The themes of life and death are especially poignant illustrations of the Jewish New Year, as we reflect upon our mortality and the moral choices we have made in the course of the past year. Every thought, every word, and every deed has binary consequences. Each act can, as Maimonides explains, redeem the world, or bring about its ruination.

One might wonder: Why would anyone want to choose death over life? Why would anyone prefer cursedness over blessedness? Blessedness and cursedness are not abstractions; they are the products of a lifestyle that people consciously or unconsciously choose.

According to Fromm, two fundamentally orientations compete for the soul of the individual and the world: biophilia and necrophilia. Biophilia denotes the love of life, while necrophilia denotes the love of death.  The love of life is what we experience when observing the beauties of nature; in terms of human behavior, biophilia stresses the importance of treating life with sanctity and dignity.  According to this perspective, life is of infinite value. Love leads to a greater valuation of the people we meet in our lives; whether it is a spouse, a family member who is ailing, or even the stranger who cries out for our generosity and kindness. Fromm felt that human beings must learn to transcend their animalistic evolution by engendering life and resist the impulse to destroy it.

Contrary to popular perceptions, the necrophiliac is not someone who delights in ravishing corpses. Fromm regards necrophilia as a hostility and death force that finds its delight in the devaluation of life; to the necrophiliac, people are objects—a utilitarian means toward a utilitarian end. In a modern society, the worship of technology (especially with respect to the military), the absence of love, and the emergence of the bureaucratic State contribute toward necrophilia as a life-orientation.

Fromm argues that the necrophile’s passion aims to transform that which is alive into something dead, to tear down for the pleasure of seeing an object’s destruction, in obliterating sentient and living structures. Such a person believes that the only way to solve a problem or conflict is through force and violence. Constructive approaches stressing sympathy and co-operative effort.

How does one develop an attitude of biophilia? This all depends upon our upbringing. Living in a life-furthering environment (family and society), develops the biophilous passions of love, tenderness, justice, and the desire to grow things and to further life. Should this impulse be frustrated, resulting in the frustration of our fundamental existential needs, we are likely to develop the character-rooted passions of hate, greed, jealousy, envy, cruelty, narcissism, and destructiveness.

Actions mold character.

When observing the struggles between Palestinians and Israelis, it is not hard to see that the forces of biophilia vs necrophilia exist within each society itself. Radical elements within both communities view violence as a means of achieving their goals—finding delight in the victimization of the Other.

Gaza, for example, poses a very serious problem. Given their propensity toward the worst kinds of violence, Israel is forced to block ships carrying military weapons intended for her destruction. The community of Sedroth endured thousands of missiles shot at their homes and city before Israel finally responded. And despite the criticism the Israeli military received from the Western media, Israel acted with remarkable restraint given the fact that Hamas hid behind human shields.

Like the Nazis of old, today’s radical Islam delights in creating corpses—even if the corpses come from the rank and file of its own society!  Most Americans would be shocked if somebody dedicated a museum to honor the memory of men like Jeffrey Dahmer. Yet,  Gaza maintains museums displaying the body parts of Israelis killed by suicide bombers. Eric Fromm, one of the greatest psychologists and perhaps unsung Jewish thinkers of the 20st century presented one of his most penetrating insights when he described the genocidal mentality that has produced so much suffering in our world.

Haredi Jews, for example, demonstrate a contempt toward others whenever throwing stones at those people who “desecrate” the Sabbath. The violence in Israeli society we have seen with respect to the exhumation of cemeteries reflects the necrophilia of Fromm’s analysis.  Progressive forces within the Palestinian community risk life and limb standing up to the decadent powers that control and micromanage Palestinian society.

I would further add that in recent days, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira (of Chabad) was arrested for inciting violence against the Palestinian Arabs. Shapira is also a rabbi at the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva. Shapira’s controversial book, “The King’s Torah,” regards the killing of non-Jews who threaten Israel as halachically legal. “It is permissible to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation,” the book says, adding: “If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments – because we care about the commandments – there is nothing wrong with the murder. . . It is permissible to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation.”

The Imams of Gaza certainly endorse the concept, but merely apply it to Jews instead. Once a community turns on the outsider, it is only a matter of time before they turn on their fellow members who differ from the reigning status quo.

As anyone can plainly see, standing up to these retrograde and atavistic forces of fundamentalist leaders requires diligence and persistence; but it is a battle, indeed even a “holy war” that can be won with sobriety, patience, and–most importantly–with determination.

This summer I have been working on a another book, whose title I will not mention at the present; this new book promises that will reflect upon the theme and nature of Judaic wisdom in a manner that is elegant–even simple. Stayed tuned in for more!

=====

Well, writing a book is a lot like giving birth to a baby. Granted, being a male member of the human species prevents me from ever having such an experience, but true creativity derives from the depths of our being. This topic reminds me about a remarkable topic in Jewish philosophy that I will share with my readers regarding the nature of human and Divine creativity. Are they the same? In what ways do they differ? In Part I of this essay, we will examine one way of approaching the issue.

Sheneir Zalman (1745-1812) attempts to differentiate between human versus Divine creation. Here is one passage from the Tanya that I have recently translated that will hopefully clarify this topic.

 Let this point serve as an answer to the deists, who deny God’s creation. . . .  In their error, they foolishly imagine that creation is akin to the work and design of mortals as when a smith completes fashioning a vessel, that vessel no longer requires the smith to ensure its existence. Even when its maker is physically removed from it, the vessel remains intact—just as it was when he fashioned it. By the same token, these thinkers foolishly imagine that since heaven and earth exist, the cosmos no longer depends upon the Creator for its raison d’être.

