Posted on 06/03/2009 1:43:42 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama, the Candidate of Change, despite credible warnings and ample evidence that he would obsessively seek to create a Palestinian state at Israel's expense and "engage" nuclear-arming, Islamist Iran.
After four months of Change, Obama's support in the Jewish community seems rock solid. Besides, many Jews say, Obama's appointment of two Jews to key White House positions - Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff and David Axelrod as presidential senior adviser - proves Obama is OK for Israel. So what if the meeting with Netanyahu didn't go as well as first advertised? Bibi's a right-winger, anyway. Under Obama, there was a kosher Passover Seder in the White House. Progress! Hope! Change!
Hmm. The head-spinning, stomach-turning developments make this lifelong Jewish supporter of Israel think Hitler made two big blunders in his quest for world domination. He attacked the Soviet Union - and he did not invite American Jewish leaders to a catered kosher lunch in Berlin before the war.
Seriously. Had Hitler been able to hide his fanatical hatred of Jews for only a few hours, he might have been able to mobilize liberal American Jewish opinion in favor of a policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany - perhaps, even, a formal pledge of non-interference in Germany's internal affairs.
Admittedly, a free kosher lunch might not have been enough to win over the so-called Jewish leaders. The Nazi madman probably would have had to appoint a Jewish adviser (on Jewish affairs, say) to accomplish his aim.
A high-level Jewish adviser - yes! That would have worked wonders for the Fuhrer. The Jewish leaders would have returned home to reassure their concerned fellow Jews and the American media that Hitler had no intention of starting a war, regardless of Germany's ominous rearmament and military buildup; that he was instead interested in forging a closer relationship between Germany and the United States, one that could possibly even lead to an alliance of some sort to preserve peace in Europe.
As for "the Jewish Problem," the American Jewish bigwigs would have said that while some Jews were indeed suffering in Germany, there really was room for progress - quietly, of course, behind the scenes. Quiet, patient, principled diplomacy - that's the ticket!
And so it would have gone. Dialogue and diplomacy are the answers, the Jewish leaders would have said; no sanctions, no big, public protests - they would only make matters worse for Germany's Jews and needlessly antagonize the Nazis. No talk of armed intervention or future conflict, heaven forbid.
The impact of their meeting with Herr Hitler and call for engagement and dialogue would have been instant (or what passed for instant in the time before television and the Internet). Overnight, the brave minority warning of a rising, imperialist threat across the ocean would have been marginalized -maybe forever. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there could have been a crucial decision by the U.S. government to avoid or delay declaring war on Germany as well as Japan, perhaps accompanied by a presidential speech reminding the public of Germany's great contributions to Western civilization and culture and to the shaping of American society.
Though the anti-Semitic rabble - the foot soldiers in armbands and jackboots and white sheets - would have been appalled by Hitler's meeting with Jewish leaders, the Fuhrer's more sophisticated American supporters and sympathizers would have understood his diabolically clever move. Influential isolationists and fascists - the Pat Buchanans of that era - would have laughed all the way to the next America First or German American Bund (or Silver Shirts, or Black Legion, or Ku Klux Klan) rally.
The Roger Cohen of that day - there is always a Roger Cohen whenever and wherever Jewish communities are threatened with annihilation and persecution - would surely have written a series of articles for The New York Times about Jewish conditions in Germany being not so bad after all, despite the beatings and racial laws, the persecution and the humiliation, the incessant anti-Semitic propaganda. (In fact, the liberal Jewish columnist Walter Lippmann wrote approvingly of Hitler in the late 1920s, advising his readers that the Nazi leader would "moderate" his views upon achieving power.)
Obama is no Hitler. Obviously. God help us if that were the case. But Obama's policies and actions are giving new Hitlers - the leaders of Islamist Iran - time to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of destroying Israel and bringing America to its knees.
In other words, Obama's appeasement of Iran and betrayal of Israel is effectively helping to prepare the ground for a new Holocaust and a new world war.
