Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Obama to Meet with Islamists

Mike L.

The snippet below was written by Moner Adib for the Egypt Independent.
U.S. President Barack Obama has agreed to meet with Muslim Brotherhood representatives at the White House, sources told Egypt Independent.

Obama would reportedly meet with Brotherhood officials to "hear their opinion" on developments in Egypt, in the presence of Turkish diplomats.

Egypt Independent heard from sources inside the Muslim Brotherhood that Islamist-linked billionaire Hassen Malek requested a meeting through Obama's office manager.

The meeting with Turkish officials is expected to take place this month.

Turkish diplomats are expected to push for Mohamed Morsy's reinstatement as Egyptian president, sources said, if not that the Muslim Brotherhood would be assured of political survival following a month-long violent stand-off with the armed forces in the wake of Morsy's overthrow.
I suppose what is most notable is how quickly the Obama administration so openly embraced a political movement that is virulently anti-American, oppressive of women, murderous toward Gays, and genocidal towards Jews.

This pandering to the Islamist hard-right by an allegedly "liberal" president is a remarkable development and one that mainly goes undiscussed.  It is, however, entirely consistent with the general trend within progressive-left circles to see political Islam as an ally against "western imperialism."  Furthermore, it is entirely consistent with Obama's support for the "Arab Spring" which was, in reality, support for the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East.

How it is that an American president, with roots in Islam and a former president of the Harvard Law Review, does not understand that political Islam (or radical Islam) is a fascistic movement in opposition not only to American values, but to America, itself, is fascinating.

This kind of thing represents the direct betrayal of everything that Obama was supposed to stand for when I voted for him in 2008.  In fact, Obama's embrace of political Islam is a betrayal of western liberal values, period.

If we care a whit about what we allegedly stand for then we should not be supporting regimes and political movements that are directly in opposition to those values and interests.  The Muslim Brotherhood had extensive ties with the Nazis and western Jews are supposed to consider that irrelevant?

Sayyid Qutb, one of the founders of the Brotherhood - back in the day in Cairo - despised the Jewish people.  In his work Our Battle with the Jews he wrote:
At the beginning the enemies of the Muslim community did not fight openly with arms but tried to fight the community in its belief through intrigue, spreading ambiguities, creating suspicions. They do likewise today. They have plotted and they go on plotting against this nation. Hundreds and thousands have infiltrated the Muslim world, and they still do in the guise of Orientalists. The pupils of the latter fill today the positions of the intellectual life of the countries whose people call themselves Muslim. Their aim is clearly shown by the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]. The Jews are behind materialism, animal sexuality, the destruction of the family and the dissolution of society. Principal among them are Marx, Freud, Durkheim and the Jew Jean-Paul Sartre.
When Barack Obama invites Brotherhood representatives to sit down for tea in the White House, this is what he is inviting.

And, yet, most western-left Jews continue to bury their heads in the sand like pussitudenous ostriches.


  1. Being responsible for 'animal sexuality' is a new one to me. What does that even mean?

  2. Conservatives would never do anything like this.


    They already did.

    1. Stuart,

      you really have to stop playing this game in which because conservatives have done something wrong it becomes irrelevant if the Democratic regime in power does something much more wrong.

      Why in this world would you prefer to be an apologist for an American administration that supports a fascistic movement like radical Islam that is hateful towards Jews?

      Why are you so afraid to stand up for your own people?

      I know that previous administrations have also talked with the Brotherhood, but no previous administration has ever done so much to help the rise of radical Islam.

      We cannot afford to be weak.

      We must stand up for justice for the Jewish people.

      If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then why do you even bother commenting?

  3. I was unable to find any corroboration of this single report.

    1. What can I say?

      The paper reported it.

      Is it true? Maybe not, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me in the least.

      This administration had been exceedingly cozy with the Brotherhood and supported the rise of political Islam under the misnomer "Arab Spring."

