Image 01 Image 03

Obama plays the Israel Firster card

Obama plays the Israel Firster card

Obama’s comment about “noise” in the Middle East — meant to refer to Israeli concerns about Iran — has distracted from the most dangerous play in Obama’s 60 Minutes interview Sunday.

“Noise” was not the problem, it was that Obama set up Israeli “noise” as inconsistent with the interests of “the American people” (via Hot Air)(emphasis mine):

STEVE KROFT:  ”You’re saying, you don’t feel any pressure from Prime Minister Netanyahu in the middle of a campaign to try and get you to change your policy and draw a line in the sand? You don’t feel any pressure?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “When it comes to our national security decisions—any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out—any noise that’s out there. Now I feel an obligation, not pressure but obligation, to make sure that we’re in close consultation with the Israelis—on these issues. Because it affects them deeply. They’re one of our closest allies in the region. And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.”

Of course any American president should do what’s right for America.  But Obama did more than express policy disagreement, he set it up as Israel versus the American people.

It was subtle but significant.  It’s the Israel Firster argument which now is fashionable in the American left (and years ago among the Arabists in the State Department and foreign policy establishment), the notion that being pro-Israel is being implicitly anti-American.

By framing it as Israel versus the American people, Obama sent a much bigger message than his “noise” comment.  But almost no one heard it about the noise.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


They’re one of our closest allies in the region.

Name a closer ally, then, Barry. Name an equivalently close ally. Inquiring minds want to know.

You do the same, Saudi-Kissing George.

And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.

“We’ve got blah blah blah.” Because, in the final analysis, the Iranian regime and the threat to Israel are…all about Barack.

    Ragspierre in reply to gs. | September 25, 2012 at 11:41 am

    “And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.”

    And that is a TERRIBLE de minimis statement, detached from reality.

    What Iran has said is not the issue. What Iran is doing in pursuit of WMD IS the issue.

    That not only poses an immediate existential threat to Israel, but to the entire region’s stability (such as it is), and a threat to the U.S. homeland.

      Rags and Henry (below), it also may be a sly poke at the Innocence of Muslims film clip—and at American freedom of speech.

      casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | September 25, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      I don’t decouple words and actions. For them to stubbornly continue to develop at a measurable economic toll while continuing the rhetoric about removing Israel from the map (and occassionally Jews from the earth) is all the reinforcement a rational person needs. Even though their anti-Semitic rhetoric is not new, the actions are prove it isn’t strictly rhetoric any more.

    Israel is a staunch ally. If we treat our allies the way O treats Israel, we will have no allies.

The resident cares as much for Israeli interests, for that matter for American interests, as he does for his brother’s interests.
Face it, the only person the resident cares about is the person he sees in the mirror.

The resident is a diabolical & dangerous man.

He and his cabal need to go, and go soonest.

“But almost no one heard it about the noise.”

I think you meant “above the noise”, Prof.

While I think it is apparent that American interests and Israeli interests are not unitary, they are closely aligned and usually have been.

And there is LESS AND LESS alignment with MORE AND MORE nations in the region, due in very large part to the Obamic policies.

And it is apparent to anyone with a working brain that Pres. Bumps is no friend of Israel, and has indulged in magic thinking regarding Islamism to a dangerous extent.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a party and a presidential candidate who could also parse these meanings and their menace? Wouldn’t it be great to know we had alert, vigorous and tireless champions somewhere in power?

I could be wrong, but to me Obama exhibits all the typical traits of an academic progressive. In my experience, one of the core ‘motivators’ (is there a better word?) for many in academia is a selfish desire to remain at the top of the heap (not just economically). It can be so severe that some are jealous of those in the business world who make a lot of many because, deep down, they feel it isn’t ‘fair’ that a person can use luck and brute force and earn significantly more than those who feel they are the intellectual superiors to the hard workers. Sound familiar? Fairness? You’ve earned enough?

One of the natural outcomes of this motivation is that they always, and I mean always, are on the hunt to find or fabricate an inferior (person or group) to address and elevate only on their terms. Obama has clearly demonstrated that he has defined Muslims, if not all non-Jews in the Middle East, as a subjugated or inferior group in need of elevation. His advisors have academic backgrounds and that perhaps means those viewpoints are all he hears. Progressive ideology also tends to support removing power/wealth/advantage as part of the way to address the inferiors. Redistribution and laws that take freedoms away from all for the benefit of a few are easy examples.