 However, their eyes are covered for they do not differentiate between Divine and human creativity; the latter consists of improving upon something that is already in existence; that is to say, human creativity can only change an object’s form and appearance. Returning to our original analogy of the smith, he merely takes a silver ingot and transforms it into a vessel. Human creativity always consists of altering the form of some pre-existing matter. . . .  After finishing his handiwork, the smith leaves it alone to its own device. Similarly, the smith knows that once his work is finished, it no longer requires his attentiveness . . .  

 . . . In contrast, God’s creation is different. He literally wills the cosmos into being from a state of utter non-being. In reality, physical existence is a novelty that occurs each moment of its duration. . . . If this creative flow ceases—even for a single moment—everything that exists would instantaneously return to its original state of non-being. From this perspective, one must say that creatio ex nihilo is a far greater miracle than even the Splitting of the Sea of Reeds (Exod. 14:21-22; 15:8). For in this case, God merely drove back the sea through the force of a strong east wind that blew throughout the night. The waters at the Sea of Reeds stood immediately erect as if they   were a wall. Had God withdrawn the wind, the waters would instantly revert to their natural flowing state. . . . The element of novelty was obvious to all who witnessed the miracle, they recognized how the Divine power kept the water’s temporary structure intact. . . . However, after the last of the Israelites finished crossing, the waters of the Sea of Reeds reverted back to its natural state. What is true with regard to a great biblical miracle applies all the more so when comparing it to a miracle like Creation. The entire cosmic reality depends upon its Creator to provide it with being each moment it exists. . . . Ethereal letters expressed by the Divine Word continue animating and renewing Creation for all time. This would explain why the Psalmist proclaims, “Your Word stands in the Heavens. . . .” (Psa. 33:6)

 . . . From the human perspective, the only reason why the universe and all of its entities appear as though they are self-derivative is due to our inability to recognize the Divine Source that is animating the cosmos. We do not comprehend, nor do we see with our corporeal eyes how the Divine power of God and the “breath of His Mouth,” assume the form of Creation. However, if the human eye were able to see and comprehend the life-force and spiritual flow infusing Creation directly, “from the mouth of God” and “His breath,” then physical and tangible world would cease to exist, and all would be exactly as it was before the Six Days of Creation—when all was naught. .  . . We would see reality as it truly is—a manifestation of Godliness.[1]

More recently Anshel Pfeffer, a columnist of the Ha’aretz newspaper, argues that the fast of the 10th month would eventually come to an end, and with the other fast days[1], will become transformed into days of feasting and happiness (Zech 8:19).

Pfeffer writes:

“Changed attitudes by God and Israel prompted a question: What is the need for all these fasts? There was none. Instead of having fasts to remember all the bad moments in their history, God instructed them to have joyful feasts. In other words, the fasts were to be turned to feasts and occasions of joy. “The fast … shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore, love the truth and peace” (8:19). The horrors of the fall of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple, and other calamities would drift into obscurity as joy flooded their hearts through the manifold mercies of the Lord . . . ”

One must ask: Have we in our own day realized this ancient biblical prophecy? Well, in a word: yes and no. The Jewish return to her ancestral homeland is indeed one of the most remarkable chapters of Jewish history–both ancient and modern–and logically one could make the case that Tisha’ B’Av has finally fulfilled its purpose. However, the fact remains that the Third Temple has not yet been built, and given the draconian attitude of the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidic leadership), one can safely conclude that the Third Temple will not be built any time in the near or distant future.

Exile is more than just a brute physical fact, it is a way of thinking; unfortunately, our spiritual healthiness today reflects a religious community that is at odds within itself. The recent attempt to delegitimize the Diaspora Jewish community only proves that there are many obstacles that prevent us from truly fulfilling the biblical passages cited above.  When Jews attack and destroy synagogues in Israel as the Haredi did earlier this year with the Intel building just because this gentile business remained open on Shabbat, we have a serious problem that all Jews must earnestly address.

Hurling stones on Shabbat in the holy city of Jerusalem reflects a spiritual disease of intolerance that is far deadlier to the Jewish people than all the missiles shot by the Palestinians in Gaza or from Lebanon. The Talmud (BT Gittin 55b-57a) describes how the zealots purposely burned the food silos rather than make a truce with the Romans, killing anyone who got in their way. When we watch how the Haredim are behaving in Israel today, joining forces with the Palestinians who wish to uproot the Jewish presence altogether, we must wonder whether we have sunk to a new historical low.  

How can we as a “chosen people” bear witness to our unique vocation when in reality, we are doing everything to rip our nation apart? The religious fanaticism that propelled our ancestors to fight against Rome ended in the destruction of our homeland. The real enemies of the Jewish people proved to be–not the Romans–but Jews who acted violently toward their own fellow Jewish citizens.

Rabbinic wisdom in the Talmud and subsequent texts explains how “sin’at hinnum” (gratuitous hatred) resulted in the exile of our people; the real question we must ask is: Have we learned any wisdom from the mistakes of our forbearers?

============

Notes:

[1] Of course, one might ask: What other fast days was the prophet Zechariah referring to? Simply put, the fast of the fifth month marked the tragic destruction of the temple on the seventeenth day (2 Kgs 25:8). The other subsidiary events were included under the greater (cf. 8:19): the ninth day of the fourth month is recorded as the date when the city wall was breached (Jer. 39:2); the fast of the seventh month commemorated the murder of Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:25; Jer. 41:1f.), and the tenth day of the tenth month marked the beginning of Nebuchadrezzar’s siege of the city (2 Kgs 25:1, 2; Jer. 39:1) These special days had become hallowed by observance for over sixty years

During the Three Weeks, we reflect upon the events that led to the loss of Jewish independence. We remember how the death of two million Jews marked the largest number of Jews killed (according to Josephus) prior to the Holocaust. As Jews, memory is never something that is passive; it must be active, dynamic, and—hopefully—transforming.

