If there were any lingering doubts about how Obama really feels about Israel “in his kishkes,” the coming nomination of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary has sufficiently put them to rest.
But that doesn’t mean we’ll hear apologies from all the pro-Israel Democrats who vouched for him before reelection. The most entrenched Jewish Obama defenders, the ones who sunk too much of their credibility into him to turn back, will now set to work trying to justify Hagel.
As Jonathan wrote, we’ll probably hear how Hagel’s views have “evolved” and “don’t matter anyway,” because Obama sets the policies. That’s nonsense. Just about the only thing notable about Hagel’s decades-long record is that, when given a choice between totalitarian regimes and democrats, time and time again he has sided with the former. And if Obama just wanted a lackey, he had plenty of more qualified choices who would have breezed through confirmation. There is only one reason, one possible advantage, of choosing a fight over Hagel. And that’s to send a message to Israel and Iran.
It’s a message Iran has apparently received loud and clear, according to its state-owned Press TV (h/t WFB):
Obama to name anti-Israeli Hagel as Defense Secretary: Reports
All signs indicate that US President Barack Obama is poised to nominate anti-Israel ex-Senator Chuck Hagel as the next defense secretary soon, informed sources say. …
The top nominee for the post of defense secretary was the first Republican senator to publicly criticize the war in Iraq, calling it the worst foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War, and he has consistently opposed any plan to launch military strike against Iran. …
Pundits believe the appointment of Hagel could spark tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv, but they predict no considerable trouble in his confirmation process in the Congress as he enjoys bipartisan support.
For whatever reason, Obama wants a defense secretary who the Iranian regime views as “anti-Israel” and anti-military force. Maybe he thinks it will help bring Iran to the negotiating table, or push the Israeli military to try to deal with the problem unilaterally. But it’s clear Obama never really gave up on his desire to reach out to the genocidal butchers in Tehran. He just put it off until he had more flexibility.
So now we let Iranian propagandists pick our cabinet members?
Please, Vile Old Anti-Semite–don't pretend that you don't share Iran's fervent wish to see Israel gone.
and the answer is … what is this, Jeopardy?
heh n nwe are letting Valerie, n n " She was born in 1956 in Shiraz, Iran, about 570 miles south of Tehran. Her parents moved to Shiraz, known for its poets, wine and flowers, as part of a program that sent American doctors and agricultural experts to developing countries to help jump-start their health and farming efforts. Her father was on the staff of the brand new Nemazee Hospital, where Jarrett was born. "Every memory from Iran is a very happy memory," Jarrett told me in an e-mail.. n(…) nThey stayed in Iran for six years. n n"I remember how welcoming everyone was to the many Americans who were there," Jarrett told me. "We were viewed by the Iranians as Americans-not black Americans-so I had no awareness of race until we returned to the United States." n n
And your point is . . . . what? That because an Israeli leaker said that, that in fact there is no issue with Hagel? I doubt you mean that or could defend that. So what are you saying exactly? n nThe other possible reason (and one I think a whole lot more likely than the ones you posit) for the leak is that Israel has no choice but to suck up to Obama for the next 4 years so why antagonize him when there is nothing they can do about it.
My point is that besides the Israeli leaker I can find no evidence at all that Israel is concerned about Hagel by reviewing Israeli press online. n nThe Israeli culture is not inclined towards being a "friar" (a sucker) and sucking up. n nMaybe they aren't concerned. n nMaybe they've been taken in and are conned. n nThere are a whole lot of maybes but that this isn't number one with a bullet on their list of worries is as credible as any.
So Hagel is all fine and dandy? I think the concern is long term. The acceptability of Hagel today means the potential acceptability of someone like a Pat Buchanan tomorrow. n nTHAT is the concern. n nThe thin edge of the wedge, etc. n n
there IS no issue with Hagel n nthe issue is with Barry n nHe will appoint anyone who thinks like him and who he can control n nhis whole administrations is anti Israel and in fact, anti America (as we know it)
People have been saying Hagel has no special qualifications for the job. n nAs Alana says, Hagel has 2 qualifications that make him uniquely suited for the SecDeF job: n n1) His attitude towards Iran n2) His attitude towards Israel and 'Jews' n nThe only better picks would have been Brzezinski, Pat Buchanan, or Jimmy Carter. n nObama is telling Israel: "Up Yours." n nObama is telling American Jews:"Eff you. The election's over, I'm not running for a third term, and I don't need your support to be Sec General of the UN after this gig is up."
