President Obama & the Jewish Right Wing: If I could find Words...

Mountainous River Landscape (Night Version) By Caspar David Friedrich
The Jewish Right Wing (in Israel and abroad) is very disappointed at President Obama. 
He has been accused of not “loving Israel” and of being “a leftist-Israel-hater”. So, how did it all start? 

“It is (..) undeniable that the Palestinian people have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. (..) They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation.”

Comment: No one denies the suffering of the Palestinian people; however one must question the use of the word “occupation” (even if intended to pander Arab Nations). The expression “disputed territory” should have been used instead. A US President’s words bear a lot of weight in the diplomatic world, and when that leader doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between “occupation” and “disputed territory” (not “territories” because Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and the Golan Heights are being disputed with Syria and not Palestine) then the US, before the whole world, is fuelling the Palestinian victimisation & inaction and weakening an ally, Israel. 
Besides, it is not Israel alone who makes them “endure daily humiliations”, it is mainly the Palestinian leaders who subject their own people to lack of dignity and to death (of body, mind and soul). 

“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Comment: Previous agreements demanded the Palestinians to “recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounce terrorism as well as other violence and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli State”. The Palestinians have violated every single point of this article; therefore the settlements are rooted in a deep concern for Israeli National Security, backed up by the Palestinian incessant violations of “previous agreements”. It is time for these violations to stop. 

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.”

Comment: This reminds everybody of the British colonialism that, in its supreme arrogance, thought to have the authority to “create” nations in the Middle East to appease the Arabs and manipulate politics in the region. 

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Comment: the Jewish right wing was angered by this; were they right to feel so? Yes (because, the fact is, the West Bank is a historical Jewish Territory that was recaptured during the Six-Day War in 1967) and No (because by adding “mutually agreed swaps” President Obama acknowledges the impossibility of the 1967 borders, security-wise. The “1967 lines” serve as a basis for negotiation and not for a concrete border).
N.B: it should be common knowledge that before the 1967 War there was no Palestine: there was Egypt and Jordan. So technically, Palestinians should not have authority to claim borders of territories they once rejected; and technically President Obama offered Israel a gift to work on. 

UN Speech (New York; September 21, 2011)
 “Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on issues that divide them: on borders & security; on refugees and Jerusalem” 

Comment: This declaration sounds like an admission of President Obama’s mistake (made earlier, in May) – the US can, and should, mediate the negotiations but they cannot “create” the future borders between Israel and Palestine. 

Final Note 
The Jewish Right Wing should always remember that image of President Abbas shaking his head, in defeat, at the UN General Assembly, last September, when Barack Obama, as the US commander-in-chief, rebuked the Palestinian People for their constant violence, for murdering Israelis, for being anti-Semites, for wanting to delegitimise Israel and reminded them that attempts to isolate Israel at the UN would not yield them an Independent Palestinian State. This was politically historical. No other US President (Republican or Democrat) had ever done it before. 
If the Jewish Right Wing is against President Obama it is not because of his lack of commitment toward, and support for, the Israeli cause; it must be for some other obscure reason...

Comments

  1. My very first impression of Pres. Obama when he took office is that when it comes to international relations, he is a bumbling idiot! He is totally clueless about diplomacy. I read that a head of state came to visit him and brought him a gift that was made from the wood of a slave ship. Very historical, and thoughtful. Obama gave him a set of DVDs of popular U.S. movies. That PALES in comparison. He should leave all diplomatic relations to Hillary Clinton because at least she actually has some diplomacy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi D! :D

      "My very first impression of Pres. Obama when he took office is that when it comes to international relations, he is a bumbling idiot!"

      This is exactly the criticism I make to President Obama's detractors: they may not agree with him, they may even dislike his political style (it's fine, it's a democratic right) however do not resort to insults. No matter what, he is still the President and for that reason alone he deserves respect, wouldn't you agree?
      I did not concur when the world (and many in the US) used the same epithet when referring to President Bush and I do not agree when Americans do the same to President Obama - in my opinion, it's simply disrespectful.

