partisan affairs designed to undermine, constrain and humiliate any White House attempts to pressure Israel, even if only in the slight, ineffectual way that Obama did during the early days of his term (“Report card for the 112th congress (2011-2012)”).

Although the elites of the Democratic and Republican parties are far from rethinking US policy toward Israel, much less even considering abandoning it, the normalization of Israel as a political issue is already commonplace at civil society levels and in political discourse. Exasperated by political leaders seemingly incapable of policy change, dozens of university campuses and community organizations are deriving lessons learned from the global South African anti-apartheid movement to organize boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel and companies that profit from its human rights abuses of Palestinians. And even in the rarefied pages of The Washington Post, columnist Walter Pincus suggested in October that it is “time to examine the funding the United States provides to Israel” (“Unites States needs to reevaluate its assistance to Israel”).

By continuing to level sophomoric accusations against each other’s mythical abandonment of Israel, the presidential candidates are inadvertently and perhaps counter-intuitively helping to normalize the question of US support for Israel and providing fodder to the strengthening currents in civil society truly questioning failed US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

As is the case in all processes of social and political change, this grassroots ferment is a necessary prerequisite for a broad-scale policy change at the political level. Such a policy review, although a long ways off as demonstrated by the 2012 election cycle, is nevertheless essential if the US hopes to broker a just and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of human rights, international law and UN resolutions, rather than continuing to obstruct its attainment.

Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and a former analyst of Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service.


http://electronicintifada.net/content/phony-war-over-which-us-party-loves-israel-most/10794

America on Israel’s Altar

by Paul J. Balles on 01/10/2012

Zionist Newt Gingrich

The Boston Globe called U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul a "Republican maverick".
The label has been attached to Paul primarily because he differs from the other Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy. Said The Globe after the presidential debate In Des Moines, Iowa on December 10th:
"While most of the Republican candidates are open to military action against Iran, Paul advocates diplomacy. While several of the candidates oppose cutting the defence budget, Paul wants to slash it. Paul was one of the only candidates in the debate to oppose extending the Patriot Act."
For those unfamiliar with the Patriot Act, it was enacted presumably to help fight terrorism after 9/11 while sacrificing individual rights.
According to The Globe,
"Dean Spiliotes, an independent political analyst from New Hampshire, said Paul's foreign policy contradicts core Republican tenets of strong national security and defence. But it appeals to Americans who are tired of war and focused on economic issues."
The foreign policy differences between Ron Paul and his adversaries make him an ideal candidate for those tired of America's war hawks bankrupting the country.
During the Republican candidates' debate, Paul didn't believe Israel would actually strike Iran--but if it did, "we need to get out of their way," he cautioned.
"When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us," admonished Paul.
"They decide they want to bomb something?" asked Paul. "That's their business, but they should suffer the consequences. Israel has 200--300 nuclear missiles and they can take care of themselves."
For an American politician to make comments like that took courage. The one that followed would certainly upset American Israeli supporters:
"We don't even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?"
In the debate, the other candidates were falling all over themselves, attempting to show their dedication to Israel. The leading candidate, Mitt Romney groaned:
"There's no price which is worth an Iranian nuclear weapon. And the right course is to show that we care about Israel, that they are our friend; we'll stick with them."
This is the same pre-emptive war hawk rubbish that Bush and Cheney and the Zioncons fed the public as the way to combat terrorism when, in fact, they were telling Israel and its lobbies that America will eternally fight Israel's wars.
Promised Romney,
Ads
Free Palestine shirt
Buy Free Palestine T-Shirt from Sabbah Store
Browse more Palestine T-Shirts

"If I'm president of the United States, my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region."
The Republican candidates, except Ron Paul, all go overboard in their attempts to prove to the supporters in America that they will serve the interests of Israel at any cost.
Of course, the rest of the world doesn't need to be shown that the U.S. cares about Israel. The only politician unwilling to sacrifice America for Israel is Ron Paul.
The American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee (ADC) recently illustrated the problem with Republicans' unabated support for Israel:
"Among politicians, Newt Gingrich called the Palestinian people an 'invented people', Eric Cantor said that Palestinian culture was 'infused with hatred and resentment,' and Mitt Romney said that he would consult with Benjamin Netanyahu in making U.S. policy toward Palestinians because, apparently, Israel does not have enough say in U.S. policy toward the Middle East."
If Ron Paul miraculously receives continuing strong support, his voting public will be tired of sacrificing America on Israel's altar.

