Forward.com

Friends of Israel need to be "emboldened".

When the Forward aligns itself with Obama (the most anti-Israel president in history), and uses terms like "neoconservatives" to argue in favor of appeasement ("outreach") concerning Islamofascist Iran, it betrays its extreme leftist ideology, and enmity towards the Jewish State of Israel and the Jewish people.

For Jews this cannot an issue of Republicans versus Democrats, and certainly "Bush" and "Reagan" have nothing to do with it. For Jews of all political affiliations, (other than the far-left anti-Israel extremists like J Street), it is an issue of the physical survival of our people, who are confronted with an impending second Holocaust.

A recent article states it well:

...

"Failure to confront these Israel bashers has already provided the general media with grounds to suggest that American Jewish support of Israel is collapsing. That has certainly encouraged the Obama administration to intensify its pressure on the Netanyahu government. It may also cause some weak-kneed Jews to distance themselves from Israel to avoid confronting a popular American president.

There are even ominous mutterings predicting a possible replay of what transpired during World War II, when fearing a confrontation and bedazzled by president Franklin Roosevelt, Jewish leaders lacked the courage to protest against the indifference of the US government to the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

Now, as never before, when the beleaguered State of Israel confronts Iran, potentially one of the greatest existential threats since its creation, the support of American Jews is crucial."

Why can't Obama's opponents admit that his policy towards Iran is spectacularly successful? Never before have the Iranian citizenry been so "emboldened" that they might indeed rid themselves of their oppresive government on their own. This could open the door to a more peaceful environment in the middle east. The confrontational tactics of George bush certainly did not work. This opinion by the way, comes from a very consrvative Republican, who did not vote either way in the last election. Such was the disgust fostered by the rediculous choice of candidates by either party.

Iran relentlessly progresses in obtaining its nuclear weapons. Obama's "policy" is unabashed appeasement. It is far worse than Neville Chamberlain's, since prevention of a second Holocaust can be accomplished by surgical military strikes, which are easily within the capabilities of the US military, with virtually no loss of American lives.

No matter which Iranian Islamofascist "wins" the Iranian elections, it will not change Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the clock is ticking. The slaughter of millions of Jews and the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel will result if Iran's nuclear program is not destroyed.

Jewish leaders fearful of confronting Obama to save millions of Jews are pathetic. They should remember the first Holocaust, and act accordingly. "Jewish" Democratic congressmen who are refusing to support preparation for a US military strike to take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, should be told in no uncertain terms that placing their parochial politics ahead of confronting the grave threat (certainly even greater that posed by North Korea), is not only immoral, but will have serious political consequences for them.

If "never again" means anything to American Jews, now is the time to be heard.

Frank, I do not wish to participate in a duel with you, but I find some of your language to be somewhat unpatriotic. What do you mean by "our people?" When I refer to our people, I leave no doubt that I'm referring to Americans. What exactly do you mean? Don't be too loose with advocating the use of (American) force to defend other than my country. I have served honorably in our military, and treasure the lives of every service-person presently engaged in this career. Call me what you will, but I'm for America - first, last and always.

Why does anyone even pay any attention to these neocon commentators and Republican rightists who have been disastrously wrong on every issue so far? Millions of people have been needlessly killed, maimed, and/or dispossessed because of their misguided bully policies, not to mention the thousands of young Americans who have died in vain in pursuit of these idiotic ideas. And all the while, these people sit back safely, far from the danger, and rake in millions in profits on the sacrifices of others. While I don't agree with all of Obama's policies and feel he is being too cautious in turning things around, his Iran policy so far has hit just the right notes and been the best possible for the interests of the United States. And it is the interests of America and the American people that is oour concern, isn't it?

Is it not ironic that the head of Mossad and the editorialists of a number of weekly Jewish papers have welcomed the "re-election" of Ahmadinejad who was described by AIPAC president, David Victor, last month as "the gift that keeps on giving?" So one hand, we have all of Obama's critics, who did not support him in the first place, calling on him to express support of the Iranian opposition and forgo any idea of negotiations with representatives of the regime. At the moment, it seems that Obama is faced with a "lose-lose" situation and, I gather, that is the way his critics want it to remain.

As to Frank's willingness to risk American lives and an even more disastrous war in the Middle East because Israelis believe they are facing an "existential" threat, does call into question, as Sam alluded to, the color of the flag he salutes and also suggests that he has never worn the uniform of an American serviceman.

No more wars for Israel ... if we would just follow that bit of advice our involvment in the Middle East would be little more than negotiating the price of oil down to about $50 dollars a bbl.