Unlike most Jewish holidays, Tisha B’Av recalls the time when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 586 B.C.E. Jewish tradition also teaches that the Second Temple was also destroyed on this day, but this time it was by the Romans in the year 70 C.E.

THE QUESTION

Thus far, I did not tell you anything you probably did not already know. However, anyone familiar with the biblical chronology of the Temple’s destruction will see an obvious problem with this rabbinic tradition. Historically, the Tanakh teaches us that the Temple was really destroyed on the 10^th of Av (cf. Jer. 52:12-14).

You are probably asking yourselves, “Wait a minute! Something’s wrong with this picture. Jews do not fast on the 10^th of Av, but on the 9^th of Av!”

 Ok, we can now ask the most important Jewish question of the day: Why did the Sages designate the 9^th of Av as the fast day commemorating the Temple’s destruction? One reason suggested is that the Babylonians originally torched the Temple on the 9^th; and from this perspective, the beginning of a tragedy is believed to be greater than its ending. However, this explanation seems to fall short of the mark for according to 2 Kings 25:8-10 plainly states the destruction began on the 7^th of Av and ended on the 10^th!

 To understand the Bible, you must learn to read in between the lines; this same principle applies no less to reading rabbinic texts as well. 

 I suspect the symbolism has more what to do with the Jewish attitude of hope, for the number nine corresponds to the period of pregnancy; our Sages thus teach that the Messiah was born on the 9^th of Av! This would indicate that the seeds of renewal and hope lay in the ashes of the past; despair must not have the final word. The theme of redemption in Jewish history reminds us that each of us plays a pivotal role in the healing of the world that must begin first with healing our own wounded spirit.

 A SHORT TALMUDIC LESSON

 A famous Talmudic story illustrates my point quite nicely.

 About 25 years after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, four rabbis had a most remarkable discussion when they visited Rome. As Rabban Gamaliel, R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah, R. Joshua and R. Akiba were walking on the road, they heard the noisy crowds that had just arrived from the Italian port city of Puteoli . . . The Sages began to weep, but R. Akiba was buoyant.

 Shocked by their colleague’s demeanor, they asked him, “Akiba, why are you so happy?” Akiba answered the rabbinic question the same way all rabbis answer a question—with another question! Akiba retorted, “Why are you weeping?” They replied, “Look at these good for nothing pagans, who worship graven images and burn incense to their deities. Why should they be entitled to live in safety and ease? Our Temple, the ‘Footstool’ of our God, has been destroyed by fire—how can we not weep?!”

 Akiba’s answer reflected an optimistic attitude the Sages did not consider. He replied, “That is precisely why I am merry! Look, if this is the fare of those who offend God, how much better will the fare be of those who truly worship their Maker!” Had the Rabbis seen the Vandals’ sack of Rome in 455, they probably would have felt vindicated.

 Scene Two:

As the Sages eventually made their way back to Jerusalem, they arrived at Mount Scopus they saw a fox emerging from the place that used to be the Holy of Holies. Once again, the Sages began to weep, while Rabbi Akiba looked happy.

 They asked him, “Why are you so happy?” He replied, “Why are you so sad?” The Sages replied that the sacred place that proscribed death to anyone else who was the High Priest had now become a haunt for foxes, “How can we not weep at the sight of this tragedy?” But Akiba replied that there were two prophetic predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem.

 Simply put, as far as Akiba was concerned, the prophecy of gloom and doom pertained to the destruction of the first Temple and the Second Temple, but Akiba believed that there would come a future time when the streets of Jerusalem would once again be inhabited by the sound of music and young people. Listen to the prophecy of Zechariah:

 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Old men and old women, each with staff in hand because of old age, shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem. The city shall be filled with boys and girls playing in her streets.  Thus says the LORD of hosts: Even if this should seem impossible in the eyes of the remnant of this people, shall it in those days be impossible in my eyes also, says the LORD of hosts?  Thus says the LORD of hosts: Lo, I will rescue my people from the land of the rising sun, and from the land of the setting sun. I will bring them back to dwell within Jerusalem. They shall be my people, and I will be their God, with faithfulness and justice. Thus says the LORD of hosts: Let your hands be strong, you who in these days hear these words spoken by the prophets on the day when the foundation of the house of the LORD of hosts was laid for the building of the temple (Zech. 4-9).

In other words, rather than focusing on the destruction of the past, it is far better to believe that God will someday rebuild the fallen city of Jerusalem and restore it to her former glory. When the Sages heard Akiba’s comforting words, they replied, “Akiba, you have truly comforted us! Akiba, you have truly comforted us!”

 BACK TO THE FUTURE

 Whenever I read this Talmudic passage, I think about how we—in our generation—have been so privileged to see Jerusalem restored to her former glory in our time. Yet, I find it also so appalling—even disturbing—that the Jewish communities of the Diaspora have yet to recognize this great miracle that God has allowed us to see and witness before a cynical and anti-Semitic world.

When Obama, Biden, and Hillary dared to call East Jerusalem, an “occupied territory,” the Obama administration made an error that no previous presidential leader had ever made before.

Dear friends, if the area of East Jerusalem is not considered “Jewish,” then none of Israel is “Jewish” either. Rabbinic tradition teaches us that the Temple was destroyed because Jews failed to stand together as a community against Rome. The United States should not be standing side by side with Hamas, it should be standing side by side with Israel.