And American Jews and Jewish organizations - seemingly slavishly bound to a Democratic Party with a left wing that now views the establishment of Israel as a mistake - are going along for the ride. American Jewish voters overwhelmingly chose Obama over John McCain, a proven friend of Israel, and they don't seem at all ready to jump ship. They are not even close to the exit ramp.
What will it take for American Jews to stand up and be counted? Would a call by Obama for a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem open their eyes? Probably not. In contrast with bible-believing Christians and observant Jews, liberal Jews are fashionably forsaking Israel's capital. Strong support for Israel is so yesterday ... so ... Bush/Cheney.
The time is fast approaching for American Jewry to decide between loyalty to a political party that bears no resemblance to that which their parents and grandparents adored for generations and their professed love of Israel whose security, along with the security of the United States, is being undermined by everything Obama is presently doing, has done, and plans to do.
With whom do you stand, American Jews - America and Israel or Obama and the Democratic Party?
Heh... of course, even if it weren’t rock solid, there would still be a hundred FReepers a day posting the reminder that whatever percent supported Obama in the 2008 election fiasco. ;’)
“Do you know Jews that are afraid of Christians?”
Well, I guess my mom was afraid of that really hot Christian girl that my brother brought back from college about 20 years ago.
Said hot Christian girl has now adopted the new name “Ruth” and speaks fluent Yiddish, so all is well.
I know, when I have a quarrel with a Freeper, I sometimes summon up the courage to address it. Authors, I usually comment here.
You didn't think my first comment was directed to you, did you?
That's fine, but it wouldn't work as well as the reason the US government should continue supporting Israel.
That would make Spielberg their poster boy. And I thought he made Shindlers List for other reasons than making money.
I didn't make it up. It was given to me by a professor of mine back in the day.
And that is exactly what I am, which is why I don't scream bloody murder when moslems stone adulterers. Not that I recognize their law courts or anything, but people who profess love for the Bible while claiming that death by stoning or the death penalty for adultery is "savage" kind of make my skin crawl.
You can’t always go by the name. I know Jewish people that have the last names of Gannon and Brady - both are Irish names. I know Italians with the last name Malone - again Irish. People change their names.
I’ve got a 2nd cousin Ruth, also a nice girl (lady now, I’m getting old), but she’s not Jewish. It happens!
You’ve crossed a line there, buddy.
A very astute observation.
So, do you care to elucidate for us how the ACLU was founded by Talmudists in order to convert America from chr*stianity to the Noachide Laws??? Shoot, if that's what they're up to, I may have to join!
I think he did it for reasons other than money too. He had plenty of money at the time, and has given away a dime or two. What do you think the reasons were? Please, tell me you're not going to suggest he did it in black and white to change the history a century from now.
Not at all. But I don't think the article hurts our cause as you seem to. Now, some of the replies on this thread, otoh . . .
Still creative.
Ironically, Ruth (Sarah Ruth, to be exact) basically runs their shul.
But for blond hair, blue eyes, and legs that still go on forever, you’d never no she was not a native.
Because if one has faith, one should know the importance of the Israel. God hasn’t given the land special status for nothing.
There is an element of modern Reform Jewry that has made the Shoa (and victimization) the central tenant of a psuedo-secular religion.
It’s like inverse-zionism or something.
That's fine, but it wouldn't work as well as the reason the US government should continue supporting Israel.
The list of "secular" reasons for supporting Israel don't impress me at all. But then, the secular reasons for criminalizing murder don't impress me either.
Just once I'd like to hear a US politician sound like Hal Lindsay or John Hagee when explaining why s/he supports Israel.
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/689
snip
The Democratic stand-bearer did better among older age groups. Bush gained fully a third of the support of Jews under 40, while Kerry polled 59%; Jews ages 40 to 59 showed 25% support for Bush and 64% for Kerry; those 60 and older went 19% for Bush and 74% for Kerry. A separate poll of Russian Jews in New York showed majority support for Bush, Harris said.
snip
Yes, but this is the wrong website to mention that on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.