UNSG is too small a job for Obama's ego. He wants to be emperor of the earth.
Everyone at Commentary needs a time-out on Hagel. nWait for the confirmation hearings.
While I know it's an outrageous analogy, the Jews of Germany kept rationalizing the Nazis' actions all the way to their one-way train rides. What will it take for American Jews to say "never again" about Obama?
well, many knew what was going on but it was hard to leave–emotionally to pick up and go and there weren't that many options or ways to leave without becoming destitute for those who found ways to go and few wanted to take them in.. After the Nuremberg Laws and Kristalnacht the persecution of Jews was omnipresent and brutal–one did what one could to survive and even the hope that "this too would pass" would not have been held naively. But survival mechanisms kick in. The Jews had no chance of a revolt. Israel has an army.
True, that was the purpose of the analogy, and the reason I stated that it's outrageous. We're not headed towards Kristallnacht, there is too little latent anti-semitism in the US to support it. n nYet Obama can do as much damage to world Jewry as the Nazis by indulging Islamists who are as virulent (probably more so) as the Nazis. That's the reason for the "never again" comment. We've repeated that line over and over in our lives, but our allegiance to Obama's brand of progressivism and related moral relevancy prevent so much of American Jewry from heeding it.
The only good thing I see about Hagel is his position on defense expense. For the rest we need to watch the confirmation procedure.
Forget what America's Jews "say!" They are disloyal, venal, self-destructive and hopeless. This is a community that is "Jewish" only by an accident of birth. For the vast majority, they have some vague of idea of "what Jews eat" and "what Jews do for a living," and that is all that identifies them. Thin, no? n nAs for Chuck Hagel, pair him with John Kerry and you have Obama's perfect team to deal with Israel. The plan is this: Hagel will be, if necessary, appointed during he recess. At a point during 2013, after certain signals are sent to Iran's government, Hagel will travel there to cement a deal that will look like this: n nIn return for "promising" to suspend their nuclear enrichment and bomb-building activities, Iran will demand that Israel dismantle its nuclear arsenal or at least render it effectively useless. And Hagel will go along with it. In fact, this deal has already been cooked up between the parties. Perhaps even the Russians were in on the planning. This explains why Obama chose not to lend his support to the Teheran demonstrators in 2009, and perhaps also provides a clue as what he meant when he told Putin and Medveydev "I'll have more flexibility after the election." n nThen Kerry will announce the deal to the UN, Brussels and elsewhere and defend it to the Congress. The next day, headlines around the world will blare: "Iran and US agree to a nuclear-free Middle East." n nIf, as could happen, Israel refuses the "Israel is the 21st-century Czechoslovakia" chess-move by Obama, which can only result in the virtual emasculation of the Jewish state, the headlines will then read: "Israel says 'no' to a nuclear-free Middle East!" And that would mean "checkmate." n nThe only possible course for Israel, given the complicity of America's Jews in elevating a man like Barack Obama to the presidency—in spite of his known sympathies to both Islam and to other anti-American and anti-Jewish forces around the world—is to disregard and ignore whatever the Jewish community here says or does, and instead seek new friends, new alliances, even among America's competitors, e.g., China. Israel's job is very simple: to ensure the survival of the Jewish state, by any and all means necessary. Whatever loyalty Israeli citizens feel towards Jews in the Diaspora is, to put it mildly, misplaced loyalty. They are and have been for along time, a knife forever poised to stab Israel in the back. n nIf Netanyahu is wise, he will head Obama off at the pass, by attacking Iran preemptively. It's a big risk, but nothing compared to the risk of putting the fate of the Jewish people in the hands of Barack Obama. God forbid. n nBut let us stress—something is seriously wrong with the vast majority of America's Jews. They are lost, they are corrupt, and they are—aside from their memberships in local JCCs and country clubs, not Jews at all, other than via the accident of their birth.