      "He is totally clueless about diplomacy."

      Again I recall you that the same was said about President Bush.

      "I read that a head of state came to visit him and brought him a gift that was made from the wood of a slave ship. Very historical, and thoughtful. Obama gave him a set of DVDs of popular U.S. movies. That PALES in comparison. He should leave all diplomatic relations to Hillary Clinton because at least she actually has some diplomacy!"

      Really? Well, he should fire the person that takes care of the gifts given to foreign official guests.
      I agree that Hillary Clinton is doing a very good work as a State Secretary, but again she has had the experience as a First Lady (First Ladies see and hear a lot, thus being a vital diplomatic asset).

      D, your comment raised some important issues: thank you so much for starting this conversation :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  2. Hi Max,

    Happy Tuesday my friend.

    I wish I was as politically facile as you, but I just don't follow politics. I agree with Delirious 100%.

    Our president is not the suave or cool gentleman that many people think. He changes his wording so many times, that I can't believe anything that comes form his mouth.

    Delirious' comment reminds me of when he first went to England and gave the Queen an iPod with copies of his speeches. On another occasion with the Queen, the orchestra began playing "God Save the Queen" when he asked the guests to stand and join him in toasting her. The look on her face was so telling.

    There are so many faux pas that the U.S. press ignores. I would sooner have you in the White house, at least I would know that you would offer excellent debates.

    Awesome post.

    Stay Amazing Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lady A :D!

      "Happy Tuesday my friend."

      Happy day to you, darling *Bowing*!

      "Our president is not the suave or cool gentleman that many people think. He changes his wording so many times, that I can't believe anything that comes form his mouth."

      He is a politician, therefore he does whatever he has to do.
      Nevertheless, it could be argued that it is better to play suave and cool than to play bigot and ignorant like most of the GOP presidential candidates - I wonder if they couldn't find better Reps to challenge President Obama.
      Yes, he makes mistakes (he is not the first US President to make them and he won't be the last) but again the question is: who is advising him? Who are the people surrounding him?
      I asked these same questions when people bashed President Bush and it seems to me that the electorate is too quick to attack before thinking of the bigger picture...know what I mean?

      "Delirious' comment reminds me of when he first went to England and gave the Queen an iPod with copies of his speeches. On another occasion with the Queen, the orchestra began playing "God Save the Queen" when he asked the guests to stand and join him in toasting her. The look on her face was so telling."

      That was not the only gaffe committed by him (and the First Lady) upon their first visit to the UK. But the second time they visited the country protocol was fully respected; so why do people focus on President Obama's first mistakes and gaffes only? What does that mean?

      "There are so many faux pas that the U.S. press ignores"

      I don't think the US press ignores it (they are aware of them) but I think that they focus on real issues instead - and rightfully so.

      "I would sooner have you in the White house, at least I would know that you would offer excellent debates."

      LOL LOL LOL aahh, you mock me, Lady A lol *nodding*...

      "Awesome post."

      Thank you for your generosity *bowing*.

      Lady A, thank you ever so much for your comment. You proved that criticism without name-calling is possible :D.

      You Are Amazing Cheers

      Delete
  3. Hi Max, don't know nothing about occupation or disputed places, but sure i know one thing:
    love more than ever, should rule the world; nahive? perhaps, dont care, as long as the true care would be populations and human beings, and not land, power and greed.

    Negociations having the "person" as a discussion center (remember Leonardo da Vinci pic) sure would bring enhancements and strong resolutions.

    All the best
    gallardo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ciao Gallardo :D!

      "Max, don't know nothing about occupation or disputed places, but sure i know one thing: love more than ever, should rule the world; nahive? perhaps, dont care, as long as the true care would be populations and human beings, and not land, power and greed."

