Monday, June 15, 2009

Obama upsets Amercian Jewish leaders


Haaretz

There is growing concern among the American Jewish community over Obama's Mideast initiatives, this according to the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein.

"President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes," Hoenlein, said in an interview published Monday.

Reacting to Obama's Cairo speech, Hoenlein said "I have no problem with addressing the Muslim world... But the question is, what is the message they get?"

"There was no reference to the 3,000 years of Jewish connection to this land," Hoenlein says. "And that is again one of the propaganda lines that the Arabs have used: that the Jews are interlopers, that the two temples never existed, that there was never any Jewish history in the land of Israel." [...]

12 comments :

  1. During the last presidential campaign, Obama was the messiah for secular Jewish groups with their traditional pro-left leanings.

    Only now the look on their face incidicates that they suddenly realize who they voted for: someone who thinks being even-handed means giving Israel some consideration despite believing all the Arab propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There was no reference to the 3,000 years of Jewish connection to this land," Hoenlein says"

    That is because historically (not religiously which Pres. Obama could never understand) there is no 3,000 years of Jewish connection to the land.

    70 CE.- Destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish exile from the Holyland

    1267 CE- The Ramban established the first modern Jewish outpost in Jerusalem as a guest of the Pasha of Turkey.

    1291, the Egyptians drove the last Christian Crusaders out of Palestine.

    In 1799 Napolean captured Palestine and established Jerusalem as a City for the Jews.

    1896- Herzl published Der Judenstaadt calling for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    1920 - Palestine a British Mandate
    The British put Haj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974) as the Mufti of Jerusalem. (See 2008 David G. Dalin and John F. Rothman authored “Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam).

    May 15, 1948 Establishment of the State of Israel.

    The 3,000 years' connection between the Jewish people and the Holyland is not a historical fact, it is only through our Torah and our prayer for Moshiach and a rebuilt Holy Temple that such a connection to the Holy Land has existed.

    The born again Christians that so many Jews seem to believe support us are the same people who kept us out of Eretz Yisrael during most of this time.

    And who in their religious zeal murdered us by the tens of thousands in Europe during the Crusades. When the Crusades ended, the same zealous Christian murdered half a million Jews who died during the Expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula.

    Christian zealots murdered us in countless pogroms throughout Europe for thousands of years. And then following the instructions written by Martin Luther, the Founder of the Protestant Church, (see Jews and their Lies, Luther's work upon which Hitler based Mein Kampf) they systematically murdered six million Jews in the Shoah.

    Now they are "building a Jewish homeland", a concentration camp on the site of our Holy City.

    They are igniting the War of the Armageddan and they are turning Muslims against Jews rather than the Christians who are dividing and conquering their homelands,murdering their loved ones and destroying their culture only to send their people "aid" in the form of Christian missionaries to convert them.

    The Christian Right prays that in this Holy War, the majority of Jews will perish and the rest will declare Jesus as the Messiah.

    President Obama does not buy into the born again Christian "support" of Israel and only wants to avoid a nuclear war in the Middle East.

    The President is a better friend to the Jewish people than the Christian Right. President Obama does "get it".

    There has never been a world wide economic crisis that has not resulted in widespread massacres of Jews. The current dire economic situation must be reversed as quickly as possible and ending an ongoing war against the 1.5 billion strong Islamic world is an important start.

    There is also no way for 5.5 million Israelis to perpetually survive among 375 million Arabs in the Middle East other than as allies and economic partners.

    Given the two thousand year history of Muslims and Jews living together in the Middle East peacefully, there is no reason why this cannot be achieved again.

    in fact, based upon history, it is much more likely to re-ignite the two thousand year history of peace and economic cooperation between Muslims and Jews than it is to reverse the two thousand year history of murder and mayhem between Christians and Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Recipients and PublicityJune 16, 2009 at 5:34 AM

    The ultra-liberals have long overlooked the evils of Islamic fundamentalism and have in fact been in a de facto alliance with it because they share an extremist anti-Western outlook. The was also the case in the 1930s when the ultra-liberals supported Communist Stalinism because they shared an anti-capitalist outlook.

