A Jewish ‘thank you’ to President Obama by Rob Eshman <http://www.jewishjournal.com/about/author/2835>
Posted on Jun. 2, 2015 at 5:38 pm <http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/a_jewish_thank_you_to_president_obama#> 55 <http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/a_jewish_thank_you_to_president_obama#>[image: Email This] <http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/a_jewish_thank_you_to_president_obama#>[image: Print This] <http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/a_jewish_thank_you_to_president_obama#> [image: <em>President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Adas Israel Congregation synagogue in Washington on May 22. Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters</em>] *President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Adas Israel Congregation synagogue in Washington on May 22. Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters* I’ve held off writing about President Barack Obama’s speech at Adas Israel Congregation late last month, but I’ve certainly read everything we Jews have written *about* it. And here’s my conclusion: We can really be a bunch of ingrates. To quickly recap: On May 21, The Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg published a long, searching interview <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/obama-interview-iran-isis-israel/393782/> with the president about his views on Israel, the Middle East and the Iran nuclear deal. President Obama followed that with a May 22 address <http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/obama_defending_jews_means_criticizing_israel> to Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, D.C., and a long June 1 interview <http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/president_barack_obama_speaks_with_ilana_dayan_transcript> on Israel’s Channel 2 with Ilana Dayan. The goal of this Jewish trifecta was to drum up Jewish support for a nuclear containment deal with Iran that would gradually ease the tough international sanctions Obama set in place against Iran in exchange for a significant, verifiable reduction in Iran’s nuclear program. Obama inherited from his Iraq-obsessed predecessor an Iran already well on its way toward getting the bomb. Short of military action — an option rejected by Israeli intelligence agencies, the Israel Defense Forces and the United States — this deal looks like the best of many bad options. What astonished me in the coverage that followed Obama’s outreach was the instantaneous backlash. In Mosaic, Michael Doran accused Obama of raising the specter <http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2015/04/the-tectonic-shift-in-obamas-iran-policy/> of “dual loyalty” among Jews who prefer Netanyahu’s approach to his. Joel Pollak in Breitbart attacked Obama for inventing a pro-Israel past <http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/22/in-speech-to-jews-obama-invents-a-pro-israel-past/>to dupe liberal Jews. Commentary editor Jonathan Tobin went so far as to suggest that Obama’s warm, friendly speech presented an image of Israel so at odds with reality, it was positively hostile. Over at Bloomberg View, Eli Lake derided Obama for name-checking Golda Meir <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-24/obama-cares-too-much-about-israel>, the kibbutz movement and Moshe Dayan as icons of the Israel he, as well as many Americans, grew up admiring. And my friend and Jewish Journal partner-in-crime David Suissa chided Obama <http://www.jewishjournal.com/david_suissa/article/obama_loves_the_wrong_israel> for expressing his love only for a fictitious or idealized version of Israel but not for the current real and messy version. There are so many more examples-- you get the idea. >From the far left, Mondoweiss blasted Obama <http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/injustice-washington-synagogue> for daring to say the Palestinians are “not the easiest of partners” when it is the Israelis who deserve the blame. But in the Atlantic, former Israeli general Yossi Kuperwasser <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/critique-obama-israel-palestine/394589/>, criticized Obama for going too easy on Palestinians by simply saying they are-- you guessed it-- "not the easiest of partners." You must know the old joke about the Jewish mother down at the beach who watches her child slip under the waves. She prays fervently to God for the boy to be saved, and her prayers are answered — he washes up on shore, perfectly healthy. At which point the mother looks up to the heavens and points out, “He had a hat.” All this carping, criticism and correction is truly our “he had a hat” moment. I’m not saying we should accept without comment what scraps our leaders toss us. This is a democracy, and we Jews have the right to press our interests. But this level of umbrage is insane. Here’s what we aren’t taking into