PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE EXCHANGE BELOW. START AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS E-MAIL. I HAVE NUMBERED EACH SECTION (1-4) SO YOU CAN EASILY FOLLOW THE SEQUENCE. JACK HAS GRANTED ME PERMISSION TO FORWARD THIS TO ALL. THE LIBERAL CORRESPONDENT’S NAME HAS BEEN DELETED, BUT THOSE ENTIRE MESSAGES HAVE BEEN RETAINED WITHOUT EDITING.

#4 – JACK ZOHAR’S POWERFUL AND WELL ILLUSTRATED REPLY TO THE LIBERAL! NB- ONE PICTURE EQUALS A THOUSAND WORDS, AND THREE ILLUSTRAIONS SPEAKS MORE THAN 10,000 WORDS! WELL DONE, JACK!!!!

I know your heart is in the right place because I know you are good people. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind about that.

But to force Israel back to the 1949 armistice line? Israel IS 9 miles wide at that point. I know, because we lived at the 9 mile limit before we came here. The wall was in our village. Before they erected it, people from the other side attacked us at a low level, but badly enough that one of my daughter’s teachers was injured so badly, she could not teach for a year. Just rocks, but they were terribly effective. Later they built us a wall, and after that, came the next intifada, but we were protected in our area.

This is the street with the wall at the left, and houses on the right where Alona’s teacher lived.

DSCF1718

Number two, Mr. Obama wants to split Israel in two. He said so very clearly for all who listened. He called for a contiguous Palestine. There is just one way to achieve that – split Israel.

image

Number three, he favors the return of the Golan. You remember the Palisades in New Jersey. If people in NJ had guns, they could wreak havoc on anyone in the Hudson or the narrow shoreline below. The Golan is very similar in its topography. Israel cannot return to that hell, and Mr. Obama should never suggest they should.

I have no objection to your being liberal. The tension between opposing sides is healthy. However, we all have an obligation to put party affiliation aside and deal solely with facts, regardless of labels. Splitting Israel and making it nine miles wide is a call for war and bloodshed. Nobody will benefit – not Jews, not Muslims of the region, and not Americans here at home.

In this picture, the Golan is at the ridge line in back of me. Most of it is like the higher, steeper rise at the right of the photo. At the top, the land is flat to rolling, and looks down over kibbutzim and resorts at the shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). The picture was taken just a few dozen meters from the shoreline which I am looking at in the photo. The Kinneret is Israel's largest body of fresh water in a very water thirsty region. This is the danger facing that country with Mr. Obama’s proposals. They are unprecedented and unhelpful.

You ought to oppose them on humanitarian grounds – leave politics out of it. Everyone can suffer. Samantha Power, Mr. Obama’s long time adviser has openly counseled sending US troops to Israel which could set up a confrontation between the US and Israel, God forbid. Whose side could you take? I could take both and neither simultaneously, which is impossible. It would be as if our parents were set to fight each other in a cage, armed with dangerous weapons. That is a nightmare situation of unimaginable proportions, and for that I suggest fear would be a healthy emotion.

May God help us!

Jack Zohar

image

#3 - THE REPLY BY THE LIBERAL TO JACK’S SENDING OF THE CAROLYN GLICK ARTICLE. NB- TWO WORDS IMMEDIATELY COME TO MIND – UNINFORMED AND IN DENIAL – (AND THAT ISN’T THE RIVER IN EGYPT!)

Call me a sucker.....I call myself someone who has a different opinion. All I can say that life in the Middle East is above my understanding, I care about the situation and hope, pray and wish for a good outcome because, bottom line, and simply put...I want to have a homeland for myself and any and all other Jews who want to live there now or in the future. I’m proud of “my people” for what they have accomplished but except for the few dollars I have contributed in the past, I really can’t take any credit for their successes or failures because first of all I am an American and my focus is here and now. I believe that the US will never abandon Israel, no matter who is in power, because we have too much invested and in common, socially, intellectually and financially.

And I am not afraid and you can’t scare me.

Thanks for the article written by Caroline Glick...I read it and I’m sure there is some truth to her interpretation of the situation at Yale and in our comments regarding our Government, but I am the liberal American Jew that she discusses.....and I make no apologies....and I believe I am in good company!

#2 TO WHICH JACK ZOHAR, WHO MANY OF YOU KNOW RESPONDED WITH HIS COMMENTS AND THE POWERFUL ARTICLE BY CAROLINE GLICK THAT WAS FORWARDED TO YOU LATE LAST WEEK.