And so, in my eyes, Obama is both outwardly and in subtle ways working to de-fang Israel as a means to the end of elevating all non-Jews in the region. It may be that he also believes Jews are primarily at fault for all the discord and violence, but that isn’t as obvious. At least not to me. But clearly he has a mission that started with redefining the U.S. role by placating and increasing ‘sympathy’ for Muslims in the region. And that could only happen after they were deemed to be a inferior, or downtrodden group in need of uplift in progressive terms.

Our younger generation needs to GET READY for Barack’s 2013 campaign to CEDE OUR FREEDOMS TO OUR FOREIGN ENEMIES. Because his Media Whores refuse to tackle this subject, I propose the following be shown on TV and made an insert in gossip and beauty magazines–down to Tiger Beat:



As a kind of a “public announcement”
Just a “heads up” for inquiring minds,
Perhaps we could “talk” for a minute,
‘Though we know you have so little time.
There are game shows to watch;
And those sports—What demands!
You could spend your whole life on TV
And hey, girl, who’s the hottest?
What’s the latest? Is it true what they said?
“Staying hip is much harder than it seems!

Well, we were all set for some silly election,
That we knew that Obama would win,
When those guys from the East got all crazy,
‘Cause they claimed that our movies were “sin”
Would they “cool it”, take a “chill pill”,
Or just “go with flow”? No, they went nuts!
Killed our guys, burned our flags, yelled all day!
All that sneering and strutting didn’t matter so much,
We just figured they’d just go away.
Then…their preachers said: “There’s hell to pay!

Now, you KNOW we are hip with religion–
“Live and let live” is our thing,
But the stuff they were screaming on Prime Time TV,
Was a “little bit much”, doncha think?
Still, we’re sure we can renounce the faith of our past,
After all, we’d “THE WON” as our God.
He was sexy and smart (with that teleprompter thing)
Every time that he spoke, we were AWED!
So if the MEDIA, and the STARS, and “Our Man”
Say “It’s cool”—we can quickly embrace a new law!

Well, to get your new groove, we’re preparing
You now, to get this “great future” on track.
For the girls, it’s remarkably simply,
You can have any Burka that’s black!
True, you’ll not have the time to “keep current”
‘Cause your man keeps you flat on your back!
Now you guys may get fit with a collar,
Although “gelding’s” been known to occur.
Still, we hope that you won’t swear or holler,
Cause those penalties get more severe.
[And be very, very sure you’re not queer!]

Well, “To hell” as they say, “With our worries!”
After all, you just haven’t a clue,
That YOUR vote could change your “government” life,
For to be pampered and worshipped’s your due!
Drink that Kool-Aid; live with Mom;
Watch that “aid” roll on in
“Julia’s life” is the best to be found!
Then prepare, really fast, to switch sides on the fly,
Cause’ when Shari’a hits town, it’ll take us all down,
And there’s no place that they’ll let us hide.


Let’s just hit a few HIGHLIGHTS—this list is NOT comprehensive:
“10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely
fear highhandedness in their wives.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical
eye for physical eye.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to
be stoned to death.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim
critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.


* The real question of our day is: “How do you spell the new social/cultural/religious/legal system” about to sweep across “our fruited plains” [NO REFERENCE HERE TO GAYS OR LESBIANS–TOTAL NO NO.] Some say “Shari’a” others “Sharia” others simply “Islamic Law”.

Yes, and when he went to bed on Sept. 11th, after hearing of the attack in Benghazi but before Washington had word of its outcome, the President was able to tune out “the noise” of a dying American Ambassador.

“And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.”

Note how he ignores what Iran has and is doing and speaks only of what Iran has said, all in an obvious effort to minimize the threat of Iran to his reelecti…, er, to Israel.

Who minimizes a repeated, realistic threat of genocide?