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2012/01/10/america-on-israels-altar/

Ron Paul runs into anti-Zionist rabbi amid Israel policy debate

  • Published 20:18 10.01.12
  • Latest update 20:18 10.01.12

Republican presidential hopeful holds chance meeting with top Neturei Karta rabbi, who told him Judaism shouldn't turn into a nationality, to which Paul replies, 'Good advice.'

By Natasha Mozgovaya 


U.S. Congressman and Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul found himself in the eye of a potential controversy on Tuesday, following a brief encounter with a leading member of the anti-Zionist Haredi sect Neturei Karta.

According to the Jewish Chronicle, Paul met Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, a one-time attendee of conference by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioning the Holocaust, in a New Hampshire campaign event.

Neturei Karta - Natasha Mozgovaya Neturei Karta members protesting near the Capitol Hill ahead of a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu, May 2011.
Photo by: Natasha Mozgovaya

Approaching Paul, Weiss reportedly told the Republican presidential hopeful that Judaism "is a religion, and it should never be transformed into a nationalism, "to which Paul reportedly said that the suggestion was "good advice."

A photo of the occasion was posted on the American Spectator website.

The reported incident came amid recent controversy concerning Paul's views on Israel, with former aide Eric Dondero claiming last month that the Texas representative was anti-Israel.

“He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all,” Dondero wrote in his blog on the RightWing News website. “His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer.”


Another former Paul aide, Leon Hadar, however, defended Paul, telling Haaretz that the Republican presidential hopeful was "against Israel as I am against January. He is just against foreign aid, and does not see any reason to grant an aid to the country that is a member of OECD."


"We should remember it's the primaries, and the Republican party establishment is not happy about his popularity, because on many issues his positions run contrary to the traditional party's agenda," Hadar added.
The issue was finally addressed by Paul himself, who in interview to Haaretz denied allegations that he has promoted anti-Semitism, saying that this would be “a betrayal of my own intellectual heritage.”

“Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy,” Paul said in an interview with Haaretz, conducted by email.

“I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun,” Paul said.


http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/ron-paul-runs-into-anti-zionist-rabbi-amid-israel-policy-debate-1.406564

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

2012 Campaign: The United States of “Israel”?

Nour Rida  


 
Its 2012, the presidential battle in the United States of America started its real warm up. Since the current US President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he has only been adding up more stories to the “Tell some Obama administration memoirs”. He has spent his term collecting the scattered US administration and people, who had suffered a lot during the Bush era, but not too long before he even did worse. 

The failing health care plan, the ballooning nation’s debts reaching past $15 trillion, the expansion of US military activity worldwide-including the drones buzzing over several countries and aiming for haphazard targets under the pretext of counter-terrorism, the ongoing financial support for “Israel’s” Iron Dome and War system at the time some Americans still live in tents upon loss of their homes during the Global financial crisis back in 2009, and the list of O’bummer achievements is endless. Oh and did we forget to mention the oil spill in the Mexican gulf that has led to a natural disaster? All that among claims that economy is on the mend…

In his May 2011 speech on the Middle East, President Obama described the US commitment to “Israel’s” security as “unshakeable”. Also in 2011, the Obama administration requested $3 billion in Foreign Military financing for “Israel”, the highest level since 2003. According to the State Department, the assistance is aimed at maintaining “Israel’s” “qualitative military edge” and ensuring “the security it requires to make concessions necessary for comprehensive regional peace.”

Today, after all the relentless efforts Obama has made to support “Israel”, nearly all Republican presidential candidates have expressed resentment towards the Obama administration for what they said is waning support for “Israel”. They also have expressed strong backing for “Israel”, as quotes the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Beginning with Representative Michele Bachmann, she cites her Christian background as the foundation of her support for “Israel”. “”Israel” is not merely the cradle of my faith; it’s the greatest strategic asset the United States has in the region.” She says, stressing that “the United States should ensure that “Israel” gets “stronger and stronger” so that it is able to defend itself “at all times and under all circumstances.”

Bachmann said she would “fully recognize al-Quds (Jerusalem) as “Israel’s” undivided capital, and will be the first administration to finally implement the laws passed by Congress requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy to al-Quds (Jerusalem).”

As for Newt Gingrich, in his remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition in December 2011, former speaker of the House Gingrich said the greatest obstacle is that “Israel” should not be expected to negotiate with any Palestinian coalition that includes Hamas, “an organization dedicated to its destruction.” Gingrich, criticizing Obama’s stance on pre-1967 borders as a basis for negotiations during his May 2011 speech on the Middle East, said it is “a suicidal step for “Israel”.”

