Monday, July 2, 2012

The Vast Moral Hypocrisy of President Barack Obama

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill.}

It is one of the more bizarre features of today's political moment that we have an American president allegedly at war with al-Qaeda while simultaneously promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, the very organization out of which Qaeda emerged.

Matthias Küntzel is among the foremost historians writing on the relationship between radical Islam and Nazi Germany. In a piece entitled "Hitler's Legacy: Islamic antisemitism and the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood," he writes:

It was the Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 in Egypt, that established Islamism as a mass movement. The significance of the Brotherhood to Islamism is comparable to that of the Bolshevik party to communism: It was and remains to this day the ideological reference point and organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas or the group around Sidique Khan.

So Obama is at war with Qaeda while befriending the Brotherhood, but Qaeda is a branch, or variant, of the Brotherhood itself. Yet, Obama congratulates the Brotherhood and helps usher them into power in Egypt.

Does this make any sense, whatsoever?

How can one oppose radical Islam and yet be friendly with the very source of radical Islam? How can one oppose Qaeda and yet be friendly with Qaeda's historical parent?

The Islamists’ answer to everything was the call for a new order based on sharia. But the Brotherhood’s jihad was not directed primarily against the British. Rather, it focused almost exclusively on Zionism and the Jews. Membership in the Brotherhood shot up from 800 to 200,000 between 1936 and 1938.[10] In those two years the Brotherhood conducted only one major campaign in Egypt, a campaign directed against Zionism and the Jews.

Barack Obama claims to be a great friend to the Jewish people and to the Jewish state, yet he embraces a political organization that calls for the genocide of the Jews and the destruction of the state of Israel. Even as Morsi was running for the Egyptian presidency as the Muslim Brotherhood candidate he attended campaign rallies calling for the Arab conquest of Jerusalem:

Küntzel writes:

Islamism is not motivated by a concept of reason but by a cult of death. It does not strive for emancipation but for oppression. It uses the flag of anti-colonialism to promote antisemitism. It is true that today there is no other anti-capitalist or anti-Western movement that is able to mobilise and influence so many people. Bin Laden’s latest message builds on this reality. But it is for this very reason all the more essential for every responsible person to draw an inseperable line between a concept of change that is rooted in the traditions of the Enlightenment and emancipation, and a concept of change that is aimed in a fascist way at destroying the development of societies and the freedom of the individual. You can be in favor of or against Islamism and Fascism but you cannot be anti-Fascist and pro-Islamist at the same time.

And that's the bottom line, isn't it? One cannot be both anti-fascist and pro-Islamist simultaneously, yet this is precisely what Barack Obama is attempting to do when he embraces the Muslim Brotherhood.

The moral hypocrisy is absolutely stunning, yet not quite so stunning as the phenomenon of ideologically blinkered liberal Jews supporting an American president who, himself, supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

Jewish Stockholm Syndrome has become an epidemic of such proportions that the majority of American Jews will continue to support an American president who embraces the foremost anti-Semitic organization in the world today.

How is this possible?

After World War II one of the great questions was, how is it that the Jewish people of Europe allowed themselves to so easily be led to the slaughter? That remains a very good question and if you can answer it, then I suspect you can also answer the question above. These two questions are not identical, of course, but they are most certainly related.


  1. "Obama Turns His Back on Israel at the U.N.
    By Anne Bayefsky
    July 2, 2012 9:39 A.M.

    Today, at the United Nations, the Obama administration is turning its back on Israel. For the very first time, the U.N. Security Council has invited the U.N. high commissioner for human rights to “brief” the Council specifically on the subject of Israel and the commissioner’s list of trumped-up sins. Though the U.S. is a veto-holding power, the extraordinary move has full American approval, despite the fact that the global soapbox will be handed to Navi Pillay, a notorious anti-Israel partisan.

    Moreover, the American-backed action exposes President Obama’s profound weakness on the international stage. It turns out that the deal to sponsor an Israel-bashing session at the highest levels was a trade-off for having the high commissioner brief the Council on the subject of Syria.

    The Security Council has not acted on Syria since an April 21, 2012, resolution, which sent unarmed observers over to watch the bloodshed. France wanted a high commissioner briefing on Syria to generate more noise. Council member Pakistan said no, unless Israel was on the chopping block, too. The Russians also said no, unless Libya was on the table. Russia seeks to use the mess in that country to obstruct stronger measures on Syria.

    At this point in the diplomatic game, the Obama administration could have insisted that Israel not be sacrificed as the quid pro quo for paying due attention to the Syrian carnage. Instead, they caved, agreeing to a spectacle which casts Syria and Israel as moral equals.