Loves Jewish money, hates Jews. The man is a communist Muslim who hates America and the West and is doing his best to further the aims of the Left and the Jihadists, which is to bring it down from within. I said it 4 years ago, it has been more apparent by the day. No, I claim no special prescience, it was there to see by all but so many (including, sadly, most of my fellow Jews) refused to believe that a man who sat in the church pews of a noted race-baiting anti-Semite like Jeremiah Wright, a man who gave out pro-Hamas literature and tapes (presumably even after Obama had awakened from his Rip-Van-Winkle sermon-time dreams) every week, would be anti-Israel and not care if a 2nd Holocaust would happen.

But even for those who don’t care about Israel…so forget the “Israel First” arguments….do you care about the U.S.? Obama is undermining this country with his economic “goals” (billions on food stamps, a massive Cloward-Piven movement that will succeed on a scale far beyond what those two evil “professors” came up with), his attempts to destroy or run around the Constitution, his weakening of our defense (I’m not just talking about cutting military spending…one can argue we could and need to do that in a sensible manner, but that’s an argument for another day) by putting in OUR OWN ENEMIES, Muslim Brotherhood supporters and terrorist enablers into the highest posts of our intelligence and Defense agencies….

We are dealing with a POTUS who is a TRAITOR to what this country stands for. Israel firster? How about American Firster? Saying that Obama only hates Israel doesn’t begin to cut it. The man HATES THOSE OF US WHO LOVE THIS COUNTRY and its freedoms.

If Obama wins re-election, Israel is gone and the Jews are dead. Our First and Second Amendments are gone and we are dead.

In a sane journalistic world, Obama would be taking major lumps for what he terms “bumps,” and his “What-on-earth?” dearth of poise for what he dismisses as “noise.”

With apologies and deep diplomatic bows to Gus Kahn:

“Israel sits alone most every night

He doesn’t phone her he doesn’t write

he says he’s busy but Israel say’s “is he?”

He’s busy makin’ time for Whoopi.”

LukeHandCool (who is dealing with his own personal “bumps in the road” recently).

I interpret Obama’s comment entirely differently. He is simply recognizing the reality that Israel and the U.S. are not joined at the hip. Nor should they be. Even when there is a substantial overlap between U.S. and Israeli interests, those interests are not the same. Take Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Israel perceives this as an existential threat and rightly so. For the U.S., Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would very damaging but the existence of the U.S. is not threatened. The U.S. can afford a more cautious and conservative response to Iran’s conduct.

Many Americans believe that the U.S. should tilt toward Israel because Israeli society is more like ours, the values of its people and the nature of its government more like ours. This does not make them unpatriotic. There many others who take a different view. They believe that geopolitical and economic interests should hold sway, that it is more important to the U.S. to secure an uninterrupted flow of oil. Obama clearly falls into the latter camp. I have frequently heard someone being accused of being anti-Semitic because they espose such views, and I think your comment about “Israel Firsters” verges on making the same accusation with respect to Obama. This is simply an attempt to besmirch the messenger to avoid a frank discussion of the message.

    casualobserver in reply to PlainTalk. | September 25, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    What kind of ally would not take an existential threat to another ally as equally serious? Are you suggesting that the U.S. SHOULD be the kind of ally that will not be concerned about harm to Israel, if it should occur? Either you engage in “geopolitics” as or you isolate yourself. This isn’t a matter of a minor squabble between countries. We are either in or out.

    It sounds like you fully defend the progressive/Obama philosophy even though you act as if you do not. A struggle over Gaza, just to pick one example, might be legitimately handled with such a philosophy. But a nation whose leader even today spouted anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric and which continues apace to develop nukes, suffering be damned, cannot be treated in a similar way. Just offering some rationalization along the lines of “geopolitical and economic interests..” is either naive or deliberately intended to ignore some realities. For example, you must by definition ignore the rest of the Arab world’s view of a nuclear Iran in order to oversimplify the situation as you have.

    It may not be perfectly black and white, and therefore be quite complex. But they way the situation is being handled sends a clear message, intended or not. Israel is being demeaned in an effort to cater to other factions within the region. It has little to do with geopolitical economics in the way you describe. It is a deliberate attempt to remove some power from Israel to ‘even the playing field.’ Sound familiar?