Gingrich supports the recognition of Jerusalem as the “undivided capital of a Jewish state,” and has also vowed, if elected, to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to al-Quds (Jerusalem). 

In a December 2011 interview, Gingrich questioned the historical basis of a distinct Palestinian people, stating “remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community.”
As for Jon Huntsman, he believes “the foundation of a successful US policy in the Middle East rests upon a strong US-”Israel” relationship.”

Huntsman says the “best chance for peace is for “Israel” to know that America stands shoulder-to-shoulder beside her and for the Palestinians and “Israelis” to negotiate with each other.”

Writing in the National Review Online, Huntsman referred to the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN as a “cynical, counterproductive ploy.”

In the short term, he says, “We must work to regain the confidence of our friends in Israel so that meaningful work toward an enduring peace can begin.”

Representative Ron Paul, for his part, calls for a reduced US diplomatic role in Arab-”Israeli” affairs, including cutting off foreign aid to “Israel” and other countries in the region. Perhaps being less diplomatic on “Israel” would help him arrive in office… He says the United States buys “Israel’s” allegiance and “they sacrifice their sovereignty to us.”

Paul has also been critical, referring to the 2009 “Israeli” invasion of Gaza as a “sad day” that demonstrated the “unfortunate” spread of preemptive war.

He has described conditions in Gaza as a “tragedy” similar to that of a concentration camp. He opposed House Resolution 34, a 2009 congressional motion formalizing U.S. support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Paul said he was “appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza–a cruel act of war–and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest “Israeli” attack.”

Now Texas Governor Rick Perry, a strong advocate of U.S.-”Israeli” relations, describes the latter as a special partner and the US’s “oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East.”

Perry condemned the White House for suggesting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations, and described the Palestinian insistence on the “right of return” of refugees as “a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian ‘solution’ remains the destruction of the Jewish state.”

Perry says the Obama administration has encouraged Palestinians to “take steps backward” from the peace process by demanding an Israeli settlement freeze in late 2010.

Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum in December 2011, Perry said, “I support the goal of a Palestinian state, but it should be the Palestinians who meet certain preconditions,” These preconditions include a statehood “directly negotiated between “Israeli” and the Palestinian leaders; second, a Palestinian recognition of “Israel’s” right to exist as a Jewish state; and third, Palestinian leaders must renounce the terrorist activities of Hamas.”

Under the title “An American Century”, which outlines his foreign policy strategy, Republican candidate Mitt Romney describes “Israel” as the closest US ally in the Middle East, and said he will work to maintain “Israel’s” “strategic military edge.” He iterated that “The key to negotiating a lasting peace is an “Israel” that knows it will be secure.”

Romney said he will oppose “any measure,” such as a moratorium on Jewish settlements, “that would frustrate direct negotiations” between the two parties.” In the November 2011, foreign policy debate, Romney said, “My first foreign trip will be to “Israel”, to show the world we care about that country and that region.”

Just like his fellow candidates, Lawyer and former United States Senator from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum has denied the existence of a Palestinian people, stating that “All the people who live in the West Bank are “Israelis”, they are not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian. This is “Israeli” land.”

In a November campaign stop, the candidate also strongly condemned the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, describing the move as “an embarrassment to this country,” and “an offense to the state of “Israel”.”

In the National Review Online in May 2011, Santorum wrote that “Israel” “has never been in more danger of disappearing” and described it as “surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists.” 

The 57th quadrennial United States Presidential Election will be held on November 6, 2012, and it will be expected to feature the incumbent, President Barack Obama for the Democrats, against a yet to be decided Republican candidate all “Israel”-friendly. 

All Republican candidates have exploited the stuttering economy, runaway public debt and the lack of viable solutions as well as the rise to the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially in light of a Democratic administration under which the gap between the rich and poor has widened.

By Nour Rida.  Article originally posted here http://www.english.moqawama.org/.

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2012/01/2012-campaign-the-united-states-of-israel/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+intifada-palestine%2FyTiY+%28Intifada+Palestine%29

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Ron Paul tells Haaretz: I am not an anti-Semite

  • Published 22:11 28.12.11
  • Latest update 22:11 28.12.11

U.S. presidential hopeful opposes foreign aid and believes that American support for Israel was a main cause of 9/11 terror attacks – but gives a 'green light' to an Israeli attack on Iran.