Obama once had 80% of the Jewish voters; statistics now say he has only 50% backing him. Frankly, he deserves 5% of the Jewish voters for showing a vitriolic hatred toward Israel—even now as Iran plans to wipe Israel off the map. Let me remind you that six million Jews now live in Israel. Does this number sound vaguely familiar?

 Let us use this time to show our support for the Jewish State—especially now in a time of great adversity.

 Hillel once said, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” This period of Jewish history must be remembered as a time when the Jewish people learned from the mistakes of the past.

 We can become a united people—despite our religious or political differences. It begins with a choice and a positive attitude. Let us do our part, and pray that God will give us the strength to survive against our multitude of enemies.

The connection between Obama and his administration with Hamas is very disturbing. Frankly–it is downright amazing in light of the 9/11 attack on our country, yet Obama continues to court the very terrorists organizations that carried out this devastating attack upon our country.

Enabling evil is a serious and moral crime. Churchill said it best, “Appeasement is throwing someone else to the crocodiles in the hopes of being eaten last.” Our spineless presidential adminstration embodies this sick pathological attitude Churchill warned the future generations about.

Recently, we discovered that about 50% of the American Jewish community supports Obama–a far cry from the 80% who supported him during the last election. Now, let’s see if we can cut his support to 5% of  the Jewish community. Unfortunately, many Jews love the Democratic Party more than they do the State of Israel. While it is true, Israel’s flirtation with Haredi Jewish leaders certainly does not engender warm and fuzzy feelings toward Israel, nevertheless, I believe this moment of history is a very special one. Our ancestors prayed for our eventual return to our homeland, are we going to trade our spiritual home for a pot of political-flavored lentils? 

Remember: Supporting Hamas is like supporting the KKK.

==========================

How Hamas rises in the West

By Caroline B. Glick

It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. Here’s why

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Since the navy’s May 31 takeover of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisers have deliberated around the clock about how to contend with the US-led international stampede against Israel. But their ultimate decision to form an investigatory committee led by a retired Supreme Court justice and overseen by foreign observers indicates that they failed to recognize the nature of the international campaign facing us today.Led by US President Barack Obama, the West has cast its lot with Hamas. It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama’s friends, former Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fund-raiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is James Abourezk, a former US senator from South Dakota.

All of these people have open lines of communication not only to the Obama White House, but to Obama himself.

Obama has made his sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood clear several times since entering office. The Muslim Brotherhood’s progeny include Hamas, al-Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Last June, Obama infuriated the Egyptian government when he insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo. His administration’s decision to deport Hamas deserter and Israeli counterterror operative Mosab Hassan Yousef to the Palestinian Authority where he will be killed is the latest sign of its support for radical Islam.

Given Obama’s attitude toward jihadists and the radical leftists who support them, his decision to support Hamas against Israel makes sense. What is alarming however is how leaders of the free world are now all siding with Hamas. That support has become ever more apparent since the Mossad’s alleged killing of Hamas terror master Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at his hotel in Dubai in January.In the aftermath of Mabhouh’s death, both Britain and Australia joined the Dubai-initiated bandwagon in striking out against Israel. Israel considers both countries allies, or at least friendly and has close intelligence ties with both. Yet despite their close ties, Australia and Britain expelled Israeli diplomats who supposedly had either a hand in the alleged operation or who work for the Mossad.It should be noted that neither country takes steps against outspoken terror supporters who call for Israel to be destroyed and call for the murder of individual Israelis.For instance, in an interview last month with The Australian, Ali Kazak, the former PLO ambassador to Australia, effectively solicited the murder of The Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh. Kazak told the newspaper, “Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor.”Allowing that many Palestinians have been murdered for such accusations, Kazak excused those extrajudicial murders saying, “Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere.”Not only did Australia not expel Kazak or open a criminal investigation against him, as a consequence of his smear campaign against Abu Toameh, several Australian government officials cancelled their scheduled meetings with him.

AND OF course, this week we have the actions of Germany and Poland. They are considered Israel’s best friends in Europe, and yet acting on a German arrest warrant, Poland has arrested a suspected Mossad officer named Uri Brodsky for his alleged involvement in the alleged Mossad operation against Mabhouh. Israel is now caught in a diplomatic disaster zone where its two closest allies — who again are only too happy to receive regular intelligence updates from the Mossad — are siding with Hamas against it.And then of course we have the EU’s call for Israel to cancel its lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. That is, the official position of the EU is that an Iranian proxy terrorist organization should be allowed to gain control over a Mediterranean port and through it, provide Iran with yet another venue from which it can launch attacks against Europe.For their part, the Sunni Arabs are forced to go along with this. The Egyptian regime considers the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood took over Gaza a threat to its very survival and has been assiduously sealing its border with Gaza for some time. And yet, unable to be more anti-Hamas than the US, Australia and Europe, Mubarak is opening the border. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa’s unprecedented visit to Gaza this week should be seen as a last ditch attempt by Egypt to convince Hamas to unify its ranks with Fatah. Predictably, the ascendant Hamas refused his entreaties.As for Fatah, it is hard not to feel sorry for its leader Mahmoud Abbas these days. In what was supposed to be a triumphant visit to the White House, Abbas was forced to smile last week as Obama announced the US will provide $450 million in aid to his sworn enemies who three years ago ran him and his Fatah henchmen out of Gaza.So too, Abbas is forced to cheer as Obama pressures Israel to give Hamas an outlet to the sea. This will render it impossible for Fatah to ever unseat Hamas either by force or at the ballot box. Hamas’s international clout demonstrates to the Palestinians that jihad pays.