account. This so-called eternal bond between Israel and the United States is actually relatively recent, having blossomed 48 years ago this week — on June 5, 1967, to be exact — in the aftermath of Israel’s lightning victory over five Arab armies in the Six-Day War. Before 1967, Israel went begging to France and sundry other nations for weapons and aid. Afterward, America embraced a winner. Some 90 percent of all the aid money Israel has received from the United States has come since Israel’s stunning victory. Name-checking Meir and Dayan was a shorthand way of appealing to the broadest swath of older, influential American Jews, whose images of Israel were forged in that era — which isn’t all that long ago. The deep alliance with the U.S. enabled Israel to secure its defenses, absorb millions of immigrants, and make peace with Jordan and Egypt. It flourished as a result of bipartisan support, even under some presidents — both Republican and Democrat — who were far more antagonistic to Israel than this one. The last thing any of us should do is take for granted the words and actions of an American president reaching out to American Jewry. And what about the now-indestructible trope that Obama *just doesn’t understand* Israel? (Which replaced 2008-10’s indestructible trope that Obama* just doesn’t feel* Israel). First, he’s not stupid, and Israel isn’t some arcane mystery. In fact, it’s pretty simple. In June 1967, in a just war of defense, Israel captured territory where a lot of Palestinians live. At some point it will have to decide to either give the territory up, or grant the Palestinians who live there citizenship. Brain surgery, right? What Obama also understands is that in the last election three out of four Israeli voters voted against Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the entire right wing, don’t-give-an-inch-back bloc won only 44 seats— just a third of the Knesset. Obama also understands he has a damn near perfect <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414739/netanyahu-lavishes-praise-obama-speech-i-called-president-and-he-was-there-brendan>record of standing up for Israel where it really counts: in the UN, in security and intelligence matters, during the Gaza war, in front of Arab audiences, during times of national tragedy and emergency. You know who said so? Netanyahu <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414739/netanyahu-lavishes-praise-obama-speech-i-called-president-and-he-was-there-brendan>. So I’m going to say something radical, incendiary and, for so many Jews, absolutely stomach-turning, if not traitorous. Ready? Here goes: Mr. President, *thank you*. Thank you for saying clearly that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Period. Full stop. Thank you for using your power and political capital to find the best of many bad answers to the Iranian nuclear problem. Thank you for saying, “I’m interested in a deal that blocks every single one of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon — every single path.” And thank you for promoting your vision of a Jewish, democratic Israel living securely alongside the Palestinians. I realize that my words will come across to some as sycophantic and to others as naïve. They are neither. I’ve never hesitated to point out where I think Obama has fallen short — his Hamlet-like approach to Syria comes to mind. And I’m not angling for more invitations to the White House Chanukah party, no matter how good the latkes — and they are *delicious*. But, c’mon people. What happened in late May was a pretty good thing in the annals of our tragic history. So, can we all stop acting as if someone drowned? ------------------------------ *Rob Eshman is publisher and editor-in-chief of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal. E-mail him at [email protected] <[email protected]>. You can **follow him on Instagram and Twitter @foodaism <http://www.twitter.com/foodaism>.* On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:48:31 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-mullahs-thank-mr-obama-1451675145-lMyQjAxMTI2MTAxMjEwODI3Wj > The Mullahs Thank Mr. Obama > > [image: An Islamic Mullah walks past a portrait of the late Ayatollah > Khomeini in Qom, Iran.] > > An Islamic Mullah walks past a portrait of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in > Qom, Iran. *Photo: Getty Images * > > Updated Jan. 1, 2016 4:40 p.m. ET > > President Obama imagined he could end his second term with an arms-control > detente with Iran the way Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union. It looks > instead that his nuclear deal has inspired Iran toward new military > aggression and greater anti-American hostility. > > The U.S. and United Nations both say Iran is already violating U.N. > resolutions that bar Iran from testing ballistic missiles. Iran has > conducted two ballistic-missile tests since the nuclear deal was signed in > July, most