By Chemi Shalev


Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who is leading the polls in advance of next Tuesday’s Republican caucuses in Iowa, denies allegations that he has promoted anti-Semitism, saying that this would be “a betrayal of my own intellectual heritage.”



Ron Paul - AP - 28.12.2011 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul during a campaign stop at the Iowa Speedway in Newton, Iowa, Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011.
Photo by: AP


“Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy,” Paul said in an interview with Haaretz, conducted by email. “Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals,” Paul said.

Paul said that he has “a terrific chance of doing very well in the Iowa caucuses”, but appeared to be dismissing speculation – though not unequivocally - that he would consider running as a third party candidate. “I have no intention or interest in running as a third party candidate. My staff and I are doing our best to win the GOP nomination,” he said.

Responding to questions submitted before the most recent flap about anti-Semitic and racist content in his newsletters, Paul reiterated his controversial positions that American support for Israel was one of the reasons for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and stuck by his opposition to any and all foreign aid. But he said that he viewed Israel as “one of our most important friends in the world” and that he supports Israel right to attack Iran in self-defense.

“I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.”
Paul also said that he was “surprised and disappointed” at being left out from the debate sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, but that he had not asked nor expected the other candidates to insist on his inclusion.

Asked later about the controversial newsletters, Paul’s press secretary, Gary Howard, wrote: “Dr. Paul has stated repeatedly that he did not write those words, they are not his thoughts, he has disavowed them and apologized for such a serious lack of oversight of these things that went out in his name over 20 years ago.”
Here is the full text of the interview:

Q. What was your reaction to your exclusion from the function held by the Republican Jewish Coalition, to which all the rest of the candidates were invited?

Paul: Well, it was a bit surprising and disappointing. I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are “self-determination” and “self-reliance.” I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.

Q. Were you disappointed with the lack of collegiality of the other candidates, who did not insist that you be invited as well?

Paul: No. I did not ask or expect them to boycott the event or insist to the organizers that I be invited.
Q. The RJC characterized your views on Israel as “misguided and extreme”. Why do you think they view your views in that way?

Paul: I do not know, as I am the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.
Q. Do you think that the American debate on Israel is stifled?

Paul: There is no question that the problems of the Middle East have been intractable and may take new solutions and ideas. These ideas should all be openly discussed. I believe that my opinions have been distorted by those who want to continue America’s current role as world policeman, which we don’t have the money or manpower to sustain.

My philosophy, like that of the Founding Fathers, is that we should use our resources to protect our nation. Our policies of intervention and manipulation in Iran and Iraq and other places have led to unintended consequences and have not made Israel safer. Many in the Jewish community share my opinion, and it’s vital for both nations that we continue to have an open dialogue.

Q. In a 2007 clip that is on YouTube, you say, “Israel should be treated like everybody else”. Is that still your position, or do you believe that Israel and the United States have a “special relationship”?

Q. Well, we do have some unique arrangements. We trade intelligence in areas when it serves our mutual interest, for instance. But I believe we have gone too far, to Israel’s detriment. Instead of being her friend, we have dominated her foreign policy.

Q. In that same clip, you also say that the motivation of al-Qaida for the 9/11 attacks was American support for Israel. Do you still believe that?

Paul: I think most people in the Middle East and probably in Israel would agree that this was a major factor. That in itself does not make our policies right or wrong. Our policies need to be discussed on their own merits, but as a matter of course, yes, our support of Israel has made us enemies.

Other U.S. policies, such as our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support for repressive regimes in the region, also play a role in hostilities to the U.S. Those in the Arab world who object to the U.S.’ support for dictatorships and to our military presence there often see Israel as the agent of the U.S. Thus, not only do Israel’s relations with the U.S. cause some negative feelings toward America, but they further Arab hostility toward Israel, which is one reason why Israel would be better off without U.S. aid.

Q. In the Fox News presidential debate you expressed understanding and even sympathy for the Iran having nuclear weapons. But Israelis view an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat to their country. Do you disagree? Do you not believe Iranian leaders who say that Israel should be “wiped off the map”?
Paul: I am against the spread of nuclear weapons. But I do understand why other nations want them and why they don’t accept the nuclear monopoly as it now stands. You cannot change an opinion you don’t understand. I understand it and would try to change it.

However, there’s a key fact that it seems is being overlooked when my positions are discussed. I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.

