Posted on 05/26/2011 7:14:22 AM PDT by Qbert
A freshman House Republican on Wednesday singled out "most" liberal American Jews for not being sufficiently pro-Israel.
Rep. Joe Walsh (Ill.) questioned why U.S. Jews have not expressed more outrage over President Obama's demand that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process be based around the 1967 borders, with mutually agreeable land swaps.
"The short answer is that most American Jews are liberal, and most American liberals side with the Palestinians and vague notions of 'peace' instead of with Israel’s well-being and security," Walsh wrote in an op-ed for the conservative Daily Caller.
Walsh, who is Catholic, added that the American Jewish community should be more pro-Israel.
"Like the president, the U.N., and most of Europe, too many American Jews aren’t as pro-Israel as they should be and too many share his belief that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli occupation," he wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth."
While members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have broken with Obama over his statements about the Israeli-Palestinian border, few if any have publicly questioned the response from the Jewish community.
Several major Jewish groups have defended the president's position. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said that Obama understands the "nuances" involved in the conflict.
"This administration has come a long way in two years in terms of understanding of the nuances involved in bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace and a better understanding of the realities and challenges confronting Israel," the group said in a statement last week following Obama's White House speech on the Middle East, in which he layed out his vision for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) released a statement after Obama's speech at its annual conference, noting that the president's position is not that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 border — a border Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called "indefensible."
But Walsh accused the president of sympathizing with the Palestinians and putting their interests ahead of Israel's, citing Obama's 2007 remark that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."
"Most U.S. presidents have followed the old paradigm and tried to be an honest broker between the two sides," he wrote. "President Obama seems only to pay lip service to even that role, and clearly his sympathies lie with the Palestinians. He is not capable of achieving peace in the Middle East because he is not pro-Israel."
Just you wait: being pro-Israel will soon be labeled a “chr*stian” position and therefore “un-Jewish” (just like the six days of creation, the Ten Commandments, and the prohibition of homosexuality). It will soon be all but required for all “true Jews” to be anti-Israel.
“Truth is an absolute defense.”
-Clarence Darrow
Agreed.
Walsh is not chastising "American Jews" as a whole, just the Jewish Left. The reaction of Abe Foxman's ADL is not typical, yet the MSM is constantly quoting them as a barometer of Jewish sentiment.
The guess here is that Obama slipping in Jewish support overall and he will get a significantly smaller percentage of the Jewish vote in 2012 compared to 2008.
I agree.
a sad commentary on Jewish leftists
2. Comparing Likud to the Democrats? You mean a free market nationalist party, vs the Democrats. You really are desperate.
Jewish voters will be leaving Bammy Boy with large and small Jewish donors heading for the exits
LOL — JINOS
I am an American Jew who agrees with Walsh. The 78% who voted for Obama are Jews in Name Only. They would have stayed in Egypt during the Exodus with their masters.
Why do I get the impression you do not like Israel? Bibi spoke the truth to wimpiness, being Obama, who needs a history lesson.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
A foolish statement by Rep Walsh, which I'm sure is the result of his inexperience in the political forum, he's spent his life earning a living for his family, before turning to public service.
The problem with Rep Walsh's statement is twofold.
First, that his solution to Israel's problems is the only one, bar none.
More importantly, his assumption that Jews vote only on what's best for Israel, thus his dismay. The disloyalty canard. No, he didn't mean it that way, but Jews pick up on that.
The typical Freerepublic canard. What's wrong with you stupid, Hitler voting Jews. We have the solution to Israel's problems. So you vote for us, because you vote for Israel, else you're a communist, self hating Jew who deserves deportation. Yes. just in the last week I've seen deportation advocated on FR. But no one has come to my door.
Politically, it's a losing arguement.
Put yourself in the place of a conflicted O'Bama supproter.
Couple years ago GWB advocated the 1949 lines, with changes based on facts on the ground. From the perspective of someone who supports or trusts O'Bama, and that's a s*itload of Christians, not much difference.
Other that his SOS statement that the palestinians were like her oppressed friends in the south, a place O'Bama hasn't gone yet.
I pointed these things out at the time, heard some dissent, but I do think my opinion that GWB's positions, and I've no doubt of his support for Israel, coult take on a different color as American policy in future administrations. Particularly the absurd concept of a contiguous palestinian state, requiring a corridor through Israel connecting Judea and Samaria to Gaza.