      But love rules the world: the love for people, love for love, love for hate, love for destruction, love for religion, love for anything. The problem is, love (for x or y) doesn't always translate into a positive thing. But I agree with you that we should put the welfare of people in the first place, and many times we put hatred, power and greed on the top of our list.
      Still, what belongs to Israel belongs to Israel...

      "Negociations having the "person" as a discussion center (remember Leonardo da Vinci pic) sure would bring enhancements and strong resolutions."

      Tell that to the Palestinians: they refuse to negotiate. Being the weaker link they demand instead of negotiating, and that is not how things work. I ask: do they put their own people as the discussion centre? No, they put Iran's interests in the plate instead...

      G, a superb comment for which I thank you ever so much :D. You were missed.

      Cheers

      Delete
  4. Using words like "occupation" is a form of delegitimizing Israel and I wonder why the US and Europe insist on it while at the same time repeat they are allies with Israel. They play a double game but with what intention?
    I have one problem with President Obama: he said ( in june 2008) that Jerusalem was to remain an undivided Jewish capital to draw the Jewish vote, then later he retracted. I, as all right wing Jews, felt betrayed. He said "One city, undivided" I say to him "One word, unretractable".

    Other than that I take no issues with him and I prefer him over the republican candidates (whose ideas represent the old America with all the negative things that the US is starting to shake off).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous :D!

      "Using words like "occupation" is a form of delegitimizing Israel and I wonder why the US and Europe insist on it while at the same time repeat they are allies with Israel. They play a double game but with what intention?"

      I agree. Their double game is played to serve their own interests (it has always been like that, and the world shouldn't expect President Obama to change that; why should he? He is American and the American President).

      "I have one problem with President Obama: he said ( in june 2008) that Jerusalem was to remain an undivided Jewish capital to draw the Jewish vote, then later he retracted. I, as all right wing Jews, felt betrayed. He said "One city, undivided" I say to him "One word, unretractable"."

      Yes, I remember that very well and when he retracted I was frankly surprised. LOL LOL that is a good advice.

      "Other than that I take no issues with him and I prefer him over the republican candidates (whose ideas represent the old America with all the negative things that the US is starting to shake off)."

      I hear you.

      Anonymous, thank you ever so much for your super comment :D. Please do come back.

      Cheers

      Delete
  5. Max, first: excellent article! The jewish right wing missed a huge opportunity with the ME speech: had they taken Obama's stretched hand Israel would've been in a much more favourable position regarding the Palestinians (who do not have the right to claim whatsoever after rejecting land - one can only imagine what their plans were, well I do but I can't discuss them here).
    Watching Abbas shaking his head in defeat was amazing however I wish to see the US to step up and be clearer about its position toward the Israeli Cause. But we cannot deny that Obama has done some historical things as a President - it's a shame that American rightists prefer not to see that (is it racism or fear?).

    I 100% disagree with Delirious: president Obama may have stumbled a bit in the beginning but his skills in international relations were quite alright. The proof of it is the admiration and respect the whole world has for him; could president Bush say the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ana :D!

      "Max, first: excellent article!"

      Thank you *bowing*.

      "The jewish right wing missed a huge opportunity with the ME speech: had they taken Obama's stretched hand Israel would've been in a much more favourable position regarding the Palestinians (who do not have the right to claim whatsoever after rejecting land - one can only imagine what their plans were, well I do but I can't discuss them here)."

      *nodding in agreement*

      "Watching Abbas shaking his head in defeat was amazing however I wish to see the US to step up and be clearer about its position toward the Israeli Cause."

      I would also like to see President Obama be more specific about the Israeli cause. Nevertheless, he has done a better job than President Clinton has. I will not discuss President Bush because I think he was in a very complex context after the 9/11...but I read somewhere that behind the scenes he showed his support to Israel, regarding the settlements (mainly). But we need the American President to step up in before the whole world...

      "The proof of it is the admiration and respect the whole world has for him; could president Bush say the same?"

