[tgs]

http://forward.com/articles/105949/?...About+Obama%3f

From news article:
All of which raises the following question: Could pro-Israel Democrats have been wrong? Worse yet, are they providing the political cover for Obama as he fundamentally changes America’s special relationship with Israel?
Forget for a moment the J Street crowd, a group of leftist Jews conjoined by a deep lack of sympathy for Israeli security needs. There are other Jewish Democrats who understand that Israel’s enemies desire the destruction of the Jewish state. They know Obama’s charm offensive has yielded nothing. And they surely know that the Iranian threat to Israel is not going to fade because of charm. Indeed, many pro-Israel Democrats had spent the previous eight years castigating President Bush for not being sufficiently tough with Tehran and went after McCain for daring to oppose some forms of sanctions against companies linked to trade with Iran.
At what point will Jewish Democrats who care deeply about Israel’s security decide they have to stand up to President Obama? They have yet to do so — thus far, it has been difficult to oppose anything their party’s leader wants to do. But the moment will come when pro-Israel Democrats will have to make some tough choices.

[Drugmachine]

http://www.forward.com/articles/1056...Becomes+Clear+

From news article:
It was the lobby’s first mass encounter with a Washington now dominated by President Obama and his party. The broad and uncritical embrace of the Bush administration’s eight years seemed a distant memory. Bush’s GOP, now out of power in the White House and both houses of Congress, seemed in full retreat. And pro-settler evangelical Christians — a prominent feature of AIPAC conferences during the Bush era — were not on the schedule at this year’s conference.
Some AIPAC delegates were not shy about expressing their disapproval of the new order.
“I really think Obama needs to take a tougher line on Iran; he cannot afford a learning curve,” said Susan Canter, a delegate at the AIPAC policy conference, as she prepared to leave for Capitol Hill to lobby her elected representatives in favor of Israel.


California Democrat Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that his committee would not take up the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which he himself had introduced. The legislation is intended to block exports of refined petroleum to Iran, and thereby increase the pressure on Iran’s faltering economy.

[9mm_fan]

yeah... jstreet = Forward.

[softy54534]

Originally Posted by Mediocrates From news article:
All of which raises the following question: Could pro-Israel Democrats have been wrong? Worse yet, are they providing the political cover for Obama as he fundamentally changes America’s special relationship with Israel?
[...]
At what point will Jewish Democrats who care deeply about Israel’s security decide they have to stand up to President Obama? They have yet to do so — thus far, it has been difficult to oppose anything their party’s leader wants to do. But the moment will come when pro-Israel Democrats will have to make some tough choices.

[HedgeYourBets]

But if Israel attacks Iran (and succeeds), without the support of the Obama administration, wouldn't this lead to another regional backlash onto Israel? I mean, I have no doubt in Israel's capabilities tokick butt like in '67 and 73;, but still...

I trust "Bibi" will do what is best for Israel. But is it likely that an attack on Iran will spark another regional conflict? I don't thibnk so, but what do you all think? I am no expert.

Yes, there would definitely be a regional backlash if Israel hits Iran and I would imagine that there would also be UN resolutions condemning Israel. That's a given.

There is a chance that another war will start if Iran fires a long-range missiles into Israel and/or instructs Hezbullah to fire missiles into Israeli population centers, and Hamas does the same from the South.

It's also not certain that Israel will actually succeed in eliminating the Iranian nukes in the first place.

These are all real considerations that Israel will take into account. Meanwhile, it's a very big question as to why the US (and other countries) will allow Iran to get nuclear weapons with so much at risk.

[Beerinkol]

Shulamith, one day you say Obama is anti-Israel, the next you say he is a good friend to Israel. Ever consider going into politics?

[doctorzlo]

Originally Posted by Mediocrates http://forward.com/articles/105949/?...About+Obama%3f

From news article:
All of which raises the following question: Could pro-Israel Democrats have been wrong? Worse yet, are they providing the political cover for Obama as he fundamentally changes America’s special relationship with Israel?
Forget for a moment the J Street crowd, a group of leftist Jews conjoined by a deep lack of sympathy for Israeli security needs. There are other Jewish Democrats who understand that Israel’s enemies desire the destruction of the Jewish state. They know Obama’s charm offensive has yielded nothing. And they surely know that the Iranian threat to Israel is not going to fade because of charm. Indeed, many pro-Israel Democrats had spent the previous eight years castigating President Bush for not being sufficiently tough with Tehran and went after McCain for daring to oppose some forms of sanctions against companies linked to trade with Iran.
At what point will Jewish Democrats who care deeply about Israel’s security decide they have to stand up to President Obama? They have yet to do so — thus far, it has been difficult to oppose anything their party’s leader wants to do. But the moment will come when pro-Israel Democrats will have to make some tough choices.

[brraverishhh]

I read the comments. Actually most of the posters are anti-Obama. I think Jewish Democrats are coming around. I"ve always thought the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama was an inflated # anyway.

