Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Jerusalem Post’

The average American is likelier than Europeans to defend Jews, experts say

By RON KAMPEAS/JTA
January 23, 2018 15:09

On Friday, the World Zionist Organization released a survey comparing perceptions of antisemitism; 51 percent of respondents in Europe said wearing Jewish symbols in public made them feel unsafe.

It’s better here: That was the message of a panel of experts considering the rise of the extreme right and of antisemitism in the United States and Europe.

That was the good news at Monday’s forum, sponsored by Georgetown University’s Center for Jewish Civilization. The less good news was that no one could quite pin down why Americans were more resistant to antisemitism than Europeans. >>More

‘Nuff said.

 

Read Full Post »

One-on-one, the editor of the Jerusalem Post got a brief interview with Obama in Israel. There’s nothing earth shattering here, unless you find Obama’s willingness to talk through every possibility with our enemies until it’s too late, earth shattering. Because that’s what he sounds like he’s willing to do. He’s a talker. I’ve never gotten the impression he’s good at anything else. Talking in a way that makes him look as good as possible to as many people as possible. Bush on the other hand never gives a shit what you think about him or his talking abilities. He’s busy making hard decisions, and he makes it look easy. Obama on the other hand is busy blabbing and he has yet to make me laugh. And unlike Bush, the last thing he is, is self-deprecating. I worry about guys who take themselves so seriously. I’m afraid if something bad happens, they might break.

Obama on Iran, Syria, Jerusalem and Settlements

David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Two months ago in the Oval Office, President George W. Bush, coming to the end of a two-term presidency and presumably as expert on Israeli-Palestinian policy as he is ever going to be, was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.

In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, one of whose primary strengths is said to be his intimate grasp of foreign affairs, chose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.

On Wednesday evening, toward the end of his packed one-day visit here, Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who is leading the race for the White House and who lacks long years of foreign policy involvement, spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, (more…)

Read Full Post »

Bush is the man!Thank God at least one Israeli gets it.

Sadly, Israel (and rest of the world) contains many liberal Jews who badmouth guys like George W. Bush and praise guys like Jimmy Carter.

Many of these left-wing Jews, I believe, live in New York City and work for the New York Times.

Meanwhile, Carter plays grab ass with oil-rich Arabs and other Jew-hating Muslims.

Perplexing is the reality that many Jews seem to be infected with Stockholm Syndrome. Rather than resisting, they identify with their enemy. An urgent need to cope with their overwhelming fear leads them straight to the bottom of the abyss (exempli gratia, attempting to appease jihadists).

This situation creates a paradox for those wishing to offer aid and protect them. Should allies overlook the appeasement and offer help, or leave these misguided and cowardly ass kissers on the business end of jihad’s buggy whip?

To further illustrate my point, here are two comments left under the article below from the Jerusalem Post web site: 

  1. “Bush Is First President To OPENLY Declare That a Pal State Is A Hallmark of US Policy. What Kind Of ‘Friend’ Does That?”
  2. “Bush is the worst enemy of Israel ever.”

See what I mean?

Dolts like these have earned zero help from anybody. Perhaps we should allow the jihadi goat rapers to have their way with them.

Jerusalem Post | 13 May 2008

Of all the US presidents over the past 60 years, it is hard to think of a better friend to Israel than George W. Bush. No president has been more committed to steering the Middle East toward the values of liberty and tolerance which Americans naturally cherish, and presuppose to be universal.

Bush combines a personal affinity toward Israel with policies that are generally responsive to its concerns. His performance as president is best understood in historical context.

Harry S Truman courageously recognized Israel against State Department advice, but was personally prejudiced against Jews. Dwight Eisenhower rolled back Israel’s 1956 Sinai Campaign victory and unintentionally solidified Nasser’s hold on Egypt. John F. Kennedy pushed hard to keep Israel from developing an atom bomb.

Only Lyndon Johnson rises above his predecessors for opposing unilateral Israeli withdrawal after the 1967 Six Day War and establishing the “land for peace” principle which specified that the extent of Israeli concessions would have to be directly negotiated.

Richard Nixon was both personally prejudiced against Jews and the force behind the Rogers Plan that called for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines. His Machiavellian secretary of state has been accused of delaying arms shipments during the Yom Kippur War. And it was also under Nixon that secret contacts between the US and an unreformed PLO began.

When Israel balked at making strategic concessions in Sinai, Gerald Ford ordered a “total reassessment” of US policy toward Israel. Jimmy Carter’s unsympathetic attitude to Israel is now widely understood, notwithstanding his having facilitated the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.

Like his predecessor, Ronald Reagan sold advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia. He also stymied Israeli battlefield achievements in the 1982 Lebanon War. George H.W. Bush sought to make US loan guarantees for the absorption of Soviet Jews contingent on Israeli concessions at the negotiating table.

And a well-intentioned Bill Clinton helped broker the 1993 Oslo Accord, which inadvertently set the stage for the second intifada.

BUSH ARRIVES here today with a little over seven months left in his presidency. Though his policies in Iraq were paved with good intentions and Israelis are grateful that Saddam Hussein is dead and buried, we are left with the lingering sense, albeit informed by hindsight, that the Iraqi campaign was a strategic blunder of historic proportions. Meanwhile, the al-Qaida leaders who masterminded 9/11 remain free, and parts of Afghanistan are in turmoil. The “real and present danger” facing Western civilization, Iran, is unchecked.

It turns out that Saddam was not the greatest enemy of civilization; he did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not directly tied to 9/11. Yet, so far, America has lost over 4,000 troops; suffered tens of thousands of wounded and spent billions of dollars in treasure in an Iraq which shows little sign of coalescing. Consequently, it is today doubtful whether the American people have the political will (or the US military the wherewithal) to confront the Iranian menace.

STILL, WHILE Bush may have been wrong on Iraq, he is dead right about Iran – though an ungrateful, sometimes spiteful world appears in denial. Iran is blatantly pursuing destabilizing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them beyond the Middle East, even as key international players stoke its economy.

Teheran exploits America’s dilemma in Iraq by encouraging chaos in a manner beyond the ability of most Westerners to fathom. On the Palestinian front, the mullahs are championing Hamas with financing, weapons and training. Mahmoud Abbas can strike no workable deal with the Islamists looking over his shoulder. Hizbullah-occupied Lebanon is looking increasingly like an Iranian satellite.

The president told The Jerusalem Post yesterday that before leaving office he wants a structure in place for dealing with Iran. Washington already has a strong security commitment to Jerusalem. Now we would urge the president to work for an upgrade in Israel’s relationship with NATO. Europe must understand that Iran is pivotal; that there will be no stability, no progress – not in Iraq, not in Lebanon and not on the Palestinian front – until Teheran’s advances are first contained, and eventually rolled back.

After reading this, just imagine what would be said about Jimmy Carter’s relationship with Israel.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: