Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Obama's Casual Dismissal of anti-Jewish Violence (Updated)

Michael L.

Update Two: 

In the comments below, Volleyboy1 points out that Barack Obama referred to the kosher market murders as anti-Semitic violence, as reported by the Jerusalem Post last month, on the 70th anniversary of the Auschwitz concentration camp liberation:
Obama said, in a statement Tuesday, that the recent Paris terror attacks are "a painful reminder of our obligation to condemn and combat rising anti-Semitism in all its forms, including the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust."
Obama has backtracked.

The question is why?

.

This is getting a fair amount of play, but it truly pisses me off, so I intend to highlight it here.

Ben Cohen, writing in The Algemeiner, tells us:
President Barack Obama’s description of the January 9 Islamist terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris as a “random” assault on “a bunch of folks in a deli” has sparked widespread outrage, with a top American Jewish leader telling The Algemeiner, “President Obama absolutely misspoke…there’s nothing ‘random’ about the threats against Jewish targets.”
Random?

Obama thinks that the attack on the kosher market was "random"?

What horrendous nonsense.  The Charlie Hebdo murders were carried out because of something the paper did.  They insulted Muhammad which under al-Sharia can, and in this case did, bring about the penalty of death.  The Jews, on the other hand, were not killed for anything that they did.  They were killed for who they were, i.e., Jewish people.  It was a murderous act of Islamic anti-Semitism and polls have shown that anti-Semitism is absolutely endemic throughout the Muslim world.

According to a Pew research poll Jews have a 97 percent unfavorable rating in Egypt, 96 percent unfavorable rating in Jordan, 92 percent unfavorable rating in Lebanon, 97 percent unfavorable rating in Indonesia, and a 95 percent unfavorable rating in Pakistan.  By contrast, Arabs in Judea and Samaria practically adore Jews with merely an unfavorable rating in the 80s.

In other words, the Arab and Muslim worlds are seething with anti-Semitism and often that anti-Semitism turns violent, which is why there are no - or virtually no - Jews anywhere in the Arab world.  We were driven out, but the hatred toward us continues.

So, why cannot Obama admit this?

Part of the reason for this is convenience.  If Obama attributes the attack on the kosher market to Islamic anti-Semitism, then he has real problems on his hands.

He would have to admit that political Islam is not only a genuine problem (the one he refuses to name), but that it is also the fastest rising and most violently fascistic political movement in the world today.

One reason - or so I speculate - that he refuses to even acknowledge the fact of political Islam is because he is afraid that it will reflect poorly on Muslims, in general, including close members of his own family.  Obama's father was a Muslim, after all.

Furthermore, of course, if he admits to Islamist anti-Semitism, how does this influence his relationships with the Islamic states?  What would it mean for his relationship with his good friend Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, for example?

So, no, I do not believe that Obama simply misspoke.

He knows that it was an anti-Semitic attack, but he does not much care and he has not the political cajones to speak the truth.

It is another one of those little chickenshit moments that this man is prone to.

It should be noted that in this interview with Vox editors Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, Obama thus sought to downplay the significance of what he calls "violent extremism," which is something that he has been doing probably since long before he took office, but definitely consistently does as President of the United States.

I do not see how any Jewish person - without an ideological lobotomy - could possibly maintain faith in this individual.

Update:

I assumed that when challenged on this the Obama administration would have to admit that the attack on the kosher grocery was an anti-Semitic attack, even though they refuse to mention the Islamist nature of the violence.

Not so much:



This administration is nothing short of insidious.

From the comments beneath the video:
Malcolm Pollack

Let's be clear: this is not 'stupidity'. Everyone involved, from the President on down knows perfectly well what is plainly evident to all: that this was an attack on Jews, AS Jews, by a Muslim, acting AS a Muslim.

This willful and adamant refusal to acknowledge self-evident truth is something far darker than stupidity.
I could not agree more.
Adam Hendricks

The targeting a Jewish deli in a Jewish neighborhood by people who openly hate Jews has nothing to do with Jew-hating.  And if you don't buy that story unquestioningly, it can only be because you're a racist who hates our black President. 
He is, of course, being sarcastic, but the sarcasm is pretty much spot on.
Vitreous Slag

The terrorist murderer called a local radio station while in the deli holding hostages and went on the air live to specifically say that he going to KILL JEWS. No matter what Emir Obama and his eunuch there say. Once again this satrap is the clear winner of today's Goebbel's Award.   
I was unaware of any such phone call.
Jonathan Maza

Jen Psaki who represents the state department doesn't want to take the responsibility of admitting that the four victims were Jewish. How short sighted can she be? Doesn't she read the news on websites or newspapers? This is a total disgrace! 
As an American who lives in France, she should call me on the phone I'll set the record straight for her. 