THERE ARE three plausible explanations for the West’s decision to back Hamas. All of them say something deeply disturbing about the state of the world. The first plausible explanation is that the Americans and the rest of the West are simply naive. They believe that by backing Hamas, they are advancing the cause of Middle East peace.If this is in fact what the likes of Obama and his European and Australian counterparts think, apparently no one in the West is thinking very hard. The fact is that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are backing Hamas against Fatah and they are backing Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hamas and Hizbullah against Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They are backing the most radical actors in the region — and arguably in the world — against states and regimes they have a shared strategic interest in strengthening.There is absolutely no way this behavior advances the cause of peace.The second plausible explanation is that the West’s support for Hamas is motivated by hatred of Israel. As Helen Thomas’s recent remarks demonstrated, there is certainly a lot of that going around.The final plausible explanation for the West’s support for Hamas is that it has been led to believe that by acting as it is, it will buy itself immunity from attack by Hamas and its fellow members of the Iranian axis. As former Italian president Francesco Cossiga first exposed in a letter to Corriere della Serra in August 2008, in the early 1970s Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed a deal with Yasser Arafat that gave the PLO and its affiliated organizations the freedom to operate terror bases in Italy. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to limit their attacks to Jewish and Israeli targets. Italy maintained its allegiance to the deal — and to the PLO against Israel — even when Italian targets were hit.Cossiga told the newspaper that the August 2, 1980 bombing at the Bologna train station — which Italy blamed on Italian fascists — was actually the work of George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Eighty-five people were murdered in the attack, and still Italy maintained its agreement with the PLO to the point where it prosecuted and imprisoned the wrong people for the worst terrorist attack in its history.Cossiga alleged that the deal is still in place today and that Italian forces in UNIFIL have expanded the deal to include Hamas’s fellow Iranian proxy Hizbullah. It isn’t much of a stretch to consider the possibility that Italy and the rest of the Western powers have made a similar deal with Hamas. And it is no stretch at all to believe that they will benefit from it as greatly as the Italian railroad passengers in Bologna did.True, no one has come out and admitted to supporting Hamas. So too, no one has expressed anything by love for Israel and the Jewish people. But the actions of the governments of the West tell a different tale. Without one or more of the explanations above, it is hard to understand their current policies.Since the flotilla incident, Netanyahu and his ministers have held marathon deliberations on how to respond to US pressure to accept an international inquisition into the IDF’s lawful enforcement of the legal blockade of the Gaza coast. Their deliberations went on at the same time as Netanyahu and his envoys attempted to convince Obama to stop his mad rush to give Hamas an outlet to the sea and deny Israel even the most passive right of self-defense.It remains to be seen if their decision to form an investigative panel with international “observers” was a wise move or yet another ill-advised concession to an unappeasable administration. What is certain, however, is that it will not end the West’s budding romance with Hamas.The West’s decision to side with Hamas is devastating. But whatever the reasons for it, it is a fact of life. It is Netanyahu’s duty to swallow this bitter pill and devise a strategy to protect the country from their madness. 

Now, let’s see if we can get the other 50 % of the Jewish community to get rid of him and his leftist buddies.

After some thought, the idea occurred to me that the Flotilla is yet another type of smoke-screen intended to deflect the world’s attention from Iran and their race to build a nuclear bomb. As with baseball or tennis, it pays to keep our eye on the ball.

===============
Photo by: ASSOCIATED PRESS

This episode reminds me a lot of the current crisis with Hamas, who is winning the PR war against Israel. No matter what Israel offers the Palestinians, nothing short of national suicide or genocide will satisfy the radical Muslim blood-lust. Steeped in a millennial hatred of the Jew, Europe supports Hamas because they hate seeing the Jew as vibrant and more virulent than they are. I realize these words probably will sting the sensibilities of leftists–Christian and Jewish–but that’s too bad.

Europeans have proven time and time again why the Holocaust occurred on their continent. In my opinion, the political left of Europe is bereft of a moral backbone, not to mention, a conscience. Obama’s lack of support speaks volumes. If reelected, you can be sure that Obama will be leading the chorus against Israel. A recent report says that 80% of American Jews voted for Obama. Now, he has only 50%. Frankly, he should have only 5%. Are we that foolish?  Obama is Jimmy Carter redux.

Can we do better? YES WE CAN!

RMLS

=================

Charles Krauthammer on the president’s Israeli response
Thursday, June 03, 2010

HH: I’m joined now by Charles Krauthammer, who is a Washington Post columnist as well as a Fox News All-Star. Charles, earlier today, Jimmy Carter said that these tragic deaths are a terrible reminder that the failed policy of besieging Gaza mainly hurts civilians. He went on to say there is no way to realize the goal of a two-state solution as long as the people of Gaza remain isolated and deprived of their basic human rights. He certainly isn’t standing with Israel, is he?

CK: Yeah, and he also knows no history. I mean, his animus towards Israel overrides even logic in his case. The fact is that long before the blockade, long before any of this, Gaza, run by Hamas, is committed to the destruction of Israel. It has never accepted a two-state solution, so it is totally fatuous to say that in the absence of a blockade, or there was some change in Israeli policy, Hamas would ever agree to a two-state solution. It has repeated its opposition to Israel’s existence, and its determination to fight to the end to its destruction at every opportunity for thirty years. So what Carter says is the usual nonsense coming from him on the Middle East, and it’s worse than nonsense. It’s highly, highly prejudiced nonsense.