    There should be no suprises about Obama's pro-Islamic outlook meshed with an ultra-liberal/socialistic attitude within his own self.

    It is fascinating to read about The Muslim Question & Quranic Studies (in The Obama File) pertaining to Obama's life:

    "On January 24. 2007, the Obama campaign released the following statement, "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.

    On March 14th, in a statement to The Times, the Obama campaign corrected that statement with this:

    "Obama has never been a practicing Muslim. The statement added that as a child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood's Islamic center."

    In two months the Obama Campaign has gone from describing the U.S. presidential hopeful as never having been a Muslim and never having been raised as a Muslim to now having never having been a practicing Muslim.

    But Muslims do not see practice as key. Islam is patrilineal. For Muslims, that fact that Obama was born to a line of Muslim males makes him born a Muslim. Further, all children born with an Arabic name based on the H-S-N trilateral root (Hussein, Hassan, and others) can be assumed to be Muslim, so they will understand Obama's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, to proclaim him a born Muslim.

    Obama's father was a Muslim. Obama's grandfather was a Muslim. Obama's stepfather was a Muslim. Sarah, who Obama calls grandmother is a Muslim. Obama's half-brothers and sisters are Muslims. To Muslims, Obama IS a Muslim, no matter what he says.

    Obama's sister Maya was quoted by the New York Times as saying, "My whole family was Muslim." I assume she considers Obama a member of her family. After all, she refers to him as "my brother."

    For a time, Obama clearly lived and was educated as a Muslim. Only Obama knows what he is today.

    In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

    During the time that he was in Indonesia, young Barry Soetoro, being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam.

    However, Obama received additional training. As the principal from 1971 through 1989 remembers, Obama had studied "mengaji."

    Our guy in Jakarta writes: "The actual usage of the word 'mengaji' in Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than the native tongue. "Mengagi" is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, 'mengaji classes' are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to. To put this in a Christian context, this is something above and beyond simply enrolling your child in Sunday school classes."

    "The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet."

    "As I've stated before, the evidence seems to quite clearly show that both Ann Dunham and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such"."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Recipients and PublicityJune 16, 2009 at 6:14 AM

    More to be upset about:

    "Obama Surrenders To Radical Islam (6/15/09)

    America Talks blog opines that with the dropping of the phrase "war on terror" and his recent diatribe in Cairo, Barack Hussein Obama has effectively waved the white flag at the radical faction of Islam that would seek to destroy us.

    Hussein Obama, now recognizing his Muslim roots, has reached out with open arms to the very people who on September 11, 2001 murdered nearly 3000 of our fellow citizens in one of the most horrific attacks ever perpetrated on a nation.

    Why is he doing this?

    For one of two reasons. Some would have us believe that by Hussein Obama embracing Islam, the violence and jihad will end and we will reach some sort of common ground on which to forge a new relationship. Others say that Hussein Obama is in the camp of the jihadists, winking and nodding at thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose re-election in Iran was fixed by the government because they know that the United States has reversed over 30 years of policy regarding their nuclear ambitions.

    Evidence seems to indicate the latter view.

    Through his cozying up to the Islamic world, Hussein Obama has also thrown Israel under the bus, leaving them under a severe threat of annihilation by enemies such as Iran and the Palestinians hell bent on their destruction.

    One can only conclude that Hussein Obama is a radical Islamic sympathizer, now proudly admitting that he is one of them, prostrating our country before them, and surrendering the United States to their agenda of conversion or obliteration.

    Allah must be smiling."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Recipients and Publicity

    No major US politician has inferred what you have, which is that it is the religion of Islam itself that is anathema to civilization.

    George Bush said that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorists merely use the name of religion to create a cloak of legitimacy. Similar comments have been said by Cheney and McCain.

    Are you saying that Bush, Cheney,Obama, Biden, and McCain all have it wrong, and that Islam is indeed the enemy?