41 comments:

  1. The more Obama tries to deflect and outright ignore the obvious, he only feeds into the whole "Obama is muslim who hates America and its values, especially the allies of America"

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is absolutely bloody disgraceful.

    I'm not sure the world will survive this president.

    Can't you impeach the creep or something? For the sake of us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's remarkably callous.

      It's almost as if he is consciously trying to drive Jews from the Democratic party and discovering that nothing he says or does makes much of a difference.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again.

      If Barack Obama went on national television and pissed on the Israeli flag while singing Hatikva, he would still get 70 percent American Jewish support.

      Delete
    2. Sadly, I believe you are correct in that assessment.
      It is as if many Jews in America have replaced spiritual Judaism with progressive-ism. If the progressives built a golden calf, many so called Jews in the democratic party would worship at it!

      Delete
  3. Mr President;

    Black slavery was simply some guys randomly scooping up people to work in the fields. Rape is simply some guys randomly attacking people for some reason or another having nothing at all to do with sexual violence. And it's not child abuse, it's only a random thing perpetrated on small people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not to be disrespectful, but here is a statement from the President specifically calling it anti-Semitism. In what looks to be a story from 1.27.15:

    Obama said, in a statement Tuesday, that the recent Paris terror attacks are "a painful reminder of our obligation to condemn and combat rising anti-Semitism in all its forms, including the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust."

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Obama-Paris-terror-attacks-are-painful-reminder-of-need-to-fight-anti-Semitism-389151

    Considering you just made this statement:

    I assumed that when challenged on this the Obama administration would have to admit that the attack on the kosher grocery was an anti-Semitic attack, even though they refuse to mention the Islamist nature of the violence.

    I felt that the record should be accurate in criticisms of the Presidents comments.

    It is entirely fair to criticize the verbiage here with the "random shootings" comment but to say that the President did not call it anti-Semitic is not true.

    Now, did he criticize it in terms that those in the anti-Jihadist / anti-Islamist camp would like him too? No. he did not and I suspect he did not due to what he feels are valid political concerns (something that the President does have to worry about, but that we on the internet don't).

    Certainly one thing to bear in mind is that while the Administrations comments on the Paris shooting leave them wide open to critique and are definitely NOT helpful, they are not the first nor only Administration to commit any kind of gaffes with regards to Jewish sensibilities. After all, who could forget Ronald Reagans epic laying of wreaths to honor dead SS soldiers in Bitburg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting.

      I wonder why he felt free to say it then - although it was the Holocaust memorial when he uttered those words - and is hedging on it now?

      I'm getting the feeling that there is something of significance in this story that we are missing.

      It could be, for example, that the French have influenced him not to emphasize the anti-Semitic nature of the attack in order to de-emphasize France as a hostile environment for Jews.

      Of course, if that is the case, he would be doing France a favor, but not its Jews.

      In any case, this story is a little weird and little disconcerting and seems deeply callous to the Jewish people.

      Delete
    2. Sometimes extemporaneous remarks are more telling than what is delivered in pre-prepared formal remarks commemorating an event.

      Delete
    3. The "47%" of Romney, the "They cling to guns or religion" of Obama, are examples of how people are prone to say what they feel when not scripted.

      Of course, the Vox interview was so very penetrating. At least Iglesias did not ask him to quack.

      Delete
    4. The difference of course being is that the President's quote about "clinging to guns and bibles" is dead on correct. Here is the full quote:

      "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/04/obama-explains-2/

      Where the President described the plight of people in small town America who are forgotten by corporate and governmental interests and who turn towards more reactionary thinking to as a way to deal with their situation, something that is very much in evidence today as it has been throughout history when those who are economically distressed turn towards radical (left or right) solutions...

      Whereas Mr. Romney's quote disparages almost half of Americans and says basically that almost half of America does not live up to their obligations to society (which is pure, unadulterated nonsense). But here is his quote:

      "“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

      But... rather than quibble about Republican vs. Democrat because I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine, wouldn't it be better to explore Mike's comment about the French and specifically what was going on here?

      Delete
    5. Dead on to you, but of course, you are not one of the "bitter" people.

      The point remains that people often reveal more about themselves when speaking off the cuff.

      I am not a Republican, by the way, which is why I used an example from each side. I do not believe that Obama is honest, however, about his orientation toward America in the world, and can be downright Nixonian toward his political adversaries and the media.