In Israel, the word is “freier” (sucker), and nobody wants to be one. You hear that word everywhere you go in Israel – al tiyihiyea freier. Don’t be a sucker, they tell you, and so, Caroline Glick, American Israeli, probably one of that nation’s top journalists and political analysts, writes about us, the American Jew. It is a far different story from the saccharine words of Mr. Obama who has given Israel 30 days to agree to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines as a precondition to having talks with the Arabs. If Israel gives in, kiss it goodbye, for it will soon be no more, and then the real troubles will just be starting. There are words, and then there are actions. Don’t listen to what he says. See, instead. what he does, and be very, very afraid.

June 24, 2011

Liberal American Jewish suckers

By Caroline B. Glick

This week we have been witness to two transparent attempts to sell liberal American Jews a bill of goods. And from the looks of things, both were successful.

The first instance of liberal American Jewish credulity this week unfolded Monday night in Washington. At a five-star hotel, eighty Jewish donors shelled out between $25,000- 35,800 to attend a fundraiser with US President Barack Obama.

As has become his habit, Obama opened his remarks by talking about his commitment to Israel's security. And as has become his habit, Obama went on to say that it is his job to force Israelis to bow to his demands because he knows what is best for Israel.

Speaking of his ongoing efforts to force Israel to concede its right to defensible borders before entering into negotiations with the Hamas-Fatah unity government, Obama said, "There are going to be moments over the course of the next six months or the next 12 months or the next 24 months in which there may be tactical disagreements [between the US and Israel] in terms of how we approach these difficult problems."

Obama went on to say that he expects his American Jewish supporters to take his side in his attacks on Israel.

As he put it, the quest for peace between Israel and the Hamas-Fatah government is, "going to require that not only this administration employs all of its creative powers to try to bring about peace in the region, but it's also going to require all of you as engaged citizens of the United States who are friends of Israel making sure…that you're helping to shape how both Americans and Israelis think about the opportunities and challenges."

And how did the Jewish donors respond to Obama's presentation? They loved it. They were, in the words of Obama donor Marilyn Victor, "reassured."

Speaking with Politico, New York businessman Jack Bendheim said, "I think he nailed and renailed his commitment to the security of the State of Israel." Other attendees interviewed in the article echoed his sentiments.

Imagine how they would have swooned if Obama had confessed a secret love for bagels and lox.

What does Obama have to do for these liberal American Jews to accept that he is no friend of Israel's?

Apparently the answer is that there is nothing Obama can do that will convince his many American Jewish supporters that he is not Israel's friend. They will never believe such a thing because doing so will require them to choose between two unacceptable options. The first option is to admit to themselves that in voting for Obama, they are voting against Israel.

The self-righteousness shared by many of Obama's Jewish supporters makes this option unacceptable. These are people who demonstrate their goodness by embracing every politically correct liberal cause as their own. From abortion to socialized medicine to free passes for illegal immigrants, to opposition to the Iraq war, liberal American Jews are ready to go out on a limb for every cause the liberal media supports.

But ask them to support anything that in any way compromises their self-image as do gooders and liberals and they will shut you out. Consider their willingness to turn a blind eye to Obama's twenty-year association with his anti-Semitic preacher Jeremiah Wright. Just this week Wright was back in the news when he delighted a crowd of thousands of African American worshippers in Baltimore by libeling Israel saying, "The State of Israel is an illegal, genocidal … place. To equate Judaism with the State of Israel is to equate Christianity with [rapper] Flavor Flav."

During the 2008 presidential campaign liberal American Jews attacked critics of Obama's long-standing devotion to his Jew hating preacher as McCarthyites who were spreading allegations of guilt by association.

And now, when Obama has made supporting Israel a socially costly thing for his supporters to do, rather than pay the price, his self-righteous American Jewish supporters refuse to admit that Obama is not pro-Israel. They attack as a liar anyone who points out that his policies are deeply hostile to Israel.

For instance, Monday National Jewish Democratic Council Chairman Marc Stanley told reporters, "Key donors are much more savvy than Republicans would have you believe and have taken a much more critical eye towards Republican attempts to lie about the President's record."

Aside from being morally inconvenient, the other problem with admitting that Obama is anti-Israel is that it requires his Jewish supporters who are unwilling to consciously abandon Israel to contemplate the unattractive option of voting for the Republican nominee for president. And this is something that their liberal conceit cannot abide.

The inability of many liberal American Jews to abide by the notion of supporting someone who isn't part of their fancy liberal clique was on display in their responses to another event that occurred this week.

Just hours before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale University engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its willfully gullible Jewish supporters.

Yale University's announcement two weeks ago that it was shutting down the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA), unleashed a storm of protest. Students, faculty, alumni and major Jewish organizations all expressed anger and disappointment with Yale's surprise move.