Q. Do you support completely cutting all foreign aid, including the aid to Israel?

Paul: Yes, I am personally against all foreign aid. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy.

If I were President, such aid would not end until the Congress agreed and voted for it to end, because I would be President as the U.S. Constitution defines it. I am not running for dictator.
But I believe that federal foreign aid is absurd. We’re broke! We are like a man who used to be rich and is in the habit of paying for everybody’s meals and announces at a lavish dinner that he will pay the bill, only to then turn to the fellow sitting nearby and say, “Can I use your credit card? I will pay you back.” It is ridiculous for us to be borrowing money from China and giving it to Pakistan.

I have described foreign aid as taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. I know that many in other nations are hurting, but I also know that the American people are a generous people. While we should end the unconstitutional federal foreign aid program, I would encourage Americans to continue to voluntarily contribute to the needs of other nations.

Q. In the past, you have been accused by various groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, of accepting the support of racist and anti-Semitic elements and of not doing anything to distance yourself from them. What is your reaction to this accusation?

Paul: I have always made it clear, and will continue to do so, that my message is based on the rights of all people to be treated equally. Any type of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy. Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals. Therefore, for me to advance anti-Semitism in any way would be a betrayal of my own intellectual heritage.

Q. Will you win the Iowa primaries? Do you realistically believe that you have a chance of becoming the Republican candidacy for the presidency? If not, would you consider running as a third candidate?
Paul: I have no intention or interest in running as a third party candidate. My staff and I are doing our best to win the GOP nomination, and, while I can’t know for sure what will happen, I think we have a terrific chance of doing very well in Iowa. I have great hope for America, and I have been deeply encouraged by the young people who have been able to understand the issues and stand courageously for the changes we need.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/ron-paul-tells-haaretz-i-am-not-an-anti-semite-1.404208

Monday, December 26, 2011

Obama isn't good enough

Op-ed: In face of growing threats, Israel needs more reliable ally than President Obama
 
Shoula Romano Horing
 
Published: 12.26.11, 10:12 / Israel Opinion
Israel is again facing a very dangerous and unstable time. The Arab Spring has turned into a nightmare of Muslim extremism, with dangerous weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups.
Hence, Israel cannot afford to have a reluctant US president, like Barack Obama, who will not be there when the Jewish state needs unquestioned and immediate support. Only a president who truly appreciates the Israel-US alliance and values Israel as America’s most important Mideast ally will not use the upcoming danger as a bargaining chip to further weaken Israel.
Foreign Policy

America’s Iraq catastrophe / Orly Azoulay

Analysis: Toppling Saddam Hussein while letting Iran threat grow was a grave mistake
Full story

The record show that both leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich appreciate Israel as an ally and both will be better for Israel than Barack Obama.

Israel has always lived in a very hostile neighborhood, but in the aftermath of the unprecedented regional shakeups of the last year the Jewish state is facing the biggest danger and risk to its survival since 1973.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the more radical Salafists took about 70% of the vote in the first two rounds of the parliamentary elections. The long term danger to Israel is that the peace treaty with Egypt will be revised or cancelled and that a war will break out. Meanwhile, in the wake of Mubarak’s fall, Egypt’s army has been too preoccupied to stop the arms smuggling and flow of terrorists to Gaza and to the Sinai, further boosting the terror threat faced by Israel.

In Lebanon, the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah possesses more than 60,000 rockets that can reach all major populations centers in Israel. In the chaos of the Syrian civil war, Hezbollah has reportedly been moving heavy weapons from Syria into Lebanon.

In praise of Romney, Gingrich 

Meanwhile, Syria possesses the region’s largest known supply of chemical and biological weapons and more than 1,000 ballistic Scud missiles. In the chaos to following the Assad regime’s likely collapse, many of those can end up in the hands of terrorist groups.

In Morocco and Tunisia the Islamists have won recent elections, and many Libyan and Yemenite rebel leaders are aligned with al-Qaeda. Elsewhere, US officials warn that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within a year, while Turkey, which is led by an Islamist party, has downgraded its long-term military and diplomatic relations with Israel.

Finally, the recent pullout of American troops from Iraq and their scheduled departure from Afghanistan will leave Israel alone and isolated in the Middle East, encircled by those who wish to destroy her. Given these circumstances, the Jewish state cannot afford to have president who for the last three years has tried to create a new alliance with the Muslim world by distancing himself from Israel, while not hesitating to abandon a close ally like Mubarak.