      For example, the "protocol" matter. He could have handled it much differently. Or his his lecture to us all at the SOTU address, only to insult toward the end. It does not matter what others do, he has a way of rubbing your nose in it and mockery that is not how the leader of ALL the people should. The guns and religion remark is revelatory. I'd love to hear what he actually said at the Khalidi farewell party. That could be a mindblower.

      As I said with regard to the French, in my opinion, if he would have uttered Jews or Kosher, then his accuracy likely would not have raised even an eyebrow.

      Delete
    6. Well if you are going to insist on this...

      The President's quote was very much "dead on" as is evidenced throughout history. And I come from one of those small towns (though in New York and not Pennsylvania) where the President exactly describes the social attitudes of people that have been "pushed aside" .

      As for Rashid Khalidi - whatever the President might have said to a fellow academic who he respected at one time - I am not sure it matters much now given that he is not very happy with the President at all since the President has been in office. In fact, he has gone out of his way to disparage Mr. Obama and gave a similar complaint to the one opined by Ali Abunimeh here:

      http://electronicintifada.net/content/how-barack-obama-learned-love-israel/6786

      But why rely on the opinion of Ali Abunimah of course there is this straight from Rashid Khalidi in an interview with RT:

      RT: Does that mean that under Obama nothing will happen?

      RK: Four years have been wasted so far. I think that if the US doesn’t change its policy they will not even help resolve this conflict but make it even worse. The US is not just a neutral actor. It’s supporting Israel diplomatically, gives Israel $3 billion every year as assistance, much of which seems to me to be used in ways that are a violation of US law, in ways that aren’t defensive – bombing Gaza for example. And finally, it’s hundreds of millions of dollars of American money that go to the settlement enterprises in the West Bank. This is the American participation in making the settlement less likely. So the US has not only helped to resolve this but made the situation worse.


      But again, no need to worry about fictional complaints about the President.

      Rather, the important discussion is regarding what Mike thinks could have happened with regards to the P.R. nightmare that this is becoming.

      Could the President have been more direct here? I think the answer is "yes". But the President is generally a fairly thoughtful man so to make this mistake I think indicates other things at work. I think Mike was on to something when he mentions helping the French.

      Delete
    7. volleyboy1,

      At one time I would agree with standing by Obama, but as it has been made painfully obvious to me the left has a huge disdain for our people. As such, the amount of leeway I will give in the future on any Democrats position towards Israel and Jews will be rather negligible.

      As such I believe Mike is spot on in his analysis!

      I say this as someone who has come to the conclusion that I have no political home. The right is repugnant in its economic and social affairs. the left hiding behind the badge of progressive-ism can't see the hate and hypocrisy it spews.

      The correct answer in 2012 would have been to take Mitt's foreign policy and marry it to Obama's domestic policy. But sadly we were given a choice of chickenshit and bullshit instead!

      Delete
    8. Well Mannie... I am sorry you feel this way but if you say this:

      The correct answer in 2012 would have been to take Mitt's foreign policy

      Can you tell me exactly what Mitt's foreign policy would have been? The reason I ask is because Mitt didn't even define it himself. BUT when asked what he would have done differently, he "punted" and said he would have done the same thing President Obama was doing.

      So when you say you think we should have "Mitt's foreign policy" I am really confused.

      Look, I completely recognize that the Left has a great amount of disdain for not only Israel but for the Jewish people as well. And I will be one of the first to tell you that Secretary Kerry has been an absolute failure of a SoS (particularly compared to HRC).

      That said, I don't think the Republicans are offering anything coherent OR different from what the President is offering. I mean Sen. McCain wants to arm the Syrian Rebels to an even higher degree than the President does. But where are those arms really going? To the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. So where does that make sense?

      Delete
    9. At least Mitt wouldn't treat Bibi with total and utter contempt, which is Obama's (and the lefts) way of basically giving us the middle finger!

      I never believed what I called the claptrap of the right in what they said about Obama, but given that the left seems to work so hard to prove conservatives correct (looking at you DK/DSKF), I am starting to come around that sadly the conservatives were correct about Obama all along!

      Delete
    10. And that is the real tragedy of places like the Great Orange Shithole or MondoFront or FireDogShit. They are the best recruiting tool for the Right.

      I hear you about being so frustrated at the Left because of places like that. But you have to remember, those morons hate mainstream Dems. almost as much as the Republicans. They just hate anything that strengthens America.

      Anyway, I am going to leave this discussion but I will give you one thought... Mannie, I would treat Netanyahu with the same contempt if he treated me the way he treats this President and this Administration. And if you think that President Obama is contemptuous of the PM, you should read what the Israeli Opposition (who right now leads in the polls) has to say about him.

      Anyway, I get your frustrations and I hope that rather than succumb to propaganda about our President.