Iran has no nuclear bombs but Israel does have nukes and the submarines to launch them ... is anyone listening?

For a long time we all had to listen to what the neocons were saying because their words were harbingers of dumb moves by Bush. But then the neocons were so discredited that by Bush's second term that neither Bush, thus us neither, payed any attention to them. They were communications dead long before Obama became president. The fact that they still howel on the pages of NY POST does not mean that they regained attention. Who reads NY POST?

Mr. Guttman writes: But even moderates who back Obama’s outreach policy say the widespread popular protests in the streets of Tehran, the government’s aggressive attempts to suppress them and its efforts to limit media coverage of these events have raised new questions about Obama’s timing and scope for engaging with Iran.

“This will recalibrate the way the Obama administration thinks of moving forward with the Iranian nuclear issue,” said Nicholas Schmidle, a fellow at the New America Foundation. “There are voices now that say the regime may be in danger and therefore you might want to wait.”

Sorry, but whatever happens in Iran, Obama-- just like Bush before him-- will not attack Iran no matter what Israel and its neocon minions say. A-bomb or no A-bomb-- and we still don't know which despite all the Mossad's hasbara-- we must come to terms with Iran in order to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan-- both of which we can no longer afford-- even if we have to do it through Russia. At any rate, an Ahmadinejad victory will be quite pyric as the Mullahs have stood up to Khamenei for he has totally discredited himslef, blackmailed by the radcal thugs over his lack of Ayatollah credentials.

As for Israel-- which also we can no longer afford-- it is going to be too busy trying to find a solution to domestic economic problems to do anything about Iran's alleged nukes. For better or worse we are at a monumental moment in history after which nothing can remain the same. globally that is, both economically and geostrategically as mutual reciprocals. The neocons are dinosaurs whose roar no one will take seriously because, well, we know all dinosaurs died millions of years ago.

There is an interesting op-ed piece regarding Iran in today's (6/18) N.Y.Times which questions the widely held assumption that the real power in Iran is Khamenei. The article persuasively presents an argument that the Revolutionary Guards are now the real power. Bear in mind that the president, the modern-day Haman, is a former member of the Revolutionary Guard and that many former members are now entrenched in government positions and in the Parliament. It is probable that the theocracy is no longer a theocracy but rather a military dictatorship where guns and not religious devotion will determine what people do. Military dictatorship or theocracy, they are both dangerous for world peace and for Israel.

It seems that very few Jews - our people (who are not far-left anti-Israel extremists) read the "Jewish" Forward. Others, not surprisingly, swarm this site.

Forward's rather generous policy in setting limits on what may be said in comments has a rather positive side: it enables is to encounter views and behind these, persons, one would not ordinarily meet. Frank is to be thanked for his open avowal of the ethnocentrism, the disdain for and fear of a hostile world, many of us consider dysfunctional in an American nation which has changed so much in the past sixty five years. Do other readers have estimates of how much of American Jewry thinks (and feels) like Frank? For that matter, what do Forward's well informed and quite reflective editors and writers think?

6% of Israelis see the Obama administration as pro-Israel:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184872947&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It appears that the "Jewish" Forward and most of those bothering to post comments do not care. Yes, the Forward certainly does have "generous" limits on "what may be said", at least in espousing virulent far-left anti-Israel/antisemitic views. (Unlike some pro-Israel posts, it will never delete even the most venomous antisemitic ones.) It is a gathering place for antisemites of every ilk.

To the extent that the "Jewish" Forward has any readers who are actually Jews (and not so self-hating, extreme leftists Israel-hating, and/or so hopelessly assimilated and unidentified as to be hopelessly divorced from our people), one can only hope that they are roused to political action.

Let's see how "generous" the "Jewish" Forward is to pro-Israel posts ... this is an article which bears reading:

...

Bogus 'Zionist' Israel-bashers

It is ironic that many of the disconcerting themes relating to Israel in US President Barack Obama's Cairo speech replicated those widely promoted for months by a noisy minority of radical American Jews. These "Israel bashers" now proudly proclaim that the new language being employed by Obama "echoes the vocabulary we use."

On the eve of Binyamin Netanyahu's arrival in Washington, a full page advertisement inserted by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) appeared in The New York Times. Instead of the customary welcome message to a visiting prime minister or expressions of solidarity, it urged Obama to press Israel to make further unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, assuring him that in the event of a confrontation, he would enjoy the backing of most American Jews because "they are not Israelis living in exile." IPF's Washington director, M.J Rosenberg, issued a call to neutralize "the minority of Jews falsely" purporting to present the Jewish community as "blind supporters" of the Israeli government.

