I’ve written quite a few times about Obama’s contempt for Israel. Here’s a list that even shocks me in it’s length:
The 2010 survey of American Jewish opinion had a clear majority of American Jews supporting Obama’s policy toward Israel. His policy toward Israel can be summed up in one word: Contempt.
If Israel were destroyed would Obama care? That’s something I guess each person must answer for themselves but IMHO, I don’t think he would mind except for the loss of a useful enemy and object of his contempt.
A later poll by McGlaughlin included data from a later date and indicated that American Jews might be having second thoughts. I quoted William Jacobson who was skeptical of that result:
I don’t believe it.
As in, I do not think it is accurate.
There is no Obamamania like the American Jewish Obamamania. The Reform Judaism movement practically was a division of Obama for America.
Thousand of years of undeserved self-imposed guilt trips culminated in the Mother of All Guilt Trips, also known as the 2008 election.
Oh, how the Jewish community kvelled when Obama won. The Mother of All Kvells.
I never could explain it in any rational terms. If was as if electing someone who worshiped in Jeremiah Wright’s church and hung out with anti-Israel academics would … well, like I said, I never could explain it in rational terms.
Anyone with a knowledge of pathological psychology who can tell me the term to describe someone who falls in love with someone who doesn’t love them back?
“Glutton for punishment” comes to mind, but there must be a more precise term.
Maybe things are changing. Maybe the way Obama pissed all over Bibi Netanyahu was the wake up call. Maybe the Jewish community simply is falling into line with national averages, the well-known “return to sanity” phenomenon.
Maybe. But I’ll need a lot more proof than one poll.
Paul Mirengoff today writes of Obama’s contempt for Israel:
President Obama’s stridently anti-Israel policies have drawn criticism from some of his key Jewish political allies. Among the most prominent are Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Anthony Weiner.
Such criticism poses a serious threat to Obama’s popularity among American Jews. Most mainstream Jews would rather silently suffer Obama’s shabby, and dangerous, treatment of Israel than risk deviating from liberal orthodoxy. But once liberal giants like Schumer refuse to suffer silently, liberal Jews can feel free to criticize Obama without feeling that they have betrayed liberalism. The result could be quite liberating.
Unfortunately, it’s far from clear that either Schumer’s criticism or a steep decline in Obama’s popularity among Jews in general will cause the president to back off from his hostile approach to Israel. Indeed, to Caroline Glick it seems clear that Obama will not back off.
Mirengoff also says, “I have no reason to believe that Obama holds American Jews in contempt, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there’s a substantial part of him that is contempuous of Israel.”
Mirengoff is engaging in wishful thinking. One wonders what it would take to convince him. I will go with Caroline Glick, one of the most astute observers around, in my opinion. She writes,
President Shimon Peres’s announcement last week that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon was a sharp warning that Iran and its underlings are diligently preparing for war with Israel. It also demonstrated that the Obama administration’s attempts to use diplomacy to coddle Syria away from Iran have failed completely.
Administration officials’ statements in the wake of Peres’s bombshell make clear that Syria’s bellicose actions have not caused the US President to reconsider his failed policy. Obama’s advisers responded to the news by irrelevantly boasting that their policy of “engagement” enabled them to bring the matter up with their Syrian interlocutors three times before Peres’s announcement and once more after he made the statement.
AND THAT’S not nearly the end of it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced last week, soon the Obama administration will expand its dialogue with Syria by returning the US ambassador to Damascus for the first time since Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri five years ago. That is, Obama has chosen to respond to Syria’s open brinkmanship by rewarding Assad with newfound legitimacy and panache.
And that’s still not the worst of it. What is worst is that Obama’s advisers openly admit that they have no idea why Syria remains a rogue state despite their happy talk. As one administration official told Foreign Policy, understanding why Syria – Iran’s Arab client state – is acting like Iran’s Arab client state is, “the million dollar question.” “We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem,” the official told the magazine.
But while they wait for the Oracle at Damascus to decode itself, they are content to continue wooing Assad as he provokes war.
Read Glick’s entire article here.
Here is the bottom line truth: Obama is an ideologue above all. He is not a pragmatist. He will not change his stance on Israel and he will not do anything to keep the loyalty of American Jews. He may think he doesn’t need to because they have no where else to go. What are they going to do? Vote for Republicans? He probably doesn’t even consider that a possibility. He would be right about that, as far as I can tell. And even if it were the least probable, it is also likely that Obama just doesn’t care. That’s what ideology, especially radical ideology, does to the mind. It crowds out all other thoughts, considerations, alternatives, and sympathies.
Paul Mirengoff and many others are not ready to accept that Obama truly is a radical and just what that means. But before the Obama era is over, this reality will triumph over their wishful thinking. By that time the wreckage will be deep and severe.
Of Obama, Moammar Gaddafi said on Monday, …”I really endorse and support the policies that he has adopted so far.” Well, why wouldn’t he?