      You know I will leave you with one other thought... It was not a Democratic or Liberal President that threatened to attack Israel (that was Ike), it was not a Democratic or Liberal President that layed a wreath honoring dead SS soldiers (Reagan), It was not a Democratic President or a Liberal President that cut aid to Israel (Bush I) - so be careful with who your new friends are and what they have represented historically and again remember... When you rag on President Obama - remember Mitt Romney said he would do exactly the same things that President Obama had done particularly when it came to Egypt and the Middle East. Just sayin' bud.

      Have a good one man.

      Delete
    11. People do not need history lessons. You do not lead people by showing a swath of them disrespect. Chickenshit really told a tale.

      I want to hear what OBAMA said at the party to a bunch of people in public without his guard. Pretty simple. I would not be surprised to see him break bread again after he leaves office. The issue is why he hung with him in the first place, not to mention what it tells us of his orientation to issues of America and Israel and the notion of resistance. The fact that America supports Israel limits him, but he moves the ball in the direction thinking others will use what we cede wisely. History shows that others are not so tolerant as Americans, even Republican ones.

      As to the French Connection, there is probably none. The French and its government know there is antisemitism, but in many instances are helpless to prevent it. If Obama said kosher he would at least acknowledge to French Jews they matter. It is not high on the list, but we live in an age of attack politics, and he would press the advantage no less if the situation was otherwise.

      Delete
    12. With Iran, there is also the issue of whether he just needs to do this before he is gone so he can have a notch in his belt. He did walk away from the democrats. Can you imagine a nuclearized Middle East?

      Perhaps he should have let the sanctions continue until the Iranians took the first step, even if his successor got the credit. I tend to believe Menendez because he has no axe to grind that Obama is using Iranian talking points.

      Delete
    13. Obama's comment concerning "guns or religion or antipathy" to others is pretty much straight out of Thomas Frank's, What's the Matter with Kansas.

      Very good book, btw, and timely when it came out.

      Delete
    14. volleyboy1,

      just because i may think the right was more right about Obama doesn't mean they are my new friends, it just means that the right has moved a bit and the left in my mind to be more closer to both being equal opportunity slimebags.

      Yes have have left the lefts paradigm that states if Fox says 1+1=2, then FOX lied as 1+1=10 in binary and this is the digital age. Basically the left fears the right so much that they cant be seen as agreeing on anything with them.

      So basically saying the right was mmore correct about Obama doesnt mean I am running off to listen to limbaugh, it just means that I think the left has lost credibility with me and I see both sides slimy

      Going forward as I see myself now, it will be Democrat if the person supports Israel, if the Democrat doesn't then vote Republican

      Delete
  5. I'm getting the feeling that there is something of significance in this story that we are missing.

    I think this is right and I think your next sentence is definitely something to consider.

    I personally believe it is a combination of things (and this is pure conjecture). I think first and foremost it is due to the fact that as he said... he "mis-spoke". Remember, people have different emphasis' when it comes to their political thoughts. President Obama is President of the U.S. not President of the Jewish people. So his thoughts are on this killing but not necessarily who the victims were.

    Second, I think as you say he may be playing to the French here. They are an important ally despite anecdotal evidence and a general distrust of them that stems from their recent history.

    Finally, (to speak to your larger point about criticizing Islamists) remember, the President is building a Sunni Coaltion to fight ISIS (Iran seems to be handling the Shiite side of things). To come out and blast political Islam would be the death knell of that coalition. I mean telling the KSA (who are the political Islamists if there ever were some) and the Gulf States (not too mention Jordan which pays lip service to Sharia Law) that Political Islam is some fascist ideology would wreck that coalition and in the interim cede the field to Iran and the Shiites (who just took Yemen).

    I think all of these things are part of the calculus involved. And again where you and I may have our concerns (though they are different), we have a certain freedom to speak where the President does not.

    Just something to consider.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It might be helpful if not only Obama spelt 'antisemitism' correctly, but if everyone did, then the meaning of the word would be correct too.

    No idea why but the spelling seems to have changed, though I note many people now are spelling it correctly.

    The spelling antisemitism is a direct translation from the German .. antisemitismus which was first used by Wilhelm Marr around 1880/81. It was also called antisemitisch, and something similar, by 2 other German Jews and around the same time, whose names escape me.

    Anti-Semitism is used as a term for being against things or people of Semitic races which is very different. This is an excellent 'advocacy tool'

    I might add by not using and American 'spell check' programme,Anti-Semitism comes up as a spelling mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps but the spelling here in the quote comes from the Jerusalem Post and not President Obama.