In contrast, both Romney and Gingrich have made it clear that the US should be willing to stand by its allies and both have criticized Obama’s ambivalence towards Israel. Both have repeatedly pledged to bolster and repair the US-Israel alliance.

Romney’s statement that” Our friends, like Israel, should never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need” and Gingrich‘s political courage to state that the Palestinians are “invented people” are the perfect responses to Obama’s Muslim outreach. Now, the Republicans must make sure to nominate the candidate who has the best chance to beat Obama.
Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is an attorney in Kansas City and a national speaker. Her blog: www.shoularomanohoring.com

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4166837,00.html

Ron Paul is not anti-Semitic but is anti-Israel, former aide says

  • ublished 03:06 27.12.11
  • Latest update 03:06 27.12.11

'He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all,' says former senior aide; 'He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously,' Paul camp responds.

By Natasha Mozgovaya and Haaretz


Republican presidential candidate hopeful Ron Paul supports calls for the abolishment of Israel as a Jewish state, and the return of it, in its entirety, to the Arabs, though he is not an anti-Semite, Eric Dondero, a former senior aide of the libertarian Texan congressman, wrote in a blog Monday.

“He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all,” Dondero wrote. “His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer.”

Ron Paul - Reuters - 27122011 U.S. Republican presidential candidate and Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) speaks at a Town Hall Meeting at the Historic Clinton Engines Building in Maquoketa, Iowa, December 22, 2011.
Photo by: Reuters
 
“He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”

"Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer who was fired for performance issues," CBS news quoted Paul spokesman Jesse Benton’s response to the column. "He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously."

A recent Public Policy Polling telephone survey of 597 likely Republican caucus voters in Iowa found Paul leading with 23 percent of the vote, followed by 20 percent for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and 14 percent for Gingrich, making Paul the leading candidate in the Republican race for the White House.

Paul’s views on Israel are already known to many. These views led the Republican Jewish Coalition, a organization of Jewish Republicans to exclude the Texan congressman from a debate they held in the beginning of December, explaining ," there is no reason "to allow Paul to pretend he is anything but an extremist who is far outside of the mainstream, especially when it comes to issues concerning the U.S.-Israel alliance."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/ron-paul-is-not-anti-semitic-but-is-anti-israel-former-aide-says-1.403805 

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Top Jewish fundraisers sticking with Obama for 2012

Published 10:49 21.12.11 Latest update 10:49 21.12.11


Top-level Jewish fundraisers from President Obama’s 2008 campaign are sticking with the president in 2012.

Despite reports that President Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, analysis of a list of elite bundlers from his 2008 race shows no defections among the president’s top Jewish supporters in 2012. 

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama
Photo by: Getty / courtesy of The Forward

In 2008, Obama’s elite “bundlers” — fund raisers who collected more than $500,000 each for the president’s campaign — included many prominent Jews. Aside from those who hold government jobs that bar them from political fundraising, all of them have returned on the 2012 campaign’s list of volunteer bundlers, or are confirmed to be fundraising for the campaign. And a handful of new prominent Jewish bundlers has joined the elite group this year for the first time.

The Forward’s findings don’t speak to support for Obama among Jewish voters, or to how the president will fare among rank-and-file Jewish donors who gave or collected lesser sums.

Indeed, some of those elite donors report that support for Obama may be thinner further down the ladder.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/top-jewish-fundraisers-sticking-with-obama-for-2012-1.402728

Monday, December 19, 2011

Poll: Ron Paul boots Gingrich out of top spot in Iowa

 Published 17:38 19.12.11 Latest update 17:38 19.12.11

The Public Policy Polling survey of 597 likely Republican caucus voters in Iowa found Paul, leading with 23 percent of the vote, followed by 20 percent for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and 14 percent for Gingrich.

By Reuters


Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich suffered a big drop in support in Iowa with Ron Paul taking the lead weeks before a key caucus in the state, according to a Democratic polling firm.

The Public Policy Polling telephone survey of 597 likely Republican caucus voters in Iowa found Paul, a congressman from Texas, leading with 23 percent of the vote, followed by 20 percent for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and 14 percent for Gingrich.

Ron Paul - Reuters - December 2011 Republican presidential candidate, U.S. Representative Ron Paul speaks as former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich looks on during a Republican debate in Sioux City, Iowa.
Photo by: Reuters

"Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding and Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row," the polling firm, which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, said in a statement.