    Team Obama’s only caveat? The Syrian briefing should be in the morning and the Israel briefing should be in the afternoon so that the briefings — by the same person — can be labeled “two” meetings and the trade-off will be less visible. Obama’s U.N. ambassador Susan Rice can then run to the cameras before the afternoon session and claim the Council’s consideration of Syria was a “success.”

    1. It doesn't matter what this administration does, from supporting the Brotherhood to wrecking the peace process, he will still get majority Jewish support.

      American Jews who support this administration should be ashamed of themselves.

      How can you support an American president who supports the most anti-Semitic organization on the face of the planet? The MB calls for the conquest of Jerusalem and Obama congratulates them on electoral victory in Egypt.

      And then they will turn around and deny and diminish and apologize and make excuses for.

      What a disgrace.

    2. Funny but so did this leader:

      A senior Israeli official said that in the letter Netanyahu congratulated Morsi on his election, offered to cooperate with the new government in Cairo and expressed his hope that both parties would observe the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. He emphasized that honoring the agreement is in the interest of both countries as it plays a decisive role in maintaining stability and security in the region. Netanyahu also wished Morsi personally, as well as the Egyptian people, luck in their new future and their journey toward democracy.

      Read more:

      I guess Israelis who vote for Benjamin Netanyahu and support his administration should be ashamed of themselves as well. Right?

    3. If you can manage to keep a civil tongue in your head then you are welcome to participate here.

      Let's see if you can manage to do that, shall we?

      Bets, anyone?

      In any case, I knew that Obama supporters would drag something like this out as an excuse for the fact that the Obama administration supports the most anti-Semitic organization in the world at this time.

      So what would anyone expect Israel to do? It is a fait accompli that was promoted by the Obama administration and that Israel now must deal with.

      Your candidate invited the Brotherhood to the Cairo speech long before they took power and has never breathed a word about the raging anti-Jewish racism of this organization.

      You are making excuses for that which is inexcusable.

    4. So Netanyehu also supports the most anti-Semitic organization in the world at this time?

      I'm not sure how your response addresses this. Netanyahu had no choice, but Obama had more of a choice? Why would that be?

      And your choice of words continues to be misleading, if not downright dishonest. Obama "promoted" the MB? How so? By acknowledging their existence? Is he "promoting" Romney by acknowledging he has an opponent in November?

    5. Come on!! Obama has been cooperating with the MB. Has Israel? To make that argument that Netanyahu and Obama are of the same position is silly. Good luck with that!

    6. I'm quite sure I didn't make that argument. But cooperating? How so? By meeting with them? By acknowledging that they exist? Netanyahu has done something that was uncooparative? I don't think so. So he must be cooperating too. He must be pro-genocidal anti-zionists just like Obama.

    7. Of course it equated, Stuart

      So Netanyehu also supports the most anti-Semitic organization in the world at this time?

      I'm not sure how your response addresses this. Netanyahu had no choice, but Obama had more of a choice? Why would that be?

      One could call your argument sophistry.

      It is also misleading when you pretend that Obama merely acknowledged the MB as an entity that exists, rather than engage in affirmative gestures that, in fact, does promote it.

    8. What affirmative gestures that promoted it? Nodded to them? Talked with them? Acknowledged their existence?

      Promote: 1.Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim)

      Something Obama did increased the likelihood of their taking power? Egyptian citizens are taking the lead from a US President? Really?

    9. Are you saying that Obama has taken a neutral approach?

      What about the seculars who criticize Obama for cozying with the MB?

      Was insisting that the MB come to the Cairo speech not promoting the MB?

      To intimate, as you do, that the contacts are perfunctory is misleading.

    10. Because seculars in egypt criticize obama, that is evidence that I should? Did the contacts lead to their election? Did their presence at the Cairo speech lead to, or even aid, in their election?

    11. Do remember that it is the seculars in Egypt that are demanding that Egypt abrogate the Peace treaty. Actually, the FJP has said (despite it's rhetoric in mass street rallies) that it will "honor Egypts International Obligations". Morsi just reiterated that in his acceptance speech.

      Also remember that the Egyptian military just stopped a ton of weapons heading for Gaza from the chaos that is Libya.

      Finally, note that Israel's diplomats have met in secret with Egpytian military to deal with the chaos that has set in the Sinai and part of this includes Israeli agreement of Egyptian Special Forces maintaining the Gaza Border.