      But, interesting on the history of the term. It appears that the dictionaries go either way.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitism (for example).

      Delete
    2. If it was good enough for my old professor, Fred Astren, a Jewish American historian of the Middle East, then it is good enough for me.

      Besides, Shirlee, language is not static.

      Spelling is never correct or incorrect

      It is either standard or not. I generally stay with something very close to standard because I wish to be understood.

      Delete
    3. Better to misspell antisemitism than not mention it at all when it appears.

      As to the French or others not liking if he had said kosher or Jew, I doubt anyone would have cared by such accuracy.

      Delete
  7. So do guys as smart as Obama mispeak? Well....

    ReplyDelete
  8. " President Obama is President of the U.S. not President of the Jewish people. So his thoughts are on this killing but not necessarily who the victims were. "

    You know, vollyboy1, I've read all your posts on this thread so I'm not picking on this sentence. But it is a pretty good tag.

    Actually this guy is much more than President of the United States and especially at a time like now. Please keep this truth in mind. My very old wise dad used to say that it was a pity we all didn't get a vote. The whole world. At least that part of it that could be trusted with a vote. I recall him first saying that when that real scary dude, Goldwater, looked like he was in with a chance to have his finger on the button..

    When was that? Early sixties?

    It had to be 1960 or 1964. I was a child but not that young. 1964

    Anyway it was a serious time for the world. An awful lot of people were pretty scared and even as a kid I picked up on the fear and politics. Not a good feeling. I've never felt that way since.

    Until now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goldwater, or so people were told at the time, was prepared to win the Vietnam War pretty much by any means necessary. It was for this reason that LBJ used the famous "daisy ad" showing a little girl picking petals and then suddenly a stern man's voice is heard counting down "3, 2, 1." and then the screen goes to an loud explosion and a mushroom cloud.

      It was designed to scare the holy hell out of American and away from the possibility of Goldwater with the bomb. It actually only aired once, but has become an iconic political ad within American history.

      It was Goldwater, btw, who famously said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

      LBJ stomped him at the polls.

      Delete
    2. Needless to say, the implication of the ad was that either he would use the bomb or, due to a highly aggressive Goldwater presidency, we end up in a nuclear war with the Soviets.

      Delete
  9. Now that 3 Syrian-American students were murdered in Chapel Hill I wonder if Obama will note that it was 'random'.

    In fact it turns out that the killer, even though he's a well know 'radical atheist', HuffPo, Maher, Michael Moore, Richard Dawkins, etc etc far left angry 'liberal', this killing was probably about an insane argument over a condo parking spot that went out of control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of what it was about, there's another savage who needs to be locked in a cage forever, and never be permitted to rejoin society.

      Delete
    2. Better to wait for the facts to come out. People kill because they are sick or due to unpremeditated rage, not just out of malice.

      I wonder if this guy has posted at DKos, as his ideology seems to fit the profile of many users.

      Delete
    3. I'm sure right now at that place, there are a good number of people trying, or at least wanting, to pin blame for this on Republicans, Jews, Christians, America and / or that dastardly Karmafish guy.

      Delete
    4. Yup, just checked. They are. Also, I forgot for a second this happened in North Carolina, so add hate speech against Southerners to the cool 'progressive' blame stew, as well.

      Delete
    5. It's almost comical how the very first comment under the front page story hit every single note I was at least serious about.

      Delete
    6. That place is truly a cesspool! I categorize DK/DSKF as a hate site myself

      Delete
    7. I particularly enjoy their apparent new line, that even if this evil fuck didn't kill these people specifically because they were Muslim, the fact that all Americans are apparently drones who have been hypnotized by Fox News to hate Muslims, surely had something to do with it.

      This kind of blistering stupidity really puts a hop in my step, as one who can't wait to see that hate site implode under the weight of its own literal derangement and seething hatred for the 99.999% of Americans who don't see the world exactly as they do.

      Delete
    8. I'm waiting right there with you!

      Delete
  10. oldschooltwentysixFebruary 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM

    Better to wait for the facts to come out. People kill because they are sick or due to unpremeditated rage, not just out of malice.

    I wonder if this guy has posted at DKos, as his ideology seems to fit the profile of many users.


    Couldn't agree more

    ReplyDelete
  11. A favorite person of mine has a very good article up

    Caroline Glick

    Just a small selected portion

    In other words, Israel’s ability to take effective action against Hamas in concert with Egypt is hampered by the Obama administration that is insisting that Israel facilitate the Hamas’s rearmament – a development that threatens Israel and Egypt alike.


    And Israel isn’t alone in its plight. Egypt is also being pressured by President Barack Obama and his administration.

    ReplyDelete