      People like Stuart are sticking their heads in the sand because they do not want to face the fact that their own political movement has sold them down the river.

      I find it disgusting.

    2. The white house has denied any such meeting is planned. McCain and Graham, on the other hand, have already met with them, and went all the way to Egypt to do it.

    3. Oh, when you put it that way. Because Barack HUSSEIN Obama has a Muslim background, it's totally much worse when he doesn't meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, and two Republican Senate leaders DO meet with the Muslim Brotherhood. Because if not but for Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood never would have come to power, he rigged the election! I get it now!

    4. This sounds like something an 8th grader would say.

      What are you implying with this comment? That because people criticize Obama's outreach they are racist?

    5. Something I say is juvenile? Compared to the logic presented here? That is hilarious. Those "roots in Islam" will getcha every time.

    6. Do you approve of Obama's conduct with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood?

      Do you approve of Obama's conduct with respect to helping the opposition in Lybia and Syria?

      Do you approve of Obama's conduct with respect to Erdogan?

      Do you think he has no responsibility for anything?

      Or should we be looking to McCain and Graham?

      The relativistic approach you seem to adopt for things Obama seems to provide justification for anything he does.

      You may think you come off as more logical, but I fail to see moral framework behind the theories you proffer.

  4. They're Nazis with the Crescent!

    Some difference. The President is embracing fanatics who want to kill every last Jew on earth and to take over the world.

    This is what progressivism has come to these days.

  5. The Jerusalem Post is also reporting that Obama has invited Muslim Brotherhood officials to the White House.


  6. Stuart,

    you may have an argument to make, but so far you have not made it.

    Here are the questions:

    Should the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East be something of concern for world Jewry?

    Did the Obama administration assist the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East and, if it did so, why did it do so?

    These are perfectly reasonable and rational questions, particularly given the long miserable history of the Jews under Arab imperial rule.

    You can answer these questions any way that makes sense to you, but for you to imply, or suggest, that those of us who raise such questions are "racist" is beneath you.

    If you want to honestly join this conversation then join it.

    You are welcome to do so.

    1. The rise of political Islam should be a concern to every non-Muslim and free-thinking Muslim alike. It may be the biggest threat to world peace today. (Maybe 2nd only to climate change.)

      I don't think anything Obama has done has changed the trajectory of the rise of political Islam. Even calling it an "assist" is overstating US influence.

    2. And to make sure you don't think I was avoiding the question, I think the rise of political Islam is of particular concern for Jews. It rises to the level of clear and present danger.

    3. You did not answer my questions.

      If it's such a danger, why do you denigrate people that, unlike you, see it and say it without having to be prompted?

      You think the Cairo speech had no influence? Not even in Egypt?

    4. I'm the one that denigrates people? Please read the words of the blogmaster here before throwing out such accusations. I have never criticized anyone here for addressing the issue of political Islam. Ever.

      I have no problem with the Cairo speech. It neither increased nor decreased the likelihood of Mubarak's ouster, nor did it influence who won the election.

    5. Just like before, you compare others to excuse behavior, this time your own.

      Of course you denigrate, just indirectly, like above, when you implied there was racism. Otherwise, you would not have typed HUSSEIN in capitals.

      So there was no significance whatsoever that Mubarak refused to attend because Obama chose the MB over who was ostensibly our ally? Why does it seem that it only matters when what Obama does is positive? When it could be perceived otherwise he is simply an observer?

      Why don't you answer the questions I asked above?

      Do you think Islam is a religion of peace?

    6. Just to be clear. I was more than implying racism. What Mike said IS racism. And maybe I'm different this way, but I think actual racism is worse than calling out racism.

    7. Stuart, this is well beneath you.

      What you are doing is trying to shut down the discussion because it conflicts with your ideological inclinations and you are willing to drag my name through the mud in order to do so.