[doctorzlo]

...There's no doubt that Obama and the Democratic Party has decided that Iran should have nuclear weapons...

I do doubt that, News Guy. I don't think the Democratic Party and Obama want Iran to have nuclear weapons, just that they are too wimpy to do anything about it. Of course, just to be fair and balanced, Bush and co. weren't able to do anything about Iran's nuclear program either.

Half measures and the ineffective response to Iran's nuclear program are making a devastating war inevitable. Millions will die as a result.

[PhillipHer]

I do doubt that, News Guy. I don't think the Democratic Party and Obama want Iran to have nuclear weapons, just that they are too wimpy to do anything about it. Of course, just to be fair and balanced, Bush and co. weren't able to do anything about Iran's nuclear program either.

Half measures and the ineffective response to Iran's nuclear program are making a devastating war inevitable. Millions will die as a result.

Of course Obama is too wimpy to do anything about anything, except create a huge domestic deficit and raise taxes on hard-working Americans. Obama is not about effective foreign policy, he's just about paying off his underclass voters with other people's money.

But unfortunately, Obama is our president, so we do hold him accountable for Iran getting nuclear weapons, because he's decided to stand by idly as North Korea and Russia supply Iran with nuclear capabilities even while Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Obama is telling Iran publicly that he's extending his hand in peace and that he wants talks with Iran for an unlimited amount of time without preconditions. That's understood by the whole world as a delay tactic to give Iran more time to solidify its nuclear weapons program, courtesy of the Obama administration.

[HedgeYourBets]

Of course Obama is too wimpy to do anything about anything, except create a huge domestic deficit and raise taxes on hard-working Americans. Obama is not about effective foreign policy, he's just about paying off his underclass voters with other people's money.

But unfortunately, Obama is our president, so we do hold him accountable for Iran getting nuclear weapons, because he's decided to stand by idly as North Korea and Russia supply Iran with nuclear capabilities even while Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Obama is telling Iran publicly that he's extending his hand in peace and that he wants talks with Iran for an unlimited amount of time without preconditions. That's understood by the whole world as a delay tactic to give Iran more time to solidify its nuclear weapons program, courtesy of the Obama administration.

Understood by "the whole world" that way, huh?
Make that the whole world except for me. Thanks.

[Lt_Apple]

Anybody who even gives Obama the time of day and is Jewish, is a self-loathing moron??? Another thread for people to join in and call Obama every expletive that they can think of.

Every Jew who voted for Obama voted for the destruction of Israel, lock-stock and barrell.

Only John McCain would give Israel a fair shake and the hell with any and all other issues facing Americans.

Israeli's aren't feeling the recession nearly as much as people here in the USA. I think that Obama bashing for the sake of being Jewish is totally dishonest and irrelevent. I do believe that a person can be Jewish, a Democrat and do not need to make apologies for doing so.

I also think that the time has come to stop calling every Jew who voted for Obama a crazed leftist, without a scintilla of an idea about what goes on in the politics of the world.

It's just stupid fear and hate mongering and it's getting quite disengenuous and totally ridiculous, at this juncture in time.

Don't make more Jews more self-loathing than they already are, with this ongoing Obama hate fest.

That's really nonsense, although I can understand that Jews (and actually many other Americans) who voted for Obama find themselves in a very emotional state, seeing the consequence of their vote.

First off, I find it difficult to understand how any Jew could have voted for Obama. I say this because we all knew that Obama was closely affiliated with various Black leaders who are virulent anti-Semites, and besides that he was basically anti-American and a Socialist.

He also stated clearly that he intended on changing Bush's pro-Israel foreign policy and that he would engage Iran in friendly talks with no preconditions and no need for them to stop building nuclear weapons. Yet, apparently plenty of Jews voted for Obama despite knowing the consequences to America and to Israel.

It was also no secret that Obama held the absolute most Leftist voting record in the senate. The number-one most Leftist! So it's now difficult to say that Obama's voters are not Leftists.

I ask myself why any Jew or any other American would have voted for Obama, and the only reasons I can think of is either an absurd, irrational hatred of George Bush, or they simply believe that they are entitled take the life-savings of hard-working Americans, which Obama promised to steal and redistribute to his voters.

Overall, Obama is a terrible choice for all Americans, not just Jews. This election was the most polarizing in the history of the country, and the fault lies with those who voted him into power (if he was actually elected as opposed to being put into office by election fraud altogether).

All Americans have the right to examine this president's record and object to throwing Israel to the wolves or to sinking this country into a disastrous financial calamity, so don't come crying now that people like me are examining Obama's dismal record.

For years, the Left explained that the non-stop hate-fest against Bush (which is still going on), is just a sign of a patriotic loyal opposition, but now criticism of Obama is hate-mongering? I don't think so. I think that voting for Obama was in itself an act of hate-mongering, class warfare, and greed.

It's no wonder that many Americans (especially those in line to be robbed of their life-savings) are pointing out the obvious problems with Obama.