More on Obama as Antisemite
I am certain that Mr. Goldstein has a good heart and means well, but he has not responded to most of my arguments, and his responses to others are based upon evasion or missing the point entirely. In sum, my characterization of Obama as an antisemite could not have been “libelous,” as he alleges, because as any lawyer will tell you, the truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action.
I am wholly uninterested in responding to Goldstein’s persistence in parsing Obama’s allegedly philosemitic comments, notwithstanding that, as I discussed in my letter, what a candidate says while running for office is not a reliable indicator of his true colors. Nonetheless, consider for example the quashing of the now-infamous photograph of Senator Obama’s reprehensible and indefensible meeting with Louis Farrakhan because of the (justified) fear that it might adversely affect his election prospects. Consider further that according to journalist Ali Abumah, Obama even admitted as much in 2004, when he said “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we’re in a tough primary race.”
Even after his election, Obama exhibited little reluctance in publicly and unabashedly attacking Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, as when he infamously denied any historical Jewish ties to the Land of Israel, announced that the Jewish state was created only because people felt guilty about the Holocaust, and let the Arab world know in no uncertain terms that he was going to force Israel to make concessions that would jeopardize its survival. The president may have supported Iron Dome to get Jewish votes, but he found so many far better ways to turn the screws on Israel, such as advancing an existential threat to Israel through the promotion of JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal) and undermining Israel at the U.N.
Obama repeatedly criticized the “well-funded lobbying campaign” behind Israel’s opposition to JCPOA, which we all recognize as an antisemitic dog whistle for the “all-powerful, well-financed Israel lobby.” He not only maintained a close friendship with Rashid Khalidi, an advisor to PLO terrorists, but he actually spoke at an event honoring him where one speaker compared Zionists on the West Bank to Osama bin Laden; Obama failed to object, much as he remained silent in the face of the hate-vomiting Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Obama supported the U.N.’s “investigation” of the Gaza flotilla incident, which was no less than a disparagement of Israel’s sovereignty. He mandated that Israeli goods made in Judea and Samaria be separately labeled, a requirement that his administration did not impose on any other country in any other territorial dispute. At the 2009 World Conference Against Racism (aka “Durban II”), Obama’s delegates remained silent and gave implicit support for a proposal to brand Israel – and Israel alone – as a racist state and called for international protections for the Palestinian people. I could go on, but then this would become a treatise rather than a response.
Goldstein should also consider the views of the people most impacted by Obama’s Israel malfeasance: the Israelis themselves, who were massively opposed to Obama in general and to the JCPOA in particular. And even the most anti-Netanyahu Israeli was offended by Obama’s inexcusable breach of protocol and his maltreatment of Israel’s prime minister who was, after all, a head of state and his invited guest to the White House.
Goldstein brings Trump into all this and, although I do not know his political philosophy, that is what leftists always do when their backs are against the wall. I refuse to be drawn into such “what-about-ism” discussions here, which in any event are wholly tangential and irrelevant to the subject at hand. I would respond simply by referring Goldstein to any respectable and statistically credible study of the views of Israelis on the Obama and Trump presidencies, which tells the story far better than I ever could.
Goldstein challenges my reference to Hamas’s support for Obama by noting the KKK’s support for Trump, but he fails to mention that Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod – yes, one of the self-hating Jews in a key position in the Obama administration that Goldstein claims proves that Obama isn’t an antisemite – announced that the endorsement was “flattering.” As it turns out, the Obama campaign was not merely flattered by Hamas’s endorsement; it was likely taking advice from the terror organization through Robert Malley, an Obama campaign advisor who was in regular contact with Hamas. Moreover, the fact that Obama earned about as high a percentage of the American Muslim vote as the black vote (both over 90 percent) and the broad support for Obama by anti-Israel governments, movements, and organizations – and not just fringe lunatic groups – is, I think, highly significant.
As I wrote, to the extent that Obama may have denounced Farrakhan and Wright, those “condemnations” came only after his associations with those notorious antisemites became publicized, “the chickens came home to roost,” and the political fallout posed a serious problem for his presidency. In response, Goldstein says – well, nothing at all.
Goldstein proudly announces that he did not permit his children to be educated by racist religious leaders, thereby entirely missing my point: that is precisely what Obama did do! Goldstein never even attempts to explain how Obama could have sat for 20 years listening to the antisemitic hate spewed by Reverend Wright – and permit his children to be educated by his minister whom he managed to rebuke only after two decades of his “religious” leadership.
As to Goldstein’s argument that saying one regrettable thing does not define a person, I wholeheartedly agree, particularly in our frightening contemporary “woke” culture where one ill-considered statement uttered in your youth can get you “cancelled.” But as I have shown, we are not talking about a single statement or a single event here but rather a sustained pattern and practice over a long period of time.