      It is important to note though that it is not the Brotherhood that will be wielding power but it is the SCAF that is pulling strings. And you know how they get to pull strings and maintain the treaty with Israel? American Aid. That's how. Now, if the Americans bailed out... I wonder what would happen. Well.. no I don't.

      America has it's concerns in the region and President Obama is doing the exact thing he should do to build alliances. Should he be wary of the Brotherhood? Of course he should. But he has attached a lot of strings to U.S. - Egyptian relations and should he pull those strings - Egypt would cease to be a functioning nation.

      SO... the Brotherhood may be chanting in the street but what are their concrete actions? Nothing. Sure they will do some little things along the border on occasion BUT, look who just engineered the last cease fire between Hamas and Israel.... The Egyptians.

      It is simply to early to tell what will happen but to abandon Egypt is to invite disaster to American regional plans at the current time. Should the Brotherhood take actual steps to abrogate the treaty (not that they can or the SCAF will let them) THEN, we should deal forcefully. Until the actual steps start happening though....

    12. Who better to criticize than Egyptian liberals and seculars? Don't you support these people, or believe them when they say how dangerous and deceptive the MB is? I mentioned them because they are not so easily dismissed as neocons or some other pejorative, as some are prone to do.

      You require proof of a negative, yet can you prove that these actions did not aid them? Mubarak did not even attend the speech, so it was perhaps a larger matter than you accept. And it has been followed up at almost every turn.

      Do you suggest this approach, to change the status quo, was just being neutral and had no effect whatsoever on what has occurred, including up to the present?

      Do you support Obama's cooperation with the MB and OIC, generally, and the way that it has manifested?

      Is leaving Israel out of the recent counter terrorism conference or to be equated with Syria before the Security Council also benign behavior to your eyes?

      One can actually support Obama without having to defend his missteps just because opponents also raise the issue.

  2. Exactly oldschool. APPARENTLY, from what we have been seeing in the news and blogs, Obama has "courted," the MB as opposed to Netanyahu's inevitable hopeful acceptance of the inevitable. Different kettle of fish entirely.

    Now, I say "apparently," because who knows just how much to believe and who to believe but it certainly seems that "courted," is an apropos descriptor given what has transpired at and since Cairo.

  3. What we clearly need is a look at the history of the MB in order to establish just who these people are.

    Then we need to look at the Obama administration's dealings with them.

    One thing that we know for sure is that the Muslim Brotherhood has an historical provenance that goes to Nazi Germany.

    That is a fact.

    Another thing that we know is that the Obama administration has had meetings with them since long before they came into power and helped facilitate their rise to power in Egypt.

    The last thing that we should be doing is closing our eyes out of partisan loyalties.

    1. How did he help facilitate their rise to power?

    2. Stuart,

      that is an outstanding question and one that we very much need to discuss going forward.

      Just how did the Obama administration facilitate the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East?

      Let me ask you this, tho.

      If the administration did facilitate the MB in its rise to power, would you find that a compelling reason not to vote for Barack Obama?

    3. It would make me think much more carefully about it.

      I'm not convinced that the MB of today is the same MB of 80 years ago. I do know their history. I also know that they've been virtually invisible for most of the last 30 years, even longer in some countries. (Before you tell me again about their roots, I know their roots. I also know the roots of Etzel, Betar, the JDL.) Neither of us know what their control of the Egyptian government will mean. Will they be the organization of 75 years ago? Or will they be the peaceful orgnanization that they claim to be today?

    4. No offense Stuart, but what are you smoking?

      The point of departure should be to take them at their word, based on their philosophy anti-Jewish, anti-Western philosophy, yet you appear to start from just the opposite approach, that they really mean something else.

      Have you even listened to Mr. Morsi? Or the spiritual leader of the MB? Or Hamas, part of the MB? Or CAIR, one of its American offshoots?

      I am all for aspirations and hopes that people only want peace, but the sad reality is many millions do not share our liberal sentiments and want something else.

    5. Morsi has said he will respect all treaties. You don't take him at his word?

    6. Stuart,

      I respect skepticism, but I am less sure of willful blindness.

      How can you dismiss the fact that in a recent Morsi campaign rally his MB friends and supporters literally called for the conquest of Jerusalem?


      How can any of us dismiss this?

      Doing so makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

    7. Respect all treaties? What does that mean? The OIC interprets human rights treaties according to the Cairo Declaration.

      I only think there will be adherence to the peace treaty because Israel is stronger.

      Among other things, Morsi recently repeated the MB credo:

      "God is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

      Do YOU take him at his word?