Yale justified its decision on the basis of two falsehoods. First it claimed that YIISA had failed to undertake sufficient top quality scholarship. Yet in the wake of the announcement dozens of leading scholars of anti-Semitism co-signed a letter authored by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld who directs Indiana University's Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism praising the YIISA as "a pioneer in advancing research on contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism."

The second reason that Yale claimed it was closing YIISA was because there was insufficient faculty and student interest in its programs. This falsehood was ridiculous on its face since several dozen Yale faculty members served on YIISA's various academic committees and boards of advisors. And in the wake of the university's announcement that it was shuttering YIISA, several faculty members and students protested the move angrily.

The main suspicion provoked by Yale's decision to close YIISA was that it was doing so to appease Islamic critics. YIISA's Director Prof. Charles Small focused its attention on contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. Since the most dangerous form of contemporary anti-Semitism is Islamic anti-Semitism, Small made Islamic anti-Semitism a focus of YIISA's research activities. The concern arose that Yale closed YIISA in order to end campus research and discourse on the topic.

Monday Yale tried to quell the controversy surrounding its decision to close YIISA by announcing that it was forming a new institute called the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Yale announced that its tenured professor Maurice Samuels will serve as director of the program. Samuels is a scholar of French literature.

In his acceptance announcement Samuels addressed Yale's critics promising that "YPSA will discuss both contemporary anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism."

He also said that in the coming year YPSA will hold a major conference on the topic of French anti-Semitism.

Samuels' statement is notable for two reasons. First, if it is true, then the only difference between YPSA and YIISA is the director. And the only thing Yale was really interested in doing was firing Small. The question is why would they want to fire him?

The answer to that question appears to be found in the second notable aspect of Samuels' announcement: his planned conference. At a time when millions in post-Mubarak Egypt assembled in Tahrir Square and cheered as the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi called for the invasion of Jerusalem, and with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the brink of nuclear weapons, why would YPSA want to place its focus on France?

Following Yale's announcement that it is launching YPSA, Small released a statement in which he said, among other things, "It appears that Yale, unlike YIISA, is not willing to engage in a comprehensive examination of the current crisis facing living Jews, but instead is comfortable with reexamining the plight of Jews who perished at the hands of anti-Semites. The role of a true scholar and intellectual is to shed light where there is darkness, which is why we at YIISA, are committed to critical engaged scholarship with a broader approach to the complex, and at times controversial context of contemporary global anti-Semitism."

As Small hints, it appears that by forming YPSA, Yale proved its critics right. It closed YIISA because it found Small's concentration on Muslim Jew hatred ideologically problematic. And it opened YPSA because Yale's admininistrastors' trust Samuels to keep researchers and students focused on historic forms of anti-Semitism.

To offset criticism of its transparent move, Yale has been waging a whispering campaign against Small. Yale administrators have been insinuating that because the university did not hire him as a regular member of the Yale faculty that Small is not an academic, or somehow not good enough for Yale.

This campaign brought Holocaust scholar Prof Deborah Lipstadt from Emory University to pen a column in the Forward attacking Small. As she put it, "Part of Yale's discomfort might have come from the fact that a Yale-based scholarly entity was administered by an individual who, while a successful institution builder, was not a Yale faculty member and who had no official position at the university."

But Small was in fact on the Yale faculty. He was a lecturer in the Political Science department and ran one of Yale's post-doctorate and graduate studies fellowship programs. Despite his intensive work building YIISA, Small taught a heavy course load.

But while its actions vindicate its critics' greatest concerns, just as Obama was able to win over his Jewish supporters with empty platitudes so Yale's decision to open YPSA has satisfied its most powerful critics. The ADL released a statement applauding the move. Yale's Rabbi James Ponet emailed his colleagues and friends and urged them to email Yale's President and Provost expressing their support for the move.

Their willingness to support Yale's bid to curtail research and discussion of Islamic Jew hatred and allow Yale to scapegoat Small demonstrates an affliction common to liberal American Jews today. It is the same affliction that makes them unable to countenance voting for a Republican. That affliction is class snobbery. By insinuating that Small is not up to Yale's academic standards, Yale was able to rally the Jewish members of its larger community by appealing to their snobbery. The fact that Yale didn't mind Small serving as a dissertation advisor to its doctoral candidates is immaterial. The facts be damned.

The same Ivy League snobbery that makes it socially unacceptable to vote for a Republican — and certainly not for a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann despite their deep-seated and consistent support for Israel — is what allowed Yale to get away with ending its study of Islamic anti-Semitism by besmirching Small's academic achievements and good name. Remove him from the club, and you end opposition to his academically unjustifiable firing.

The great circus master P.T. Barnum said famously that there is a sucker born every minute. Liberal American Jews aren't born suckers. They become suckers out of their own free will.