      That is true. Like I said, President Bush suffered the consequences of the decisions his administration had to make (withing a specific context)...had President Obama been in a smiliar context I bet he would've gone more or less the same road and, perhaps the world wouldn't love him as much as it does today.

      Ana, thank you so much for your amazing comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  6. Olá Max,

    I will be back to comment in more depth, but I just wanted to note something: the american commentators in here did not address the main topic in this article, instead they decided to attack president Obama's initial faux-pas. This reminded me of what Irving Wallace wrote in one of his books:

    "the strong feeling I have that the American public does not give a damn about Africa. (...) The public can't see how controlling a small black republic can affect their lives"

    Perhaps, the American public does not give a damn about Israel and how its security can actually affect their lives. Either that or they sympathise with the Palestinians and do not want to say it in public.

    Inté

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Celeste :D!

      "I will be back to comment in more depth, but I just wanted to note something: the american commentators in here did not address the main topic in this article, instead they decided to attack president Obama's initial faux-pas."

      Well, they have the right to comment on whatever they wish, right? I totally understand why they'd focus on President Obama, after all America is in election year so....

      "This reminded me of what Irving Wallace wrote in one of his books: 'the strong feeling I have that the American public does not give a damn about Africa. (...) The public can't see how controlling a small black republic can affect their lives'..."

      The Second Lady, if I recall well...that is one striking passage. But perhaps the Kony 2012 campaign would change this perception a bit...

      "Perhaps, the American public does not give a damn about Israel and how its security can actually affect their lives. Either that or they sympathise with the Palestinians and do not want to say it in public."

      I cannot say what goes in the minds of my readers and commentators. They are entitled to their opinion (the same way we are entitled to ours) and that is it. Whatever they produce in here is welcome and enriching to me, at least.

      Celeste, thank you so much for your provocative comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  7. Olá Max,

    I'm back.
    I agree that "disputed territory" is the expression to be used. Like Anonymous said "occupation" is a form of delegitimising Israel and when left wing jews use that expression it makes it all worse.

    President Obama should not reiterate the Iranian cause by perpetuating the Palestinian victimisation. Because we all know that Iran is behind the palestinian stalling, division, stupid demands and terrorism. So what's up with the US exactly?

    About the settlements: the US should not speak of the settlements when Gaza keeps sending daily rockets to Israel (last week it sent 200 rockets to southern Israel). Imagine if Israel would be dumb enough to hand over jewish territory (west bank) due to international pressure: rockets from Gaza and rockets from west bank...it would be hell!

    I agree with you when you say that the right wing missed a huge opportunity (but I am not getting into details here).

    American right wing Jews are even worse than Israeli right wingers: as you know, they believe to be white so I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why they senselessly attack president Obama is based on racism.

    Tchau

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Celeste,

      "I'm back."

      Thank you for returning...*bowing*.

      "I agree that "disputed territory" is the expression to be used. Like Anonymous said "occupation" is a form of delegitimising Israel and when left wing jews use that expression it makes it all worse."

      I agree with you.

      "President Obama should not reiterate the Iranian cause by perpetuating the Palestinian victimisation. Because we all know that Iran is behind the palestinian stalling, division, stupid demands and terrorism. So what's up with the US exactly?"

      I see where you are coming from...

      "About the settlements: the US should not speak of the settlements when Gaza keeps sending daily rockets to Israel (last week it sent 200 rockets to southern Israel). Imagine if Israel would be dumb enough to hand over jewish territory (west bank) due to international pressure: rockets from Gaza and rockets from west bank...it would be hell!"

      You are right, absolutely right.

      "American right wing Jews are even worse than Israeli right wingers: as you know, they believe to be white so I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why they senselessly attack president Obama is based on racism."

      LOL *no comments*...although I have commented it in the past...

      Celeste, thank you ever so much for your outstanding comment :D. Always a pleasure.

      Cheers

      Delete
  8. Hello Max,

    First time commenting here although I have been following your work practically since the beginning - you have come a long way and your writing has greatly evolved.