recently in November. The missiles seem capable of delivering > nuclear weapons with relatively small design changes. > > The White House initially downplayed the missile tests, but this week it > did an odd flip-flop on whether to impose new sanctions in response. On > Wednesday it informed Congress that it would target a handful of Iranian > companies and individuals responsible for the ballistic-missile program. > Then it later said it would delay announcing the sanctions, which are > barely a diplomatic rebuke in any case, much less a serious response to an > arms-control violation. > > Under the nuclear accord, Iran will soon receive $100 billion in unfrozen > assets as well as the ability to court investors who are already streaming > to Tehran. Sanctioning a few names is feckless by comparison, and Iran is > denouncing even this meager action as a U.S. violation of the nuclear deal. > Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded to the sanctions reports on > Thursday by ordering his defense minister to *accelerate* Iran’s missile > program. Your move, Mr. Obama. > > Opponents of the nuclear accord predicted this. Mr. Obama says the deal > restricts Iranian action, but it does far more to restrict the ability of > the U.S. to respond to Iranian aggression. If the U.S. takes tough action > in response to Iran’s missile tests or other military provocations, Iran > can threaten to stop abiding by the nuclear deal. It knows the world has no > appetite for restoring serious sanctions, and that Mr. Obama will never > admit his deal is failing. The mullahs view the accord as a license to > become more militarily aggressive. > > Further proof came Wednesday when U.S. Central Command acknowledged that > Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels last week fired several rockets that > landed within 1,500 yards of the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman. A > Revolutionary Guard spokesman Thursday denied the incident but a day > earlier the semiofficial Tabnak news agency quoted an unnamed Iranian > official as saying the rockets were launched to warn the U.S. Navy away > from “a forbidden zone” in the Persian Gulf. > > The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most heavily trafficked > waterways, and the USS Truman carrier group has every right to sail there. > By any measure the rocket launch was a hostile act that could have resulted > in American casualties. > > This follows Iran’s arrest in October of Iranian-American businessman > Siamak Namazi, who according to Iranian media reports is being held in Evin > Prison though no charges have been filed. The reports suggest that Mr. > Namazi is suspected of spying because he is one of the World Economic > Forum’s “Young Global Leaders.” That’s the dangerous outfit that sponsors > the annual gabfest in Davos. > > Iran has also shown its gratitude for the nuclear deal by convicting > Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian on absurd charges of espionage. The > Iranian-American has been held for more than 500 days. > > The White House’s media allies are blaming all of this on Iranian > “hard-liners” who are supposedly trying to undermine President Rouhani for > having negotiated the nuclear deal. Memo to these amateur Tehranologists: > The hard-liners run Iran. > > Mr. Rouhani was only able to complete the nuclear deal because Supreme > Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard decided the terms > were in their interests. They get serious sanctions lifted and an immediate > financial windfall, while retaining the nuclear infrastructure they can > fire up when the accord expires after a decade, if they don’t find an > excuse to do so sooner. > > The sages now blaming hard-liners for Iran’s nastiness are the same folks > who told us that the nuclear accord would empower the “moderates” in Iran > by showing America’s peaceful intentions. When will this crowd figure out > that Iran’s rulers don’t want better relations with the U.S.? They want to > become the dominant power in the Middle East while driving the U.S. out of > the region. > *** > > Mr. Obama’s ambition to emulate Reagan’s success was never realistic > because he pursued the opposite of the Reagan strategy. The Gipper stood up > to Soviet aggression, rebuilt U.S. defenses, and then negotiated from > strength. The Soviets bent to his terms. > > From his first days in office Mr. Obama begged Iran to negotiate, making > concession after concession until even the Ayatollah had to accept. It’s no > surprise Iran has concluded that it can now press its military ambitions > with impunity. > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOXJnOXVmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NTE4NTIyODU-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJla21rZzM2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTg1MjI4Ng--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