# 1 - THIS IS THE E-MAIL (BELOW) THAT TRIGGERED THE EXCHANGE (ABOVE).

NB – WORDS ARE CAREFULLY SELECTED AND ARE CHEAP. HITLER SEVERAL TIMES PROMISED THE GULLIBLE WESTERN LEADERS: “THIS IS MY LAST TERRITORIAL DEMAND IN EUROPE!” THE REST IS HISTORY!!!

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

June 20, 2011

Remarks by the President at a DNC Event

Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Washington, D.C.

7:30 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. It is wonderful to see so many great friends. To Amy and all those who helped to organize tonight's dinner, I couldn't be more grateful.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, our new DNC chair, thank you for all the extraordinary work that you're doing. (Applause.) I could not have made a better pick.

I want to spend most of the time in a conversation as opposed to just me making a long speech. But I do want to talk a little bit about the context in which we meet this evening. Obviously we're going through extraordinarily challenging times. We've gone through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and a huge amount of energy has been devoted over the last two years to making sure that we pulled ourselves back from the brink; that an economy that was contracting is growing again, that we're putting more and more people back to work, that businesses are able to succeed, that we're educating our kids, that we're making investments that will help assure that America remains not only the most powerful country on Earth, but also one that is just and one that lives up to the American Dream -- the idea that anybody who has a good idea, anybody who's willing to work hard, that they've got a shot at not only living a good life but also passing on an even better life to their kids.

We also have an extraordinarily challenging international environment. When I came into office we were in the midst of two wars. We are almost done with our troop presence in Iraq, by the end of this year. And in Afghanistan, we're in the process of a transition where we are starting to give more and more responsibility to Afghans for their own security, at the same time as we have been dogged in pursuing al Qaeda and are creating a situation where it is very, very difficult for them to operate.

But in the midst of all this, what we've now also seen is the kind of tumult taking place in the Middle East that we haven’t seen in a very long time. And the consequences of what's happening there are potentially as significant as the consequences of what took place in Europe when the Berlin Wall came down. It poses great challenges, but it also poses great opportunities.

And I think that the most important message I have for all of you here tonight is that even as we try to manage what is going to be a very difficult and challenging situation over the next 12 months, the next 24 months, the next decade, that one inviolable principle will be that the United States and Israel will always be stalwart allies and friends -- (applause) -- that that bond isn’t breakable and that Israel's security will always be at the top tier of considerations in terms of how America manages its foreign policy -- because it's the right thing to do, because Israel is our closest ally and friend, it is a robust democracy, it shares our values and it shares our principles.

Now, what's also going to be true is that both the United States and Israel are going to have to look at this new landscape with fresh eyes. It's not going to be sufficient for us just to keep on doing the same things we’ve been doing and expect somehow that things are going to work themselves out. We’re going to have to be creative and we’re going to have to be engaged. We’re going to have to look for opportunities where the best impulses in the Middle East come to the fore and the worst impulses are weakened.

We have to do so from a position of strength, which is why my administration has done more to promote Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its defense capabilities than any administration over the last 25 years. And we have made that commitment consistently. (Applause.)

But it also means that we’ve got to engage diplomatically. It means that we’re going to have to find out who are the partners that can work with us and how do we strengthen them, and how do we isolate those who are unwilling to work with us and weaken them.

And there are going to be moments over the course of the next six months or the next 12 months or the next 24 months in which there may be tactical disagreements in terms of how we approach these difficult problems. But the broader vision, which is one in which Israel is a secure Jewish state, is able to live in peace with its neighbors, where kids can get on the bus or go to bed at night and not have to worry about missiles landing on them, where commerce and interactions between peoples in the region is occurring in a normal fashion, where the hopes and dreams of the original travelers to Israel, the original settlers in Israel, that those hopes and dreams that date back a millennium, that those hopes are realized. That will remain our North Star. That will remain our goal.

And I’m absolutely confident that we can achieve that goal. But it’s going to require some hard work. And it’s going to require that not only this administration employs all of its creative powers to try to bring about peace in the region, but it’s also going to require all of you as engaged citizens of the United States who are friends of Israel making sure that you are giving us suggestions, you are in an honest dialogue with us, that you’re helping to shape how both Americans and Israelis think about the opportunities and challenges.

All of you are leaders in your community. And my hope is, is that through the kind of conversations that we’re having here tonight, that we’re going to be able to, together, craft the kind of strategy that not only leads to a strong America, but also leads to a strong Israel.

So, to all of you who are here, thank you again for your past support, thank you for your friendship, and thank you for what I anticipate will be many years of collaboration between us in the years to come. Thank you very much. (Applause.)


END 7:38 P.M. EDT