Monday, August 20, 2012

Israelis Prefer Romney

Mike L.

{Cross-posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

When it comes to the well-being of the Jewish people of the Middle East I, unlike "progressive Zionists" or faux "pro-Israel" organizations like J-Street, tend to defer to the Israelis. It should seem fairly obvious that the Jews of the Middle East know what is in their best interest more than American Jewish dhimmis, like Jeremy Ben Ami. A recent poll of Israelis demonstrates clearly that they have much more faith in a potential Romney presidency than they do in the hostile Obama administration.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Poll: Romney cares more than Obama about Israel

Peace Index poll shows Israeli Jews – by 2:1 ratio – believe Romney assigns high importance to defending Israel's interests.

I find it difficult to understand how progressive-left diaspora Jews can support an American president that praised the rise of the radical Jihad as something akin to the Spirit of '76 or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s. The Israelis, however, are under no such delusions concerning Barack Obama. They, better than anyone, know what they are dealing with in their hostile neighbors and in an American president that promotes the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United States, of course, is in a much worse geo-political situation since Barack Obama promoted the rise of the Jihad throughout the Middle East and sought to prevent Israel from dealing with an impending nuclear-armed Iran. As Turkey turned away from the west and looks toward Iran and as radical Islam took over country after country under the falsely named "Arab Spring," the Obama administration lied to the American people by suggesting that such developments were a good thing.

It should be obvious to any but the most ideologically blinkered that the rise of radical Islam is not in anyone's best interest other than the Jihadis themselves. It is certainly not in the best interest of moderate Arabs who have no particular interest in conquering Jerusalem and it is obviously not in the best interest of women, gay people, Jews, or non Muslims in that part of the world.

It is one of my contentions that the western left, including the Obama administration, has abandoned women, gay people, and Jews throughout the Middle East. Leftists claim to stand for universal human rights, but it could hardly be more obvious that they stand for no such thing. The Israelis know this better than anyone which is why the Israeli left got decimated after the second terror war (intifada) directly after the failure of Oslo.

On the question of Jewish well-being in that part of the world, perhaps American Jews should listen to their fellows in Israel, rather than to an American president who has proven himself hostile to the Jewish state. And for those of you who deny that Obama is hostile to Israel, how can anyone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood not be considered hostile to the Jewish nation or the Jewish state?

The Brotherhood called for the conquest of Jerusalem during a Morsi campaign rally.

Much of the Jewish left is simply in denial.

My hope is with progressive-left Jews like JayinPhiladelphia who are willing to acknowledge the obvious, and confront it, without demonizing those of us who point it out.


  1. They simply know better than the rest of us, not to mention they are more moral.

    Rather than antagonize them, however, I am more interested in what it would take to convince them that the reality is much different from their aspiration. Israelis seem to understand this fact quite well.

    Obama could not have prevented what has occurred, but he has not made some important mistakes. Happenings in Tunisia and especially Egypt have shown he acts more on aspiration than the realities going on.

    1. School,

      I do not know if Obama could have prevented what has occurred or not. You may very well be correct.

      What I do know is that he praised it, thus, legitimizing the Brotherhood to the American public. This is a terrible disservice to the American people and a crime against Jews throughout the world.

  2. Well, shades of 1973, reports are that Egypt is moving massive amounts of tanks, missiles and ANTI-AIRCRAFT missiles to the border to, you know, protect against jihadists. Jihadists who BTW have no aircraft. Only Israel has aircraft. Thanks Obama et al. We all know where this is going.

  3. You know Michael, a lot of your rhetoric sounds exactly like the lies that Mitt Romney tells.

    Obama never "praised the rise of the radical Jihad as something akin to the Spirit of '76 or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s." and you damn well know it.

    1. Of course, he did.

      I always find it interesting that when I speak blunt truths I get told that I am being either rhetorical or hyperbolic.

      The fact is that after the fall of Tunisia to Islamism, in May of last year, Barack Obama said the following:

      There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat.

      It is clear that his reference to "those patriots in Boston" is a reference to the American Revolution and what is commonly referred to as "the Spirit of '76" and that his reference to Rosa Parks refers to the Civil Rights Movement in the middle of the twentieth century.

      So, I was being literal, yet you tell me that I am being rhetorical.

      How odd.

    2. Of course, he did.

      He was referring to the so-called "Arab Spring" which included the fall of Tunisia to Islamists.

      Are you still maintaining the fiction that the revolutions that we saw throughout the Middle East were about some alleged widespread desire for democracy?

    3. You think that if you asked Obama whether he was praising the rise of radical Islam, he would have agreed? It is a lie Michael. He never did anything like that.

    4. Stuart, of course he would not agree.

      I am not saying that what he did was smart or correct or intelligent or true.

      What I am saying is that what he did was dumb, incorrect, unintelligent, and false.

      You are a Jewish man who cares about the Jewish people and here we have a president of the United States that praises the rise of radical Islam as the upwelling of democracy in the Middle East and you're OK with that?

      I am not.

      Furthermore, do not tell me that when he praises the rise of radical Islam that he is not praising the rise of radical Islam.

      Of course, he did.

      Whatever his intentions, whatever his thoughts on the matter, he told the world that this was a good thing.

      Here's a news flash.

      It's not.