I wish GWB was a bit more careful about his words. But if I had my choice, I'd have preferred he scrapped "No Child Left Behind" and the medicare drug benefit. Fortunately immigration reform failed.
By Rep. Walsh's statement, I should have taken a pass on these things, since GWB was, imo, supportive of Israel.
That is akin to welfare state liberals who show their "love" of the poor by keeping them on welfare for eternity and then complaining when the government tries to put any strings on these recipients.
Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. It is perfectly able to take care of itself without your welfare.
Given that you can't read, I'm sure you also don't know history. It was the Likud that gave Egypt the Sinai in 1979. It was a Likud government under Netanyahu that gave Hebron and parts of the West Bank to Arafat. It was a Likud-Kadima government under Sharon that gave Gaza to the Palestinian Authority.
No, I don't even think that Walsh enunciated any specific solutions there. He was merely criticizing the Jewish Left for their paucity of opposition to Obama's speech (in the specific case of Foxman and his ADL, there was praise for Obama's recognition of "nuances.")
More importantly, his assumption that Jews vote only on what's best for Israel, thus his dismay. The disloyalty canard. No, he didn't mean it that way but Jews pick up on that.
Well, maybe I'm not "Jewish enough," but I didn't pick up any insinuation of any disloyalty, though a non-Jewish conservative Republican politician criticizing the Jewish Left is somewhat unusual in today's politics. Nor did Walsh say anything about Jewish voting. He was merely criticizing the lack of opposition to Obama's speech and Obama's positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in certain Jewish quarters (like most of the Jewish 'Rats in Congress).
The problem with your reasoning, SJackson, as a Jewish conservative, is that you overly sensitive to the irrational and misguided political loyalties of the Jewish Obamatons. The only way to convert even a small percentage of them to our side of the political divide is to tell them the truth about the stark repercussions of their ideology across a broad range of issues.
“Some will hint that Joe Walsh is an anti-Semite, just as I was for making similar suggestions.”
No, you assume (wrongly) that non-religious Americans, barely-ethnic people, are somehow motivated by what happens in a homeland some 1800 years distant to them
Now, where were your relatives 1800 years ago?
Somewhere in Europe?
Do you base your American political decisions based on what is good for Germany, Ireland, or England? Italy?
No, of course not. Because you’re an American.
Sure, you might like green beer or pretzels or wear a plad skirt for kicks, but you’re an American.
Same with reform, mildly-ethnic, Jewish Americans.
Their link with Judaism is about as thick as a shmear of lox and cream cheese on a bagel.
They are loyal (in their liberal sort of way) to America, not Israel.
Now, I am Israeli. Born in Israel. Jewish. Happen to have two American parents and happen to be married to an American while we get her parents’ business in sellable condition and she finishes her medical training. All our dsughters born in Israel.
So, yes, your allegation would be logical against me.
The dual-loyalty assumption is not logical against secular, non-zionist Jewish americans. Of course they don’t base their decisions on what happens to Israelis.
A quick perusal of Captain Kirk’s post reveal a constant stream of attacks against all things Israeli or Jewish — from any angle, no logic, just anti-Jewish.
He’s on basically every thread, and has been for at least a year, dancing on the edge of being zot worthy.
I hope he’s a paid Soros poster to paint conservatives as anti-semitic.
Otherwise, he’s just sad and pathetic.
He said that they don't vote based on what's best for Israel because they're liberals.
The disloyalty canard.
The disloyalty canard is when RATS suggest that Jews who support Israel are disloyal to America. Walsh said that Jews who don't support Israel are disloyal to Israel.
Second, I have had to defend myself from the accusation recently on FR by following Joe Walsh logic.(or he following mine)
If I'm anti-Semitic stating what Joe Walsh did, then so must be Joe Walsh in eyes of FRers who slandered me.
Words such as 'assume' and 'wrongly' don't fit in the equation.
Canada or USA make no difference in my point.
Now, note I didn’t accuse you of being anti-semitic.
I pointed out the fallacy of your logic in assuming that distantly-ethnic Jewish Americans would be any more loyal or concerned with their distant homeland than distantly-ethnic European Americans (be they Canadian or from the States).
And note, I understand from where you come:
Assuming zionist leanings in American Jewish people is a common fallacy, and one I’ve shared myself as very Zionist, very Jewish Israeli in America — grave dissappointment with my fellow Tribemen whom I believe to be putting me and mine in danger.
I was in shock, and now I understand -— Israel is not remotely important to many liberal Jewish people.
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.