    I have mixed feelings about this theme because on one hand I understand the rightists' disappointment, anger and distrust of President Obama, but on the other hand I think they could've worked things in a more diplomatic way.
    The 1967 borders are impossible to grant to Palestinians for security sake and everybody knows it.

    Peter Beinart says the "dislike for Obama do not stem from the fact that the president is a Democrat, or a liberal, and definitely not because he is black, god forbid, or because his middle name is Hussein. No, Netanyahu distrusts Obama because Obama reminds him of Jews. And not just any Jews, but leftist Jews"...
    It offers another perspective on the "feud" doesn't it?

    Shabbat Shalom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Anonymous :D!

      "First time commenting here although I have been following your work practically since the beginning - you have come a long way and your writing has greatly evolved."

      Why, thank you *bowing*. And thank you for following this blog for so long, I feel honoured :).

      "I have mixed feelings about this theme because on one hand I understand the rightists' disappointment, anger and distrust of President Obama, but on the other hand I think they could've worked things in a more diplomatic way. The 1967 borders are impossible to grant to Palestinians for security sake and everybody knows it."

      I hear you. And I definitely agree with you.

      "Peter Beinart says the 'dislike for Obama do not stem from the fact that the president is a Democrat, or a liberal, and definitely not because he is black, god forbid, or because his middle name is Hussein. No, Netanyahu distrusts Obama because Obama reminds him of Jews. And not just any Jews, but leftist Jews'...
      It offers another perspective on the "feud" doesn't it?"

      Ah Peter Beinart...please allow me to be a bit presumptuous: I call him the Max Coutinho of the Left Wing LOL *nodding*. But what he says makes sense; although I know not what PM Netanyahu thinks or not.

      Anonymous, thank you so so much for this brilliant comment. It did give us a different perspective; please do come back :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  9. Whenever I read about these border disputes among countries or even states within a country, somewhere my mind starts swinging like a pendulum. Countries may not be able to feed its existing citizens properly but it won't lose any effort to gain another extra bit of land. There lies the irony. It is we who artificially create borders and then we fight for every inch of land. To me no country is too small or too big that it has to fight for a square bit of land. Leave alone countries, which are too big a phenomenon, today even states within a country are fighting for every bit of land. Somehow fragmentation is at it best point in the life of earth and I can only wonder in amazement that this fight will continue as still date not a single border or occupational dispute remains settled. It may lie low for some time but just like a sleeping volcano, it erupts just out of no-where (just take the case of Falklands with Britain and Argentina). I think no amount of diplomacy is sufficient when the mind is already predetermined even with a bleeding heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Kalyan :D!

      "Whenever I read about these border disputes among countries or even states within a country, somewhere my mind starts swinging like a pendulum"

      I like that imagery...

      "Countries may not be able to feed its existing citizens properly but it won't lose any effort to gain another extra bit of land. There lies the irony."

      This is a heavy and just criticism: this is why I am a huge fan of yours. Very well put!

      "It is we who artificially create borders and then we fight for every inch of land."

      Although I understand what you mean, I must say that in the Israeli case, the historical borders where not artifically created, nor created by men: there is a reason why it is called the Promised Land. And Arabs know it very well...but politics and thirst for power get in the way.

      "today even states within a country are fighting for every bit of land."

      That is true. However, South Sudan was born as the 193rd nation because it fought for it (and rightfully so), for example.

      "It may lie low for some time but just like a sleeping volcano, it erupts just out of no-where (just take the case of Falklands with Britain and Argentina). I think no amount of diplomacy is sufficient when the mind is already predetermined even with a bleeding heart."

      Well, Britain has diplomatic baggage and should've thought of it when it allowed the Liberals/Clegg to mess up in certain foreign policy issues...and now the result is at sight....

      K, outstanding comment for which I thank you a million times :D. Always a pleasure.

      Cheers

      Delete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers