In almost 20 years of reading the Jerusalem Post I have never seen
such a reaction to a Jerusalem Post editorial.
Apparently people are just fed up with the lies when discussing Obama’s
relation to Israel
On Tuesday’s “Special Report” during the show’s “All-Star Panel” segment, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer reacted to remarks from President Barack Obama claiming he was “the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat” in the Oval Office.
Krauthammer expressed his confusion, but criticized Obama’s “personal hurt” and suggested he reevaluate his position on an Iran nuke deal.
“I’m not sure I even understand what that means,” Krauthammer said. “But perhaps the judgment of Israelis, who 6 million of them are Jews, have a pretty good idea what a Jew is and more importantly have a pretty good ideal of what a friend is – I think the approval rating for Obama is about 15 percent. The administration pretends this is about Netanyahu and Likud and the hawks and extremists. And 15 percent of Israelis have a favorable view of Obama. The overwhelming majority of Israelis know that this president has probably been the least favorable to Israel of any in Israel’s history and at a moment where Israel’s existence is actually in question.”
“For Obama, this is a matter of personal hurt,” he continued. “I mean, who cares what he feels? The issue is will Iran go nuclear? We know Iran’s objective is the eradication of Israel – something it repeats over and over again. They will acquire the means to do so. The issue here is that after 40 years of non-proliferation based on the principle that nobody enriches uranium, we are now going to be signing a deal proudly with Iran, which is a rogue state and as Steve [Hayes] indicated, broken every promise it has made – a rogue state, which is now going to be able to enrich legally and legitimately. That’s the end of the non-proliferation regime in the world. We’re now going to enter a period of hyper-proliferation starting now.”
Alan G • 6 hours ago
Was this Chickensh*t editorial written by a nameless wimp or what??? I believe that even most JPost writers don't support it's faulty thesis. Obama's "reaching out" to Israel equates to reaching out and sticking his fingers in our eyes to try and gouge them out. We are not fools. Yes, we read Obama's lips, but we also observe his treacherous actions that have put the majority of world's Jewry in a existentially-perilous situation. My suggestion to JPost readers who are fed up with the Post's current leftist, HaAretz-like antics, is to go to Frontpage Magazine, Arutz 7, Wall Street Journal, or even Fox news. Demand a change at the editorial and managerial level - put the heat on them, but call it "Obama love."
Yidvocate • 6 hours ago
"US President Barack Obama has faced an endless litany of baseless charges regarding everything from claims of animosity to Israel to even anti-Semitic attitudes"
"Baseless" - really?
Has the editor not read any of his own papers over the last 6+ years?
PDS Christian View • 6 hours ago
Who ever wrote this is clearly brain dead. Maybe it was Herzog, it sounds rather Herzogian.
I'll not bother saying it slow and clearly "Obama hates Israel". The writer needs to seriously seek professional help for his/her delusions.
So what if "the American president has made a concerted effort in recent weeks to reach out to Jews both in America and in Israel".
Such honeyed words don't compensate for the undeniable fact that since
Obama became president (and even before, when he worshipped at Pastor Wrights vile anti-Semitic church), he has shown great hostility towards Israel and towards our Prime Minister, and he did, indeed, write in his hook "Audacity of Home" that he would stand with the Muslims "should the political winds shift
in an ugly direction". His dislike of Israel has never slackened, even in the face of the many conciliatory gestures made by Netanyahu, in the interests of advancing the peace process (and in the vain hope of placating Obama and world public opinion), such as a 10-month freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, the release of terrorist prisoners, and many others. His recent very obvious desire for a Zionist Union victory in Israel's elections, (since it is thought by the US that this party will be more inclined to yield to American pressure than Likud), and his actual help in trying to bring this about, together with a delay in phoning to congratulate Netanyahu on Likud's victory, show very clearly his distaste for our country, especially under a Likud government.
Obama's words, in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg and his speech at
a synagogue, were certainly very eloquent, but, in the light of his anti-Israel
deeds, it seems clear that there must have been have been a hidden motivation behind such warmth, such as a desire to curry favour with Jewish Democrats, in the hope of receiving large donations from them to help in the forthcoming elections.
With this being their second editorial singing Obama's praises within a few days, I resent the paper's uncritical approval of the American president, and their deprecation of those (including JP columnists) who criticize Obama, since those who do so have very solid grounds for their distrust. We none of us deserve to be rapped over the knuckles by a left-wing JP editorial writer.
charliecrown • 7 hours ago
Steve Lind, stop foisting your pablum on us please. Obama is not anti-semtic per se, with that I agree. He is the worst President for Israel though, somehow thinking that shiiting on Israel since before he was elected and rarely if ever criticizing the intrasigent and deeply bigoted Palestinians is a sign of "unshakable friendship"
He's on a charm offensive for 1 reason only. To soften up Jewish Democrats, and give them ammunition to support the Iran deal, he is so desperate to reach, and he doesn't need a feud with a country that Congress likes at the same time. That's it, and it's transparent. If/when they reach that deal, the screws will turn as has been widely reported in Jpost and other papers.
Sure weapons deals are nice to some extent but, We don't need the weapons from America. We could easily buy them from China or Russia or make them domestically.The only reason we have it is to balance the weapons America gives to the Islamist monarchies and Arab dictators.