Goldstein admits that Obama’s abstention at the U.N. – which was actually the culmination of eight years of intense anti-Israel hatred – was “notorious,” but he then resorts to the perpetration of the lie so beloved to antisemites throughout the world: that being anti-Israel is not antisemitic. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor is not the place to discuss this important and complex issue, but I would point out only that the Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked Obama’s refusal to veto the U.N. resolution as “the most antisemitic incident of 2016” – and, Goldstein should note, not as the most anti-Israel incident of the year.
Perhaps the best evidence of Goldstein’s willful blindness is that rather than considering and responding to the powerful evidence that Obama is an antisemite that Brett Bargar presents in his book, he dismisses the author as “an obscure writer.” Perhaps so, but that is the oldest trick in the book: if you can’t rebut a writer’s arguments, attack the writer or simply write him off. However, many famous people who began as “obscure writers” produced important works; for example, almost nobody ever heard of Margaret Mitchell before she wrote Gone With the Wind, or Harper Lee before she wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, or that “obscure” Austrian painter before he wrote Mein Kampf.
Finally, Goldstein accuses me of subscribing to “the very methodology that the left uses to undo American exceptionalism” and that “we are great despite our mistakes.” What offensive rot! I deeply believe that America is the greatest country on earth – until the Third Beit Hamikdash is built, at least – for the very reason that Goldstein cites and countless others, but facts are facts, and sometimes you have to call a spade a spade – and an antisemite an antisemite.
Saul Jay Singer
‘Education’ vs. Outrage
A third grade class in a Washington, D.C., public school was made to reenact aspects of the Holocaust, including pretending to dig graves and execute their classmates. A Jewish student was made to portray Hitler and pretend to commit suicide. The “teacher” explained to the class that the Jews were killed because “they ruined Christmas.” This same person told the class not to tell their parents about this. When exposed, the school’s principal apologized, calling it “inappropriate”.
Not outrageous, not horrendous, not inexcusable, not unforgivable, not even unprofessional. The teacher was suspended – not terminated.
However, the truly disturbing part is the lack of any forceful response by the Jewish organizations who, of course, revert to their mantra of the need to educate such people about the Holocaust. The silence of the Jewish community as a whole is deafening. No protests, no demonstrations, no demands for the teacher to be fired, just business as usual.
Had a similar incident focused on slavery, or other African American experience, the whole country would have been up in arms – and leading the way would have been the Jewish organizations like the ADL, which, in this case, issued a call for … you guessed it … “education.” From the detailed reenactment it does not appear that this antisemitic teacher lacked knowledge of what had occurred during the Holocaust. But when it comes to overt antisemitic behavior, Jews remain silent and passive. Until it’s too late.
Dr. Robert Solomon
Boynton Beach, FL
New Mayor, Old Problems
At the height of turmoil in New York City last year, which the NYPD seemed unable to control, then-Governor Cuomo threatened a state takeover of the NYPD. Obviously, no mayor relishes such an occurrence. Crime, riots and looting, unfortunately, have happened in New York City not only under the auspices of Mayor de Blasio but under other administrations as well.
In trying to suppress city residents’ anger over rising crime, which might actually lead to a state takeover of the police – or removal from office of the mayor ultimately in charge of the police – mayors have adopted a variety of tactics. Among these is the hiring of communal liaisons from among the numerous ethnic and religious groups (including the Jewish community) comprising NYC’s diverse population. While these liaisons may be of a given ethnic/religious group, by virtue of being hired and paid by the mayor, these individuals inevitably, are faced with a conflict of interest. Can these liaisons truly be good faith advocates for their respective ethnic/religious group while on a mayor’s payroll? Or, as has been seen over the years, are these liaisons primarily serving a given mayor’s interest in quashing dissatisfaction with the mayoralty that might result in jeopardizing his/her continued term(s) in office? Some thoughts work pondering on the eve of a new mayor assuming office.
Chaim Kramer
Brooklyn, NY
Facebook Failure
It is no wonder that Facebook has failed to curb antisemitic and other violent, hateful postings from its pages (“EU Lawmakers Blast Facebook …” Dec. 24). After all, Facebook censors are way too busy removing anti-progressive, anti-Fauci or any other postings that run contrary to its political biases from its pages. Those get removed at a near 100% rate.
Sonny Taragin
Baltimore, MD
Kudos for Rabbi Enkin
I really enjoyed Rabbi Ari Enkin’s article entitled “The Tzava’a of Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid” (Dec. 17). It was very interesting and very well documented. Keep up the good work!
Harold Rose
Via email