Israel Policy Forum is only one of a cluster of radical left-wing organizations that have the chutzpa to describe themselves as lovers of Israel and even "Zionists," while actively lobbying the Obama administration to pressure Israel. They deviously sugarcoat their anti-Israeli campaigns by comparing themselves to parents whose children are drug addicts requiring "tough love" to force them to change their dangerous habits. These sentiments were effectively replicated in Obama's Cairo speech.

They were joined in April last year by J Street, a new group initially funded by the Jewish tycoon George Soros who had achieved notoriety for demonizing successive Israeli governments irrespective of their political leanings.

J Street and another radical group, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, proudly announced that they had succeeded in persuading 11,000 of their members to bombard the White House with e-mails urging Obama to stand firm against Netanyahu.

During the Gaza offensive, J Street condemned the action against Hamas as "disproportionate." Refusing to "pick a side" and identify "who was right and who was wrong," it applied moral equivalency to both parties proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong... While there is nothing 'right' in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists amongst them."

J Street also opposes Israel's efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Despite the fact that Israelis of all political opinions are united on this issue, J Street members were e-mailed and urged to actively lobby against a bipartisan congressional resolution calling for tougher sanctions to be applied against Iran.

The radical groups also resurrected the bogus anti-Semitic charge of "dual loyalties," warning Jews that by continued "blind" support of Israel, they risked alienating the American public and would be condemned for displaying greater loyalty toward Israel than the US. They were almost hysterical in their condemnation of Jews who exercised their rights to protest against the proposed appointment of the fiercely anti-Israel Charles Freeman to head the National Security Agency. IPF spokesmen went so far as to explicitly state that being an anti-Israeli fanatic was insufficient grounds for barring a person from assuming a senior administration role.

If there was any doubt about J Street, its endorsement of the British anti-Semitic play Seven Jewish Children, effectively a contemporary blood libel, placed it squarely in the camp of those seeking to demonize the Jewish state. It justified its support on the grounds that the play would promote "rigorous intellectual engagement and civil debate on which our community prides itself."

J Street and IPF also seek to slander and undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby group, depicting it as an extreme right-wing and hawkish body although it has consistently promoted the policies of all Israeli governments, including the dovish administrations preceding Netanyahu.

In an environment in which global anti-Semitism and demonization of Israel are beginning to make inroads into the United States, the potential of such radical groups to destabilize the standing of Israel should not be underestimated.

Never before has the Jewish community faced a situation in which organizations presenting themselves as Zionists shamelessly lobby their president to pressure the democratically elected government of the Jewish state to make concessions which could have life and death implications for its citizens.

Not that anti-Jewish Jews are a new phenomenon. Jewish communists were bitterly opposed to the campaign to liberate Soviet Jewry and defended state-sponsored anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. But they were marginalized and regarded as pariahs by the Jewish community.

The problem in the US is that the established Jewish leaders decided to ignore these organizations, mistakenly believing that confrontations would be construed as attempts to restrict freedom of expression and would transform the radicals into martyrs.

But the issue of freedom of expression is a red herring. Any Jew is entitled to express his beliefs, no matter how nauseating or deviant such views may appear to the majority. That certainly applies to those arguing in favor or in opposition to settlements. Surely the red lines are being crossed when, as distinct from expressing views, American based organizations claiming to "love" Israel aggressively lobby the US government to pressure it to make concessions that could place lives at risk. To tolerate such groups within the framework of the Jewish community provides them with an aura of respectability to which they are not entitled. Alas, today some of these groups already attend administration briefings on a par with the recognized mainstream organizations.

Furthermore, failure to confront these Israel bashers has already provided the general media with grounds to suggest that American Jewish support of Israel is collapsing. That has certainly encouraged the Obama administration to intensify its pressure on the Netanyahu government. It may also cause some weak-kneed Jews to distance themselves from Israel to avoid confronting a popular American president.

There are even ominous mutterings predicting a possible replay of what transpired during World War II, when fearing a confrontation and bedazzled by president Franklin Roosevelt, Jewish leaders lacked the courage to protest against the indifference of the US government to the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

Now, as never before, when the beleaguered State of Israel confronts Iran, potentially one of the greatest existential threats since its creation, the support of American Jews is crucial.