Where Israel needs America is in the area we are weaker, which is the deeply biased corrupt international institutions like the UN etc, and on that front Obama has threatened Israel since day 1 on an unprecedented level. America has backed Israel at the UN for 50 years and is now threatening that arrangement.
"Either do what we want, even if you deeply believe it to be irresponsible from a life and death point of view, or we will allow you to become isolated and a pariah"
What a friend. Give me a break.
Tod_Zuckerman57 • 8 hours ago
This editorial is absurd. Obama has never ceased trying to force the Auschwitz 49 borders on Israel, and he tried to pressure Bibi into surrendering to Hamas ( with the death tunnels in place). Now, Obama is talking a bit more gently as (a) he wants to make that catastrophic deal with the Iranian mullahs, and (b) does not want to chase more Jews to leave the Democrat Party. He is, obviously, anti-Israel in his bones - that is why he was a member of one of the most virulent anti-Israel churches in the U.S. - for 20 years!
common sense • 8 hours ago
BHO and his sycophants in the racist black Democratic caucus, beneath the surface, hate both Israel and the Jews but cannot come out and say it clearly for fear of alienating Jews from the "new" leftist racist Democratic party. Just follow their actions and words concerning the life/death struggle of Israel and the support of Jews. Hopefully, those liberal leftist Jews are just begin to see the light of day...
i__Cry • 9 hours ago
"devoted a large part of his speech to “a deeply disturbing rise in anti-Semitism"
When did it become anti Semitism?
It used to be random attacks on random people.
The talkbacks were the reaction to this editorial:
US president
has made a concerted effort in recent weeks to reach out to Jews both in
America and in Israel.
Since the beginning of his first administration in 2009, US President Barack Obama has faced an endless
litany of baseless charges regarding everything from claims of animosity to
Israel to even anti-Semitic attitudes. It is time to put such outrageous
accusations to rest once and for all.
In recent
weeks, Obama has made a concerted effort to reach out to Jews both in America
and in Israel.
Last
month, in an interview to The Atlantic’s
Jeffrey Goldberg, he expressed a deep identification with the Jewish state,
connecting the Jews’ successful push for national self-determination in the
wake of centuries of anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust with
African-Americans’ victorious campaign for human rights.
“There’s
a direct line between supporting the right of the Jewish people to have a
homeland and to feel safe and free of discrimination and persecution, and the
right of African-Americans to vote and have equal protection under the law,”
Obama said. In these comments, he rightly placed the Zionist movement where it
belongs within the context of progressive and anti-imperialist post-World War
II movements that sought to empower the subjugated and downtrodden.
Obama’s
next stop was Congregation Adas Israel in Washington, where the kippa-wearing
president addressed a packed synagogue as part of Jewish American Heritage
Month. He devoted a large part of his speech to “a deeply disturbing rise in
anti-Semitism in parts of the world where it would have seemed unthinkable just
a few years or decades ago.” He noted that “anti-Semitism is, and always will
be, a threat to broader human values to which we all must aspire.”
Obama has
also made an effort to reach out to Israelis. In an interview aired Tuesday
night on Channel 2 with Ilana Dayan, he tried to allay Israeli fears regarding
the materializing nuclear deal with Iran. “What I can say is, to the Israeli
people: I understand your concerns and I understand your fears,” he said. It is
no secret that there is tension between Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. What’s more, the differences between the two leaders are not just
personal; they are substantive, especially on the parameters of a nuclear
agreement with Iran.
Netanyahu
sees the deal in its present form as dangerous, because it could allow Tehran
to become an existential threat to Israel. Many Israelis share his concerns, an
issue that will be at the forefront at The Jerusalem Post Annual Conference in
New York on Sunday.
Obama,
meanwhile, has been a strong proponent of the deal, arguing that dialogue, cooperation
and mutual agreement with the Iranians are the only feasible tools for slowing
down, if not halting altogether, their nuclear program.
The two
men are also split on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And neither has
attempted to hide their differences.
However,
it would be disingenuous to claim that the Obama administration or Obama
himself is antagonistic to the State of Israel or even anti-Semitic, as some
have argued, including on these pages.
Throughout
his presidency, Obama has upheld his promise that his commitment to Israel and
the security of the Jewish state is “unshakable.” And the facts on the ground
back up that pledge. Just recently it emerged, according to a report in Defense News, that US
defense aid to Israel is likely to increase in 2017 from the present level of
$3 billion a year to $3.6b.-$3.7b.
At the
end of last month, the Obama administration rejected a resolution proposed by
the UN”s Review Conference for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty seeking to
end the ambiguity surrounding Israel’s nuclear arms capability. And the US has
come to Israel’s defense in international fora – from the UN Security Council
to the International Criminal Court – on numerous other occasions.
It is
impossible to exaggerate the importance of Israel’s relations with the US, the
Jewish state’s most powerful and best ally. Our two countries share values and
ideals. This was true in the past and it will remain true, regardless of
disagreements on specific issues.
The
Jerusalem Post has
published a range of opinion pieces on this subject as part of its policy of
open debate, and it does not endorse ad hominem attacks against Obama or
members of his administration. We will continue to criticize both the Israeli
and the US government where we see fit, but in the spirit that both leaders –
Netanyahu and Obama – are acting in what they see as the best interests of the
US and Israel, respectively