Gingrich's share of the vote in the past two weeks has gone from 27 percent to 22 percent to 14 percent, in the latest poll, taken Dec 16-18, with a margin of error for the survey of plus or minus four points, it said.

Gingrich's personal favorability numbers also fell during the past fortnight from plus 31 to plus 12 to a minus 1 now among Iowa voters polled ahead of the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3, the polling firm said.

Among the other candidates in the race to oppose Democratic President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry each received 10 percent of the votes, while 4 percent went for Jon Huntsman, and 2 percent for Gary Johnson, it said.

The libertarian-leaning Paul's unusual rise to the top of a poll comes amid a strong campaign in Iowa, the pollsters said. But they said his popularity depended heavily on the youth vote and he trailed both Romney and Gingrich among older voters.

Gingrich reached the top of the Republican field last month as the favored conservative alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. But his front-runner status has prompted attacks from rivals that he is an unreliable conservative and influence peddler, particularly over fat fees he earned from Freddie Mac, a mortgage giant tied to the economic recession.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/poll-ron-paul-boots-gingrich-out-of-top-spot-in-iowa-1.402380

Netanyahu for President (of America)

by Alan Hart on December 16, 2011

It's now clear that the Republican frontrunner in the race for the White House is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.



Officially the two Republican frontrunners are Newt "the Palestinians are an invented people" Gingrich and Mitt "Obama has pushed Israel under a bus" Romney.

Both are political whores locked in a competition of their own as well as with President Obama for Zionist lobby organized campaign funds and American Jewish votes. (In a very close election race the latter could determine who becomes president).

The probability is that Romney will emerge as the winner and be the one to take on Obama. So what Romney said in the last debate with the other Republican candidates is of critical importance. He said:

"If I was president I'd get on the 'phone to Bibi and say 'Would it help if I said this?'"
In other words, if Romney becomes president, Netanyahu will the one determining American foreign policy for Israel-Palestine.

Because of Obama's first-term surrender to the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress there's a case for saying that Netanyahu already is, effectively, the president of America so far as policy for Israel-Palestine is concerned.

So is there no prospect of next November's election producing a president who will be prepared to put America's own real interests first by confronting the Zionist monster?

If the Republicans get the key to the White House the answer will be "No", because a first-term Republican president will not want to destroy his prospects for a second term by making an enemy of the Zionist lobby and its fundamentalist (deluded, even mad)) Christian partners.

But in my view there is a possibility that a second-term Obama might use the leverage all American presidents have to get a real peace process going, even if that means, as it would, challenging the Zionist lobby's stooges in Congress to decide whether they are Americans first or not. (Those who are not could be condemned and prosecuted as traitors).

It's not often that I find myself in agreement with anything written by the New York Times' op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman, but his latest piece under the headline Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir is a great contribution to the debate about what he calls the "grovelling" to the Zionist lobby of the Republican would-be presidents. (Friedman actually calls it the "Israel lobby", but as I never tire of saying, that's not an accurate description of the monster. Israel lobby implies that it speaks for all Israelis and it does not).

Here's part of what he wrote about the would-be Republican presidents in their last debate.
"Newt Gingrich took the Republican competition to grovel for Jewish votes - by out loving Israel - to a new low by suggesting that the Palestinians are an 'invented' people and not a real nation entitled to a state.

"This was supposed to show that Newt loves Israel more than Mitt Romney, who only told the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom that he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because 'I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that's something I'll be inclined to do. ... I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process. Instead, we should stand by our ally.'"

Friedman's comment on that Romney contribution was:

"That's right. America's role is to just applaud whatever Israel does, serve as its A.T.M. and shut up. We have no interests of our own. And this guy's running for president?"
Then Friedman considered the implications of Gingrich's stated position.
Ads
Unite! speckcase
Buy Unite! for iPhone 4 from Sabbah Store
View more iphone 4 cases