A united Jewish community should marginalize the anti-Israeli radicals and urge Obama (who received 80 percent of its votes) to stand by commitments made to Israel by previous US administrations in the same manner as the Netanyahu government is obliged to adhere to undertakings made by previous Israeli governments. A strong Jewish stand in this direction could effectively tip the balance in averting a catastrophic major rift between the US and Israel.

ileibler@netvision.net.il This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

If you believe in America, and what it stands for, see what John Quincy Adams wrote and spoke of while he was secretary of state. I'm afraid we have reached this point, and all those who have been counting on America for help, must accept a change in policy.

America's Role In The World

On July 4, 1821, and on the 48th anniversary of our independence, John Quincy Adams, then the Secretary of State, said of our Country: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her own example. She well knows that by once enlisting under banners other than her own, were they even banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, of all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, ambition, which assumed the colors and usurped the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."

Frank is right. Ahmadinejad represents the FRUM element in Iran, over against Mosavi and his secularists. Therefore, FRUM Jews should support and welcome the FRUM Muslims of Iran as brothers-in-arms. Democracy is a secular heresy; only G-d/Allah should rule.

America is supposed to be the "Last Great Hope of Mankind", in the words of a President whom Obama dissed in "Audacity of Hope" but clung to up and after the election. We are also supposed to be a Moral Voice.

Seems that Obama both forgot Lincoln, and that we stand up for those oppressed.

I am waiting for the Bush-Cheney haters to spew, but we had a President and Vice President. Now we have two guys and a backstabbing bimbo over at State who are stone silent while kids and babies in their wombs are murdered on the streets of Tehran; who told America we would have "smart diplomacy" with them, but heck, we cannot even board a North Korean ship carrying suspicious materials on the high seas (ever remember the USS Pueblo? Better yet, ever remember Bull Halsey, Oliver Perry, Farragut or Dewey - Baboon and Buffoon (aka Obama and Biden) apparently haven't.

But hey, if you're a Jewish father who wants to build a room or playground for your child on the grounds of your own home on YOUR OWN LAND in the Jewish Homeland, Obama will go bananas. Seems Settlers are a greater threat to peace than NK threatening nuclear war, or an Iran that deliberately murders its kids.

There were those of us who warned you about the coward who not only sat in that pew for 20 years, but applauded a guy whom if he were White would be no better than that flea called Van Brunn who murdered Stephen Johns in the Holocaust Museum. We warned you he was NO friend of Israel, either. Now, do you care to open your eyes?

Better vote in a Republican Congress next year. They will be the only ones sticking up for you as a citizen, for America, and for Israel. The Democrats have been bought and sold by Soros, by Hamas, and yes, by a coward and liar sitting in the White House.

DE Teodoru,

Your hero goes bananas if a Jew wants to build a room on his own land, but he stays silent when kids are murdered on the streets of Tehran or when his Palestinian MUSLIM brothers use innocent horses as explosive carriers.

Go and goosestep with "Them Jewa" Wright, with David Duke, and your other assorted friends at Stormfront and at the Trinity Garbage Dump. Your spew and vomiting at Jews and bashing of America has become extremely boring.

Like Obama, you're not only filled with hot air, but you're a coward too.

Those who spew the words "Neo-Con" are no better than the little Nazi who murdered Stephen Johns at the Holocaust Museum and went there to kill Jews and others, including Blacks. Something Obama chooses to ignore.

You spew "Neo-Con" to mask your own virulent anti-Semitism. And if you're a JINO who also does the anti-semites' bidding, you are NO better than they are.

Neo-Conservatives proudly stick up for America as a moral voice in the world, and yes, recognize Israel as one of our only real allies. Those who have a problem with that can go and join Hitler, or if you're too cowardly for that, I hear that Osama has room for you in his cave.

Alan,

you are such a shaygetz!

where do you get your info? At "Goyishe Kop Is Us" ?

Isn't it time for you to visit your buddy, Jack Abramoff?

A JEWISH PRO-ISRAEL PERSPECTIVE:

Hoenlein Expresses "Concern" About Obama

by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a top lay leader of American Jewry, says Jews who supported U.S. President Barack Obama are now “very concerned” about him.

Hoenlein spoke with Newsmax this week, offering some sharp criticism of the man for whom an estimated 80% of Jews voted in last year’s election. He emphasized that he was expressing only his own personal views, but said that he’s heard similar concerns from “some of [Obama’s] strongest supporters.”

American-Jewish groups to the right of Hoenlein’s Conference have already expressed alarm at Obama’s new approach towards the Middle East. The Zionist Organization of America, for instance, said Obama’s Cairo speech “may well signal the beginning of a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.”

Hoenlein's Long List

The strongest terms Hoenlein used in describing his and others’ fears about Obama and where he is going in terms of the American-Israeli relationship were “concern,” “troubling,” and “questioning.” However, the list of gripes he enumerated appears to justify downright “alarm” and “trepidation.”