      The U.S. committment to Israel has its limits. We do are not, for example, obligated by treaty to come to the defense of Israel, as we are with the NATO countries. It is in our interest to pursue a somewhat more measured approach to Iran. An Israeli government cannot, because it has different considerations, including domestic political ones, to address. And when I say “somewhat more measured” I would place the emphasis on the “somewhat”. There is ample evidence that economic sanctions are biting Iran, which did not have a robust economy to begin with. The next step is probably war. Even the threat of war has detrimental effects on American interests. At some point perhaps the damage from a war is outweighed by the damage from foregoing one, but we’re not there yet. While I agree that the Arab countries would like to see Iran humbled, they are also terrified of what a regional war might mean for them. If the situation can be resolved peacefully, it will be a win for us, Israel, and the Arab countries (and the people Iran, although the regime there will be the loser).

      Gaza and the West Bank don’t have much signficance to the U.S. There are no vital U.S. interests at stake there. We have to pay lip service to resolving territorial disputes there, which we have done for decades under U.S. administrations of every political stripe.

      The Obama administration’s foreign policy has not been a radical departure from prior administrations. In many ways, it closely resembles that of the George H. W. Bush presidency. In fact, the Obama adminsitration has been aggressive in ways the elder Bush’s was not (the drone asassinations have been greatly expanded, for example, even beyond what it was in George W.’s time). Among Obama’s detractors there seems to be a desire to see his foreign policy as driven my some kind of anti-American multi-cultural lovefest. The record belies this view.

        casualobserver in reply to PlainTalk. | September 25, 2012 at 9:49 pm

        You missed the point. Gaza was only used as an example of a more nuanced situation or one with a much less critical trigger towards violence leading to many deaths. The region should be vital to the U.S. simply due to its impact on Israel. Soft, or even indirect policies in that situation have lower risks and may even produce desired results.

        Contrast that with Iran. which is committed and has made direct and serious threats. There is no middle ground. Diplomacy has not worked across two administrations. Either the U.S. maintains a policy of absolute protection of Israel or it works towards some other goal of appeasement and ‘whatever’ (not clear with this administration) of every other nation in the region. One or the other. No nuance. No experimentation. No simple territorial dispute. If this president isn’t willing to be perfectly and unambiguously clear on the protection and support of Israel, the message is very clear to Iran. It may even give the new leadership in Egypt more confidence. Military exercises in the region (Gulf) is only one show of force and dedication. But it doesn’t match the policy and words very well.

        Please list just two (or one if that is challenging enough) signs that Iran could/would/might settle this peacefully. Can you? It is senseless to talk that way unless there is even a marginal likelihood it may occur. Iran is not unlike the Palestinians, except the Palestinians play politics much better and play games for generations. Iran, in this regime, is quite direct and explicit. They only play politics to get around other politics – such as sanctions – and otherwise care nothing about the politics of their ultimate goals. Both Iran and Palestinians have no intention of Israel surviving in the final outcome. And Iran is willing to take it a step further and make bold statements out Jews in general (as are more and more Egyptians). To discount the words is to misunderstand Arabs and Persians almost completely.

        Why do you bring in all the nonsense that is unrelated? Are you suggesting drone attacks will start at some point in Iran, for example? I’m beginning to think you might be reading too many progressive pundits or get your talking points from the Center for American Progress. They tend to argue oblique and unrelated points, too.

          You are correct that I did not understand what you were driving at. I think I do now. You believe that Israel’s security should be of paramount interest to the U.S. If one believes this, then it makes perfect sense for administration rhetoric to be in lockstep with Israel’s. However, the paramount goals of the U.S. in the Middle East are (and should be) preventing any power from dominating the region (other than us) and insuring peace and stability. This is how we keep the oil flowing, which is vital to the economies of the U.S. and its trading partners. There is a tension between these goals that influences the tactics we employ to advance them.

          Who can predict whether Iran will come around in response to diplomacy and sanctions? Who can predict what any country will do in response to this kind of pressure? We need to make a calculation. Will it benefit the U.S. to give diplomacy and sanctions more time? Or should we start now on the road to war? There may be room for argument on these questions, but Israel’s needs and interests should not be allowed to weigh heavily on the outcome.

Obama is auditioning for his next job as UN Chief where he will be able to further attack and degrade the US.

If Obama wins in November, I can hear him addressing the opening session of the UN in 2015. “I have brought the Great Satan and Little Satan to their knees, these rogues can no longer harm mankind…”