"As for Newt, well, let's see. If the 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians are not a real people entitled to their own state, that must mean Israel is entitled to permanently occupy the West Bank and that must mean - as far as Newt is concerned - that Israel's choices are: (1) to permanently deprive the West Bank Palestinians of Israeli citizenship and put Israel on the road to apartheid; (2) to evict the West Bank Palestinians through ethnic cleansing and put Israel on the road to the International Criminal Court in the Hague; or (3) to treat the Palestinians in the West Bank as citizens, just like Israeli Arabs, and lay the foundation for Israel to become a bi-national state. And this is called being 'pro-Israel'?"
Friedman also had something to say about Netanyahu.
"I sure hope he understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."
And about his own position and American Jews in general, Friedman wrote this:
"I'd never claim to speak for American Jews, but I'm certain there are many out there like me, who strongly believe in the right of the Jewish people to a state, who understand that Israel lives in a dangerous neighbourhood yet remains a democracy (for how much longer, I ask?) but who are deeply worried about where Israel is going today. My guess is we're the minority when it comes to secular American Jews. We still care. Many other Jews are just drifting away."
If many American Jews really are drifting away from support for Israel right or wrong, that could make taking on and defeating the Zionist lobby a more manageable proposition for a second-term President Obama.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Sunday, December 18, 2011

The bottom line: Obama speaks Jewish, Republicans don’t

Published 00:56 17.12.11 Latest update 00:56 17.12.11

Obama knew how to touch all the right buttons of his Reform and liberal Jewish audience during his address to the Union for Reform Judaism.

By Chemi Shalev
 
by Chemi Shalev
  • Published 00:56 17.12.11
  • Latest update 00:56 17.12.11

The bottom line: Obama speaks Jewish, Republicans don’t

Obama knew how to touch all the right buttons of his Reform and liberal Jewish audience during his address to the Union for Reform Judaism.

By Chemi Shalev 


If I were a Republican watching the live stream of President Obama’s speech before the Reform movement’s biennial convention in Washington on Friday, I would have reached two immediate conclusions: 1. Obama, the consummate campaigner who has been more or less missing in action since his inauguration, is back and 2. Forget about the Reform Jewish vote. He’s got that locked up.


Indeed, they must have been tearing their hair out, the Republicans, to see the audience give wave after wave of ecstatic applause and standing ovations to the man who, as Mitt Romney put it, “threw Israel under a bus” - especially after weeks of having fallen over themselves to express their undying love and uncritical support for the Jewish state. Perhaps there won’t be a sea change in the Jewish vote, they might console themselves after this speech, but let’s hope for a modest stream, or a trickle, at the very least. 

Obama at URJ conference - Mozgovaya - Dec. 16, 2011 U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the 71st General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism, December 16, 2011.
Photo by: Natasha Mozgovaya

The main reason for dampening the Republican hopes, as Obama clearly showed in his masterful manipulation of his all-too-willing audience, was summed up four years ago by the late Reform Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf of Chicago’s KAM Isaiah Synagogue. He told the Chicago Jewish News a week before the 2008 elections that “Obama is sort of Jewish in a way. His overachieving is Jewish, his intellectualism is Jewish, even his charisma has a Jewish side. I feel like he's one of us.” 

"I like McCain too,” Rabbi Wolf added, referring to Obama’s 2008 Republican rival, “but he ain't one of us." And neither are Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul, when you come to think of it. 

Obama’s long years and close relationships with his numerous Jewish friends and financial supporters in Chicago were prominently on display in his speech, and he knew how to touch all the right buttons of his Reform and liberal Jewish audience: to say Shabbat Shalom, to speak of the weekly Torah portion, to nod to the Reform youth movement NFTY, to invoke the concepts of Hineni and Tikun Olam, to cite the great Jewish support for the black civil rights movement, to quote such liberal Jewish icons as Louis Brandeis and Abraham Joshua Heschel, to speak tough on Iran, to pledge undying devotion to Israel, to claim that his Administration has done more for Israel’s security than any other and to pointedly remind his audience that, unlike his rivals, he has been focused on the next generation rather than the next elections. 

And, in what was probably the most human moment in his speech, to recount the arguments with his daughter Malia over the proper length of skirt that she should wear to the weekly bar and bat mitzvahs to which she is invited. 

Midway through the speech, an Israeli friend texted me with his one word critique: “boring”, he wrote. Perhaps that’s because Obama wasn’t aiming his speech at Israelis but at American Jews who - as we’ve all been reminded in recent weeks in the controversy over the Israeli government ads aimed at returning Israeli expatriates - are a breed apart. 

After months of relentless and often ruthless Republican attacks on his record and faced with prognostications of pollsters and pundits of the potential Jewish flight from his camp, Obama used his appearance before an excited home crowd to send a clear message to his concerned supporters and to his cocky critics. If one may be so presumptuous as to borrow a famous quote from American naval hero John Paul Jones, Obama’s message was crystal clear: “I have not yet begun to fight”. 

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/the-bottom-line-obama-speaks-jewish-republicans-don-t-1.401904