    By the way, Ben Ish Hai, the famous Sephardic Rabbi from Baghdad, was born Yosef Haim Hussein.

    You state "all children born with an Arabic name based on the H-S-N trilateral root (Hussein, Hassan, and others) can be assumed to be Muslim, so they will understand Obama's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, to proclaim him a born Muslim."

    Do you mean to say that the Ben Ish Hai is Muslim and/or is considered Muslim by the Muslim world?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Recipients and PublicityJune 17, 2009 at 2:11 AM

    To Bright Eyes, I wasn't saying anything, I was merely citing word for word various reports from The Obama File. (The United States Library of Congress has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion in its historic collection of Internet materials.)

    That does provide a reasonable counter-balance and critical view of Obama that you won't get in the fawning liberal media that has given up its role of a free press watchdog and now acts as a willing liberal mouthpiece of Obama, ready and willing to serve and die for the one-party Obamanian state as if America were Egypt or Iran in waiting with the Obamanian supreme leader in charge instead of an Ayatola or a dictator.

    If its a one party state that you want with a state controlled media, as the economy now becomes a branch of the US government, Soviet style, then enjoy, but it's doubtful that most Americans want that in spite of all the nicey-nice lip-service that any hypocritical politician may make to the petroleum-rich states, and in order to get donations for the presidential libraries and foundations of Carter, Bush I & II, Reagan, Clinton, and the oil conglomartes like Cheney's Haliburton and oil pumping corporations that are in bed with the sheiks and dictators of the Arab and Muslim world that are very far removed from the early Islam of the days of Muhammad who at least had a pure faith uncorrupted by oil and decadance, and beyond which noone cares about them as they make no contribution to the modern world beyond threats of jihad and the crazy attacks they launch in any way they can, such as on 9/11 and all the suicide bombings, stabbings, beheadings and whatnot.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Recipients and PublicityJune 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM

    Re: Obama's and Netanyahu's speeches.

    Sometimes the painful truth comes from the least likely places, such as this 5 minute video from Jackie Mason who describes Obama; The Next Neville Chamberlain. (Serious not comical.)

    Also came across this excellent 5 minute video by Jewish Israeli activist Moshe Feiglin as Feiglin Responds to Obama and Netanyahu (In Hebrew with English sub-titles.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Recipients and PublicityJune 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM

    Reactions to Netanyahu's speech in Israel.

    This is another video about the real danger posed to Israel by a nuclear-armed Iran of less than 5 minutes by Netanyahu's brother in law who is disapointed (and predicts war) as Bibi's Brother In-Law: The Prime Minister Missed the Point. (In English.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Garnel IronheartJune 17, 2009 at 4:39 PM

    Sometimes to get a Reagan you need to suffer through a Carter first.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are big differences between Obama and Chamberlain.

    The main difference is that Chamberlain believed that war could be averted by appeasing Hitler, partially because Chamberlain, and the French, were absolutely terrified of getting involved in any military activity.

    Additionally, the British in the 1930s had a completely isolationist policy and wanted nothing to do with Germany's ambitions in Europe. Chamberlain gave the people what they wanted.

    Obama is saying no such thing regarding appeasement.

    The US is quite involved militarily and even increasing its military actions in Afghanistan amongst other places.

    The US public is not at all isolationist.

    No comparison at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Recipients and PublicityJune 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM

    Part One: Bright eyes says: "There are big differences between Obama and Chamberlain."

    RaP: The point is they both believe/d that they could "sweet talk" tyrants from attacking the Western Allies. In that, Obama is proving to be as big a failure as Chamberlain was. He bows to the Saudi king, as Chamberlain groveled in front of Hitler, in the hope that the Saudis will somehow curtail Wahabi-sponsored infiltration and attacks of the world. Remember Osama Bin Ladin's family was enriched by serving the Saudis as builders and the Saudis have played a two-faced role in not clarifying what role members of their tribe played in the deadly 9/11 attacks against America. It took a few years for Chamberlain to be proven wrong by events and Hitler's true intention when war broke out in 1939 then Chamberlain was forced to quit and it will take a bit more time to reveal Obama's weakness and hence complicity with the likes of deadly Saudi and other Arab dictatorial guilt and complicity in the Jihad against the West.