      Here is the sentence in question:

      "How it is that an American president, with roots in Islam and a former president of the Harvard Law Review, does not understand that political Islam (or radical Islam) is a fascistic movement in opposition not only to American values, but to America, itself, is fascinating."

      What you are suggesting is that even so much as referencing the fact that Obama has roots within Islam is "racist"?

      What a vile thing to say!

      The truth, of course, is that Obama does have a childhood connection with Islam and was the president of the Harvard Law Review.

      I would think that someone with a childhood connection to Islam, who was smart enough to become president of the Harvard Law Review, would know enough to oppose radical Islam rather than bolster it in the Middle East.

      You apparently do not mind the rise of political Islam, despite the fact that it is genocidal towards Jews.

      What that says about your own political orientation others can decide for themselves. What it says to me, however, is that you cannot bring yourself to actually stand up for the well-being of the Jewish people.

      What it is that you think that you stand for remains a mystery.

    8. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Roots? My brother's daughters both went to a Catholic girls school for 6 years before graduating. They were actually attending Catholic school while they were being Bat Mitzvah'd. Their mother, my brother's wife, grew up in a Christian home, and in her early adulthood seriously investigated fundamental Christianity before converting to Judaism. They would laugh if anyone suggested that they "have roots in Christianity". But in this case, you clearly use Obama's "roots in Islam" as a smear, to bolster your silly notion that he's responsible for the rise of political Islam in the middle east.

      This has absolutely nothing to do with standing up for Jewish people. The assertion is insulting.

    9. I have never criticized anyone here for addressing the issue of political Islam. Ever.

      Empty words, not to mention, false words as well.

    10. I think actual racism is worse than calling out racism.

      What is actual racism? Is it possible to be racist against a religion?

      Seems that what was done here, which you denigrated, was the calling out of actual racism practiced by political Islam.

      You obfuscate as well. If your kids attended Catholic school, then they would most likely have a better insight into Catholicism than those who have not.

      In addition, you have failed to answer the simple questions I posed.

      Do you believe Islam is a religion of peace?

      Do you approve of Obama's conduct with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood?

      Do you approve of Obama's conduct with respect to helping the opposition in Lybia and Syria?

      Do you approve of Obama's conduct with respect to Erdogan?

      Do you think he has no responsibility for anything?

  7. By the way,

    we have both the Jerusalem Post and an Egyptian newspaper saying that Obama has invited Brotherhood officials to the White House.

    And Stuart would have us believe that inviting Brotherhood officials to the White House somehow does not represent bolstering the prestige of this violently racist organization?

    In this act alone Obama is helping to bolster the prestige of the anti-Semitic parent organization of both Hamas and Qaeda and, yet, Stuart continues to deny that Obama bolsters political Islam.

    I find it both sad and hard to imagine.

    It's something akin to pointing at a tree and saying, "This is a tree." And then having a person standing near you insisting that trees are not actually trees, but something else entirely and that to suggest otherwise is silly.

    It's yet another example of politically-oriented people failing to acknowledge the obvious, because to do so would be politically and socially inconvenient.

  8. George Bernard Shaw -- one of the many Western Communist, and Socialist, and supposedly "liberal", pro-Soviet and, as part of that, pro-Nazi, so-called "Anti-Imperialist" self-professed "Pacifists" during the 1930's:

    "...As the Archbishop nobly confesses, we made all the mischief, we and the French when we were drunk with victory at Versailles; and if that mischief had not been there for him to undo, Adolf Hitler would have now been a struggling artist of no political account. He actually owes his eminence to us; so let us now cease railing at our own creation and recognise the ability with which he has undone our wicked work and the debt the German nation owes him for it. Our business now is to make peace with him and with all the world instead of making more mischief and ruining our people in the process. ..."