HH: Less than an hour ago, CNN released tape of Larry King asking President Obama about the Carter statement. Let me play you that tape, Charles, from CNN.

LK: Former President Carter has condemned the Israeli raid against those ships in the flotilla trying to break the blockade of Gaza.

BHO: Right.

LK: Where do stand on that? A former American president has condemned it.

BHO: Well, the United States with the other members of the UN Security Council said very clearly that we condemned all the acts that led up to this violence. It was a tragic situation. You’ve got loss of life that was unnecessary. And so we are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened, and I think the Israelis are going to agree to that, an investigation of international standards, because they recognize that this can’t be good for Israel’s long term security.

LK: Premature, then, to condemn Israel?

BHO: Well, I think that we need to know what all the facts are, but it’s not premature to say to the Israelis, and to say to the Palestinians, and to say to all the parties in the region, that the status quo is unsustainable. We have been trying to do this piecemeal for decades now. And it just doesn’t work. You’ve got to have a situation in which the Palestinians have real opportunity, and Israel’s neighbors recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns, and are committed to peace.

HH: What do you make of that, Charles, that both the question, how it was answered, and how it should have been answered?

CK: Well, I find it equally fatuous for the president to say that we need to have, the present situation is unsustainable, you have to have a situation in which the Palestinians have what they need, and the Israel security needs are recognized. Everybody knows that Hamas is not going to recognize Israel’s security needs. Israel withdrew from Gaza. It took out every settler, every soldier, every Jew. There wasn’t a Jew left in Gaza. They were given independence. Israel had an open hand. It was quite willing to have open, friendly relations. And what did it get in return? Remember people used to say land for peace? If you offer land, you’re going to get peace? It got war. It got 6,000 rockets launched into Israel attacking schools and houses wantonly and gratuitously, and purposely. So to speak about this as if somehow Israel is at fault because it blockaded an entity that’s attacking it with weaponry, and wants to prevent the importation of even more rockets, is simply  astonishing. I think the United States under this administration has left Israel out in the cold, and that’s why the world has been so eager and sort of enthusiastic in attacking Israel in the UN and elsewhere, because it sees that the kind of protective, moral umbrella that the United States has held over Israel all these years, understanding its needs, understanding its democracy, understanding its incredible yearning to have a real peace, that umbrella has been removed under this administration, and it’s open season on Israel.

HH: Now Charles Krauthammer, I believe that the Monday UN resolution was a huge breach with past American policy on Israel. But then Jake Tapper comes out the next day and says there are sources in the White House who says there will be no daylight between the U.S. and Israel. Last night, Joe Biden goes on Charlie Rose and says what’s the big deal? Israel’s running a blockade. And then today, Barack Obama goes on Larry King and opens up the daylight again. It’s like there are two administrations here.

CK: No, I think the Biden stuff is just to allow him to get, you know, lengthen his leash to say a few things that might reassure a few naïve and gullible pro-Israel Americans, of which I would say 98% of the pro-Israel community in the United States, amazingly, is not Jewish. I mean, there’s an unbelievable constituency who support Israel because it’s a democracy, and because it’s a brave country holding its own against a lot of despots. But no, the policy of the U.S. was to support the statement out of the Security Council, which condemned the acts. Well, who’s acts do you think are involved here? But the worst part is what was in the resolution, what was in the statement, and what the president said on Larry King, which was we want an international investigation. We just had one on the Gaza war. It’s called the Goldstone report. It is a calumny against Israel. It’s a blood libel. It accuses it essentially of having conducted a criminal operation in Gaza when in fact, it was one of the most restrained and humane military actions probably in the history of counterinsurgency. And it compares very favorably with anything American has done in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. So we know what the UN will give us. It will give us a report that you can write in advance, is going to be anti-Israel and inflammatory. So that’s what we, we are demanding a second Goldstone report on this incident?

HH: Now you’ve already said that it is because of the withdrawal of the umbrella that Israel’s critics feel so emboldened. But what do you make of people like, for example, Peter Beinart, a very well-respected, very established supporter of Israel, blasting Israel in the aftermath of the flotilla even before, as far as I can see, the videos came out. Within 24 hours, people were unwilling, long standing, traditional supporters of Israel, unwilling to wait here, Charles. I can’t believe it, but what’s going on?

CK: Well, I mean, there are a lot of people who, let me say, that are rather weary of supporting the right and the good and the just here, with the unrelenting opposition from of course the Arab world, Islamic world, from the European and American left. Particularly if you’re on the left, as Beinart is and others are, you’ve got to choose. You know, do you really want to go into your cocktail parties and your dinners and have to actually spend the evening defending an extremely unpopular cause? Or would you rather acquiesce to the general zeitgeist of piling on Israel and taking the side, essentially, of parties who have declared themselves, like Hamas and like others, to have no use for Israel? I mean, there is a great movement, even among, particularly in the European left, of declaring that the whole creation of Israel was in and of itself either a mistake or a crime, and needs to be undone. We’re not speaking about a two state solution these people want on the left. It’s the one state solution, and it doesn’t include Israel.

HH: That’s very dispiriting, Charles, because…

CK: Well, it is, but if that’s where you want to go, I mean, if you’re on the left, and that’s who you hang out with, that’s the way you go.

HH: But that would mean even intellectuals like Beinart cannot see the obvious problem with allowing any ship to go to Gaza. It’s insane. They can’t let ships freely enter Gaza.

CK: It’s quite obvious, isn’t it? Didn’t we have a blockade on Cuba in October, 1962?

HH: Well, we wouldn’t let the Taliban receive convoys without checking them right now.

CK: Correct.