    "The main difference is that Chamberlain believed that war could be averted by appeasing Hitler,"

    RaP: And Obama believes the exact same thing, that war against the fanatical Islamic radicals can be averted by appeasement and calling the Koran "holy" umpteen times as he did in his Cairo speech.

    "partially because Chamberlain, and the French, were absolutely terrified of getting involved in any military activity."

    RaP: No they weren't, it was just that they had abided by decisions and agreements following WWI to disarm while Hitler broke the treaties and restrictions and was rearming Germany at break-neck speed.

    "Additionally, the British in the 1930s had a completely isolationist policy"

    RaP: This is total nonsense. The British in the 1930s still had the world's biggest empire and they were engaged in every corner of the globe. They were not isolationist. Perhaps to adegree "pacifist" or "neutral" (the British are by nature very given to the art and implementation of diplomacy as a weapon) but not isolationist by any means like a bunch of hermits.

    "and wanted nothing to do with Germany's ambitions in Europe."

    RaP: Another false fact. The British always had their vigilant eye on all nations in Europe who could pose a strategic threat to them, be it Germany or Russia after WWI, that is why they had a huge British Expeditionary Army of about 300,000 stationed in France to make sure that Germany kept its distance. The British assumed that Germany would have learned from its defeat in WWI but evidently the Germans were willing to gamble on another WWII this time with Hitler at the helm.

    "Chamberlain gave the people what they wanted."

    RaP: All leaders imagine they are giving the people "what they want"! But, which people do you mean? Britain was and is a pure democracy with many opinions always on the go and there were serious political divisions and debates between WWI and WWII and it was a clear-cut decision when Germany finally invaded Poland in 1939 and Chamberlain quit and Churchill was voted in in Parliamnet as the new Prime Minister to lead the war against the Nazis until victory...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Recipients and PublicityJune 21, 2009 at 11:13 AM

    Part Two: "Obama is saying no such thing regarding appeasement."

    RaP: Really? So why is he attacking Israel to appease the Arabs, humiliating his British allies to appease the Third World, making nice with Chavez and Castro to appease the Leftists of the world, dreaming of talks with Ahmadinejad to appease Shiite radicals, and bowing down to the Saudi king in public to appaese the Sunnis, while the Obama regime belittles US citizens to appease the ACORN/Sharpton/Rev Wright crowd, and the US Attorney General calls Americans "a nation of cowards" to appease anyone who hates America and what it stands for for any reason?

    "The US is quite involved militarily and even increasing its military actions in Afghanistan amongst other places."

    RaP: No thanks to Barack Hussein Obama who is smart enough to let a Republican try to finish off the job like the war in Iraq (it's been over there for a while already) as he lets the Islamic terrorsist leave Gitmo in style. The two wars, Obama inherited from Bush and he ran on a platform of total appeasement and quick withdrawel and he would do it if he could, certainly if his original mentors Rev Jeremiah Wright and Farakhan were advising him. In his speech in Cairo he painted Islam as a "moderate" fuzzy religion but forgot to mention the cruelties of the Taliban, and the gruesomeness of Sharia law as people are beheaded in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and lots more places like that, or the plight of Christians in Darfur under Sudan's Islamic nut jobs, or for that matter the mostly Islamic pirates coming out of Somalia and causing havoc at sea with piracy and blackmail. Obama is high on something and it's not reality.

    "The US public is not at all isolationist."

    RaP: Sheer nonsense. The US public has always been isolationist and ONLY acts of war force the US government to send troops abroad. Like the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan, the invasion of South Korea by the North, the defeat and ouster of the French in South Vietnam, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and Iran's support of Islmic Jihad movements that forces the US to face these threats, but they are not by choice. Americans would rather stay at home and have fun.

    "No comparison at all."

    RaP: Saying so does not mean you are right.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.