    -- George Bernard Shaw, Uncommon Sense about The War, October 1939


    Why did what happen in the 1930's happen in the 1930's? Why is what is what is happening now happening now? Because:

    The modern "Protocols of Zion" - How the mass media now promotes the same lies that caused the death of more than 5 million Jews in WWII - Part 7, by Francisco Gil-White

    "Before WWII, the Nazis and their sympathizers made popular all over the world the allegation that ‘the Jews’ controlled everything in secret, including the mass media, and that they would use this clandestine power to hurt us all. The accusations were widely believed because they were built on a long tradition of Western accusations against the Jews going back to the first century, when they were accused of killing God: a cultural inertia (see Part 1). The Nazi accusations of the supposed clandestine total power of ‘the Jews,’ plus supposed evil intent of the same, produced a pan-Western anti-Jewish hysteria that fueled the genocide of more than 5 million Jews, which repeated the consequences of similar accusations in previous centuries in the West (see Part 1). We are back where we started. It is almost impossible to be both alive and in the West and not have heard the allegation that “the Jews control the media.” As before, the accusation is a lie. This piece will demonstrate that most of the big media is not controlled by ‘the Jews,’ and that when people claiming a Jewish identity do own a big media company, this company will be especially careful to take an anti-Jewish slant. ..."


    The Secret War Against the Jews - How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People, by John Loftus and Mark Aarons

    "The authors demonstrate that numerous Western countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, have conducted repeated and willful spying missions on Palestine* and later Israel over many decades. While on the surface these two countries and others profess to be ardent allies of Israel, they work, in fact, through their intelligence services to betray Israel's secrets to the Arabs. Their motive: oil and multinational profits, which must be attained at any price through international covert policies. ..."


    Is the US an ally of Israel? - A chronological look at the evidence, by Francisco Gil-White


    1. Harvard's Nazi Ties, by Stephen H. Norwood

      "When I began researching how the American academic community responded to the Nazi persecution of the Jews in the 1930s, I expected to find some troubling episodes. But what I discovered is far more disturbing than I ever anticipated. ..."


      America's Soul In the Balance: The Holocaust, FDR's State Department, And The Moral Disgrace Of An American Aristocracy

      Anti-Semitism 2.0, by Mudar Zahran

      "The concept of the ‘evil Jew’ has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionists, is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity. This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from ‘sanitized’ news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.

      "Why would a Palestinian be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.

      "Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.

      "Such bias against Israel cannot be 'accidental' or merely 'unfortunate.' No other nation has received the amount of scrutinizing, criticism, coverage, demonization and delegitimization. In fact the question to be asked is not whether there is bias against Israel; but rather why there is bias against Israel? ..."



    2. Johann von Leers and Walt/Mearsheimer, by Clemens Heni

      "Most people think that the book 'Israel Lobby' by Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer was published in 2007 -- at the same time in the US and in Germany, by the way. Well, the first edition of that book was rather published in 1940 -- by leading National Socialist anti-Semitic publicist Prof. Dr. Johann von Leers. Von Leers published 'Kräfte hinter Roosevelt' ('Forces behind Roosevelt') in Berlin in 1940. ..."


      Yale's latest gift to anti-semitism, by Abby Wisse Schachter

      "Yale University last week killed the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplin ary Study of Antisemitism -- the only program of its kind in the country, an academically stellar one-stop anti-Semitism research shop. Worse, it almost certainly did so because YIISA refused to ignore the most virulent, genocidal and common form of Jew-hatred today: Muslim anti-Semitism. ..."


      Antisemitism is everywhere in the mass media - Sometimes it is relatively subtle..., by Francisco Gil-White

      Islamism, Antisemitism, and the political left, by Matthias Küntzel

      "...The main achievement of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was to combine the Jew-hatred of ancient Islam with modern antisemitism into a new and persuasive rhetoric. I discovered a speech he gave in 1937 with the title, ‘Jewry and Islam’. Here, he intermingled modern antisemitism with the stories of very early Islam, going back and forth from the 7th and the 20th centuries, and connecting both kinds of Jew-hatred. This was something new. ..."