Well said. n n
Israel will not commit suicide. If it comes to that they'll tell Obama to take the $4.5 billion or so military assistance and stick it where the sun don't shine. It doesn't matter what the headlines say what the nations say. Hopefully, as a precaution they are doing all in their power to augment and modernize their nuclear weapon capacity. But absolutely Israel hopefully is looking for more reliable allies than what is available. Their are also India, South Korea etc. Americas gold-plated mission creep one billion dollar a plane template might have substitutes for co-development –including advanced computer applications.
I am not sure about the truth of what this article is trying to argue- in my opinion: n1- I totally 100% agree with Hagel- the iraq war was pure stupidity, and even worse, based on a lie. It will forever taint Bush and his administration's tenure. There should be no military strike against Iran. That kind of hasty and rash action does not lead to the world peace that Republican's claim they want so much. That doesn't justify the genocidal comments made by the iranian President agaisnt the Jewsih people at all- but two wrongs do not make a right. n2- The writer of this article makes the assertion that Obama has deliberately chosen Hagel because the Iranian media views him as anti-Israel. Might I ask how they happen to have the authority to make such an assumption? n3- Most importantly, Obama has maintained that Israel is America's strongest ally in the region. The Afghan president corroborated this view when he said that any President America elects always favours Israel, whether Democrat or Republican. He lives in the ME, so it is obvious that he will know better than Republicans having doubts about Obama's foreign policy.
If ridding Iraq of a murderous tyrant and giving them a shot at "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is "sheer stupidity", then I'm all for stupidity. n nI imagine it is the same calculus that leads to the statement that there should be no military strike against Iran – but don't worry, Obama never will (witness his leaving the Iranian post-election revolution high and dry back in 2010, effectively throttling it in the cradle)- as he sits on his hands while Assad butchers his countrymen,"leading from behind" as he did in Libya, and having our ambassador murdered by Al Qaeda (as exhorted to by their leader Ayman al-Zawahiri) on his watch. n nObama is not Israel's strongest ally…unless funding the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, an organization bent on the destruction of the State of Israel, much as their brothers-in-arms Hamas are, is what is meant by "strong ally"…"with friends like these…"
1- Saddam had his problems, but : al-Qaeda had no chance; he left Christians alone. Now, one of the men Saddam jailed said that life was better in Iraq under Saddam than when the US came in. You will find very few Iraqi's who appreciate the damage, mess and carnage the US have left in Iraq. n2- There should be NO military strike against Iran at all. Israel are surrounded by hostile neighbours- why make things worse by a military strike, that probably will last for ever once the US get involved. How invasions with the US have been successful since WW2? Too few. Iran have not got the capability to withstand a military strike- they are too weak n
DR: n"There should be no military strike against Iran. That kind of hasty and rash action does not lead to the world peace that Republican's claim they want so much. That doesn't justify the genocidal comments made by the iranian President agaisnt the Jewsih people at all- but two wrongs do not make a right." n nAnd if Iran completes its ambition to build nuclear weapons, and uses them (or more likely, slips them to their allies in Lebanon and Gaza to do their dirty work) as a terrorist weapon against Israel, what then? They will have fulfilled the ambition of their genocidal comments. Should Israel just what for that to happen and respond after the fact? n nAs to point 2, the source is Iran's state run media. It ran an article precisely to that effect after the Hagel nomination announcement. n nAnd point 3, Obama says a lot of things. You have to watch his actions, not his speeches. Words from him have no meaning unless (like a broken clock twice a day) they happen to agree with actions already underway. He's the ultimate demagogue, very good at telling audiences what they want to hear and getting them to believe it.
Israel's capital is NOT Tel Aviv! IT IS JERUSALEM. Get your facts correct about that.