HH: I don’t care if they said they were…it’s just nuts.

CK: And do you think the Turks would allow a procession of vehicles carrying “humanitarian aid” on the way to the Kurds in the interior of Turkey?

HH: Excellent. Now Arthur Brooks, who will be my guest next week, has written a book that says this is a 70/30 country, 70% conservative, freedom-loving, and I would argue supporting Israel, 30% in control of all the power right now, but anti-free enterprise, and I’m going to say, not Brooks by extension, anti-Israel. Does the 70% use this last occasion this week, Charles, to solidify their resolve to toss these people out in November?

CK: Well, I’m not sure what the reaction is going to be. There was a Gallup poll on Israel recently, 63% pro-Israel, about, I think, 10 or 12 pro-Palestinian. That’s about a six to one ratio. It’s been that way consistently for the last thirty years or so, which makes American remarkable. That is not the way it stands in Europe and elsewhere. I think Americans have a basic decency, and also an incredibly calm sense of common sense, and they know what’s right and who’s right. Look, ten years ago next month, Israel offered the most generous peace settlement in the history of the Middle East – a Palestinian state, half of Jerusalem, a swap of territories, everything that the Palestinians had asked. And what did it get? Not just a refusal, but it got war in response. That’s all you have to know.

HH: Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post, thank you.

Here Is Daniel Gordis’s excellent article that appeared in the NY Times today.

============================

We lost the 2006 war in Lebanon, believing – incorrectly – that our venerated air force could win the war from the skies. The strikes on Gaza in December 2008 were a military success, but we have utterly failed to convince the world that it was a defensive effort precipitated by eight years of Hamas’s firing Qassam rockets at us, killing and maiming and destroying any semblance of a normal life for Israelis living near the border. And then came Monday’s attack on the flotilla trying to break through the naval blockade of Gaza.

Yet, despite widespread criticism at the way the raid was conducted, few here doubted that stopping the flotilla was the right thing to do. Life in Gaza is unquestionably oppressive; no one in his right mind would choose to live there. But there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; if anyone goes without food, shelter or medicine, that is by the choice of the Hamas government, which puts garnering international sympathy above taking care of its citizens. Israel has readily agreed to send into Gaza all the food and humanitarian supplies on the boats after they had been inspected for weapons.

Thus this flotilla was no “peace operation.” It was intended to break the blockade or to increase international pressure to end it. Its leaders, with the connivance of the Turkish government, set a trap, and Israel blundered smack into it.

But that does not make the blockade wrong. Hamas is a terrorist organization that completed its takeover of Gaza through brute force. It executes its political enemies at will. It is one of the world’s most misogynist regimes, allowing the murder of women for the slightest infraction of family honor.

Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from Israeli territory and has held him for four years without giving the Red Cross any access to him, in violation of the most basic international standards of conduct. And, of course, Hamas openly insists that it will countenance no long-term peace with Israel; the resistance will not end, it says, until Israel is destroyed.

Like every other country, Israel has as its foremost obligation the protection of its citizens. Given that, why should it have allowed the flotilla to enter without inspecting its goods? If the United States were to impose a blockade on Iran (which seems unlikely), and another country dispatched a string of ships in a similar operation, is there any chance the United States Navy would let them through without inspection?

Israel will, of course, endure tremendous international condemnation for this week’s events. Sadly, though, we Israelis are becoming somewhat inured to such criticism. And we know that we dare not capitulate now.

It is no accident that Turkey sent the flotilla at this time. It is clearly cozying up to Iran these days, even teaming with Brazil to offer Tehran a deal on atomic fuel that would allow the mullahs to maintain their effort to build a nuclear arsenal. Ankara’s warmongering talk this week was not intended for global consumption; it was meant to show Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Turkey is playing a new role in the Middle East.

Iran finances Hezbollah and Hamas and does everything it can to weaken and marginalize Israel, inching toward its vision of a world without a Jewish state. The West has known of Iran’s nuclear intentions for well over a decade, but has effectively done nothing. Israelis understand that we – and we alone – will have to ensure our security and our survival.

The recent avalanche of international condemnation is very painful for Israelis, who remember the years in which we were seen as a beacon of democracy and sophistication in a repressive part of the world. Those days are gone, of course, because of the world’s impatience with the “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza.

Our problem is that though most Israelis want peace with two states – one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side by side – we cannot find anyone to make a deal with us. A decade ago, President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, tried, but Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, walked away. Now the supposedly moderate Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, refuses to negotiate, as of course does Hamas.

Israelis are resigned to the fact that reason will not shake the world’s blatant double standard. Our blockade of Gaza is “criminal”; yet nobody mentions that Egypt has had a blockade of Gaza in placesince 2007, and has never hesitated to use lethal force against those trying to break it. Israel’s attempt to enforce a blockade becomes an international crisis, while most of the world shrugs when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his willingness to sit with Fatah leaders any time, anywhere, but they insist on mere “proximity talks,” which they will probably now scuttle, using the flotilla as an excuse.

Israel’s geographic vulnerability means that we do not have the luxury of caving in to the world’s condemnation. We will have to gird ourselves for the long, dangerous and lonely road ahead, buoyed by hope that what ultimately prevails will be not what is momentarily popular, but rather what is just.