      On Vimeo:http://vimeo.com/69991225
      On YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_abGQY-1qoM


    3. Additional Notes:

      - The British Mandate of Palestine included what is now Jordan; The British Mandate of Palestine was constituted by what is now Jordan, and by what is now Israel, and by what is now called "The West Bank" (Judea and Sameria), and by what is now called "The Gaza Strip".

      - "Palestinian": 'Palestinian' Arab

  9. Stuart,

    "you clearly use Obama's "roots in Islam" as a smear, to bolster your silly notion that he's responsible for the rise of political Islam in the middle east."

    In this one fragment of a sentence you are wrong not once, not twice, but three times.

    The first way that you are wrong is in suggesting that acknowledging Obama's roots in Islam as a child is somehow a smear.

    Why you would perceive it as a smear tells us more about you than it does about me. I do not think of it as a smear and I do not quite why you do.

    My purpose for raising it was not to smear, but to suggest that someone with roots in Islam - as well as elsewhere, of course - and who is smart enough to become the President of the Harvard Law Review, should know not to support political Islam.

    The second way that you are wrong is in your obvious misrepresentation of my thesis, which is not that Obama is responsible for the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East but that he helped, which he clearly did even if you insist on keeping your head firmly buried in the sand.

    He even claimed that the US under his administration supported the "Arab Spring," which was the rise of political Islam.

    He said it himself, in front of the entire world community in his 2012 speech before the United Nations:

    It's been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that's taken place, and the United -- the United States has supported the forces of change.

    The "forces of change," of course, represent the Brotherhood and political Islam.

    The third way that you are wrong is in your insistence that he has no roots in Islam.

    I'm afraid that Barack Obama, himself, disagrees with you. In the Cairo speech he said this:

    I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk.

    So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.

    Obama does not have influences solely from Islam, but he is clearly proud of his connection to the faith and it is precisely because he knows that political-religious system that he should know that governments founded in al-Sharia are deeply and violently prejudicial against minorities, Gay people, and women.

    Finally, opposing the rise of political Islam has everything to do with standing up for the Jewish people.

    That you would think otherwise tells me that (somehow) you have made no connection in your mind between theocratically-based Islamic incitement for genocide against the Jews, actual violence against the Jews, and the political movement which inspires that violence.

    I can recommend some reading for you, if you like.

    Paul Berman is excellent, but I am currently reading Bat Ye'or's Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.

    She's also apparently done considerable research into the history of dhimmitude which you might consider, as well.

    In any case, all of this is a deflection from the uncomfortable fact that Barack Obama favors the Muslim Brotherhood and thus quite literally favors the most horrendously conservative movement on the planet today.

    That you would consider such a truth irrelevant tells us more about your political priorities then anything else.

    One thing that you need to understand is that my criticisms of Obama are from his left - the moderate left that opposes totalitarianism - not from his right.

  10. Obama's origins are irrelevant. It does not matter if he is Baptist or Shiia or a Scientologist. He's not a religious scholar and can't speak with any authority on any of those and the history of why he believes what he believes is his alone to struggle with. David Goldman is an observant Jew who writes often about Christian beliefs and theology. Victor Davis Hanson is a Christian who writes about the Jews. John Shelby Spong was an Episcopal Bishop who is most likely an atheist.

    It matters little. What is important is what they do and say. It doesn't matter much the reasons WHY Obama is fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel because what he says and does forwards that belief wherever it comes from. The fact that he is limited in his ability to carry it out is a statement about America, its political and social mores and traditions and the system of government we have which is intended to limit such actions at its core. So basically the same system that allows an Obama to rise to the top, puts a gateway in front of him to ensure he's not actually an insane dictator.