Hoenlein cited Obama for having traveled twice to the Middle East without visiting Israel. In addition, he noted several problems with Obama’s speech in Cairo, including the following:

* Obama claimed that there are 7 million Muslims in America – when in fact the Pew Research Center estimated the Muslim American population in 2007 at only 2.35 million.

* Obama did not mention the Jewish people's ancient connection with the land of Israel. "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. Even Yasser Arafat and others have used that argument because they're trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I don't believe that was the president's intent, but not making those references I think is troubling."

* Obama equated the Nazi slaughter of more than six million Jews during the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering over the past six decades since the creation of the State of Israel. "There's no comparison between the Holocaust… and what happened to Palestinians," Hoenlein said.

Nor is Israel responsible for any such suffering, Hoenline feels: "The Palestinian refugee problem, or dislocation as he said, didn't come about because of the creation of the Jewish state. It came about because the Arab states declared war on Israel and warned the Arabs that they would suffer the same fate as the Jews if they didn't get out. And then [the Arab states] kept them as political pawns."

* Obama did not give a clear message to Iran: "What concerned us, concerned many people, was the message to Iran that we didn't hear," Hoenlein noted, namely, "an absolute assurance about the U.S. commitment not to allow Iran to be nuclear, not to allow it to continue to support terrorism, not to allow it to continue being the major state sponsor of terror around the world."

Sorry, Louie, but if anyone is a "shaygetz" it would be a fascist wannabe such as yourself.

The facts are right in front of your eyes, fella. But you on the Left don't care to read nor acknowledge them.

Bert Prelutsky said it best, to paraphase - there is someone drastically wrong (with the coward in the WH - my words) when there is silence over kids being killed in Iran while Obama is more concerned about where Jews live.

But hey, Louie, he's your man - oops, Boy would probably be more appropo, and that's not Racist by meaning. Only a little child would behave as petulantly towards Israel yet stay silent over the rest of the world as Obama has behaved.

The Jewish Agency is functionally a part of the Israeli government. Dennis Ross really needs to choose which country he wishes to serve. Since the publication of the "Israel Lobby", trying to insist two countries share the same foreign policy objectives is no longer credible.

Obama's "outreach" (appeasement of a nuclear-armed Iran) is catastrophic. Iran will have its nuclear weapons within a year. Meanwhile, the world is forced to face the fact that there are no "good" Iranians for "outreach", just Islamofascists fighting each other in the streets of Tehran. (I love the recent multicolored Mousavi poster which looks like Obama and says "Change"!) Mousavi is every bit as bad an Islamo-Nazi as Ameanjihad, already responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and instituting Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran and Obama are running out the clock, and the clock is ticking.

This guy Frank takes Forward to task for advocating sanity in US policies.Gone are the crazy years of GWB and NeoCons who are acually neoFascists! Frank calls Iran Islmofascists.It is within Israel that Zionist/fascism is flourishing nurtured by US tax dollars! Unfortunar=tely whn we have mad men like Netayanhu and Liberman ruling Israel how one can hope for sanity!

"Solidarity with the brave Iranians"??? Too funny coming from the mouth of neocons who clap when Israel kills weekly Palestinians protesting against oppression at the apartheid wall.

Sewer rats have more credibility than neocons. The posts in response to their pathetic op-eds in Washington Post tells you how we feel about their opinions.

Frank's June 19, 2009 post challenged of the Forward to reprint the Jerusalem Post article. Seeing it all in print must be gratifying to Frank.

But doesn't the article give the debunking of the 'moral equivalency' argument a bad name by overextending its use?

The article complains that

>"J Street condemned the action against Hamas as "disproportionate." Refusing to "pick a side" and identify "who was right and who was wrong," it applied moral equivalency to both parties proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong... While there is nothing 'right' in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists amongst them."

When enemies of Israel (or anyone!) tries to count Israel's legitimate self-defense killings as "equivalent" to Hamas' explicit targeting of Israeli citizens, it is proper to debunk the false equivalence.

But is it proper to extend the argument without limit, in effect giving the Israel Defense Forces a blank check? Can we agree that IF they committ war crimes, the friends of Israel will admit it and condemn it?

If not, why not?

hey guys looks at facts.1 the guardian council selects who can be a candidate.2 all of the candidates want nuclear weapons.3 even if US or Israel bombed the nuclear sites they would just rebuild.I don't like Obama but bashing him on something he doesn't control is wrong.