    So you have to resort to looking only at what he says and does. For example right now he's holding a rare Q&A press conference. I have yet to hear from the mad "I or we made a mistake", or "I or we made some errors". Never will you hear that. What you will get is "Some of my assumptions were undermined..." That is not a leader who claims ownership of mistakes or shortfalls but instead believes wholeheartedly in the absolute genius and force of his own counsel. There is no 'I was taken out of context' with Obama. There is only 'My opponents never fail to misunderstand me.' We're heading into Putin-like areas of suspicion here. In fact if anything my own label of him as a thin skinned paranoid is wrong. He's not. He's a leader who is absolutely indifferent to all voices except the one in his head.

    This is why I conclude that with Obama and Israel he means 100% what he says and he says 100% what he means. He is determined to execute on the Arab plan of chipping away at the Jewish state at all costs. This is why he send Kerry there while the whole region is in flames. It really IS his #1 priority.

    1. The reason that Obama's origins were even made into an issue is because Stuart plucked the words "roots in Islam" out of the piece above in order to use them for the purpose of defaming my character and deflecting from the actual issue, which is Obama's friendliness with the Brotherhood and political Islam, more generally.

      It was a distraction compounded by a personal defamation that was meant to put me on the defensive, to sully my name to other people, and to deflect from the fact that this administration has bolstered the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East.

      Stuart calls that claim - a claim grounded in solid recent history - a "silly notion." In this way he reveals, to those of us who are paying attention, that he honestly believes that reality is dependent upon his political inclinations and conveniences, rather than actual historical truth.

      There is no question that Barack Obama has bolstered the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East, despite the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood to take their gift and run with it. The question is not if Obama supported the rise of political Islam, but why he did so.

      That will be among the central questions that future historians will seek to answer as they peruse the record of this administration.

      A further question to ask, of course, is just why it is that so many Jews support an administration that, itself, supports a political party and a racist, supremacist political movement that is brutally oppressive of women, Gay people, and non-Muslims.

      This is a matter of human rights and it is a concern that should come from the political left, because there was a time when the left did, in fact, champion human rights. The truth, of course, is that the political left has betrayed its fundamental values and, therefore, it ends up being the political right that fills the vacuum.

      I am not of the right, but to the extent that the right stands up against political Islam is the extent that it will have my support.

      To the extent that the left fails to do so - which it does utterly - is the extent that it will not have my support and should not have the support of anyone who actually cares about women in the Middle East, Gay people in the Middle East, and Jews and all infidels in the Middle East.

      We need to stand up for basic human decency in this matter and that necessarily means standing directly against political Islam and Obama's horrendous foreign policy.

      The extent to which Stuart disagrees with that proposition measures the extent to which he has betrayed his own alleged values.

      It's not just him, of course, but most of his end of the political spectrum in the United States and, particularly, in Europe.

      Someone like JayinPhiladelphia is a fair rarity because he can stand up for the left while acknowledging these basic criticisms.

      Most, such as Stuart, are incapable of doing so.

      The main reason for that is the way that the social tends to curb and influence the cognitive.

  11. Why so many Jews stand up for Obama? For the same reason anyone else opposed to Israel does. They're not special. They don't live there and feel no affinity for her. I can't really begin to articulate the whole taxonomy of people who hate Israel - Nick Cohen, Jean-Fracois Revel, Victor Hanson, Paul Berman, Pascal Bruckner, Julien Benda, Albert Camus, Pierre Manent, Russell Kirk, Jacques Barzun, Jean Kirkpatrick, Daniel Patrick Moynihan have done that. Even Frank Furedi and Brendan O'Neill have and they're not not particularly pro Israel. This really is the one big truth of it all, no? There is no singular monolithic Jew hate - there's a dozen million different kinds from Rosa Luxemburg to Glenn Greenwald everything in between.

    1. Yes, but Trudy, this misses the fact that many self-described American "Zionists" are also pro-Obama people who entirely dismiss Obama's actions viz-a-viz the Brotherhood and political Islam.

      I will say this, however, one cannot be either pro-Israel or pro-Jewish if one insists on ignoring the rise of political Islam or seeks to downplay the problem.