• Early this morning (May 31), Israel Defense Forces naval forces intercepted six ships attempting to break the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.
• The intercept took place after numerous warnings from Israel and the Israel Navy that were issued prior to the action. The Israel Navy requested the ships to redirect toward Ashdod, where they would be able to unload their cargo which would then be transferred to Gaza over land after undergoing security inspections. The IDF stressed that the passengers could then return to their point of departure on the same vessels.
• During the interception of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF naval personnel with live gunfire as well as light weaponry including knives, crowbars and clubs. The demonstrators had clearly prepared weapons in advance for this specific purpose.
• According to reports from sea, on board the flotilla that was seeking to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip, IDF forces apprehended two violent activists holding pistols. These militants apparently grabbed the pistols from IDF forces and opened fire on the soldiers.
• The activists were carrying 10,000 tons of reported aid to Gaza. Israel provides 15,000 tons of aid weekly to Gaza.
• As a result of this life-threatening activity, naval forces employed riot dispersal means, including, when they determined that their lives were in immediate danger, live fire. According to initial reports, these events resulted in over 10 deaths among the demonstrators and numerous injured.
• A number of Israeli naval personnel were injured, some from gunfire and others from knives and crowbars. Two of the soldiers are moderately wounded and the remainder sustained light injuries.
• All of the injured, Israelis and foreigners, are currently being evacuated by a fleet of IDF helicopters to hospitals in Israel.
• Reports from IDF forces on the scene are that some of the participants onboard the ships had planned a lynch-mob attack, using lethal force on the boarding forces.
• The events are still unfolding. Israeli Naval commander, Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom is overseeing the activities.
• In the coming hours, the ships will be directed to the Ashdod port, while IDF naval forces will perform security checks in order to identify the people on board the ships and their equipment.
• The IDF naval operation was carried out under orders from the political leadership to halt the flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip and breaching the naval blockade.

• The provocateurs were organized by an Islamist organization that has links to fundamentalist jihadi groups.
• The extremists brought small children on board knowing that they intended to violate international maritime law.
• The activists were carrying 10,000 tons of what they said was aid. Israel transfers about 15,000 tons of supplies and humanitarian aid every week to the people of Gaza.
• “We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us, they are going to have to forcefully stop us,” said one of the flotilla’s organizers.
• Using the Arabic term ‘intifada,’ Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said “We call on all Arabs and Muslims to rise up in front of Zionist embassies across the whole world.
• Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said this week: “If the ships reach Gaza it is a victory; if they are intercepted, it will be a victory too.
• Israel left Gaza in hopes of peace in 2005 and in return received more than 10,000 rockets and terrorist attacks.
• Israel has said that it will deliver any humanitarian aid to Gaza, as it does daily.
• No country would allow illegal entry of any vessel into their waters without a security check.
• Earlier this week, Noam Shalit, father of Hamas-held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, approached the flotilla’s organizers asking them to take supplies to Gilad. He was refused.

Obama is no Messiah. However, I would say that he is more like a Pied Piper, or better yet–a flimflam man.

Obama would sooner vilify Israel than deal with the “axis of evil” or confront their super-power enablers. Today’s Jerusalem Post’s edition of Caroline Glick’s brilliant article says it quite well. I dare say, “I told you so!”

Obama knows that if he wins the next election, he will continue his insane rhetoric of blaming his failed policies on Israel. I pray that my fellow rabbinic leaders will show some testicular strength in condemning Obama and his court Jews who have sold Israel and the Jewish people down the river.

The Jew is nothing more than a political means to a presidential end.

Note that Rahm Emanual recently celebrated his son’s Bar Mitzvah at the Western Wall! What a phony! Isn’t the Jewish part of Jerusalem, “occupied territory,” according to Obama, Biden, and Hillary? Let’s not give Obama a Kosher hechser–he is as kosher as Rubashkin.

Can we do better? YES WE CAN!

Let’s make Obama pay in November! A separation of powers  in our government will protect not only Israel, but also the entire free world.

————————————————————-

Photo by: AP

Column One: Netanyahu, Obama’s newest prop

By CAROLINE GLICK
05/28/2010 15:25

Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.

Talkbacks (65)

The Democratic Party is feeling the heat for US President Barack Obama’s hostility towards Israel. In an interview with Channel 10 earlier this month, Democratic Party mega-donor Haim Saban characterized the Obama administration as ideologically aligned with the radical Left and harshly criticized its treatment of Israel.

Both Ma’ariv and Yediot Aharonot reported this week that Democratic congressmen and senators are deeply concerned that the administration’s harsh treatment of Israel has convinced many American Jews not to contribute to their campaigns or to the Democratic Party ahead of November 2’s mid-term elections. They also fear that American Jews will vote for Republican challengers in large numbers.

It is these concerns, rather than a decision to alter his positions on Israel specifically and the Middle East generally, that now drive Obama’s relentless courtship of the American Jewish community. His latest move in this sphere was his sudden invitation to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to visit him at the White House for a “warm reception” in front of television cameras next Tuesday.

It is clear that electoral worries rather than policy concerns are behind what the White House has described as a “charm offensive,” because since launching this offensive a few weeks ago, Obama not changed any of his policies towards Israel and the wider Middle East. In fact, he has ratcheted up these policies to Israel’s detriment.

TAKE HIS goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. On Friday, the UN’s monthlong Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is scheduled to adopt a consensual resolution before adjourning. According to multiple media reports, Israel is set to be the focus of the draft resolution that will likely be adopted.

The draft resolutions being circulated by both Egypt and the US adopt Egypt’s demand for a nuclear-free Middle East. They call for a conference involving all countries in the region to discuss denuclearization. The only difference between the Egyptian draft and the US draft on the issue is that the Egyptians call for the conference to be held in 2011 while the US calls for the convening of the conference in 2012-2013. The draft resolution also calls for all states that are not members of the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – to join the NPT as non-nuclear powers.

So while Iran is not mentioned in the draft resolution – which must be adopted by consensus – in two separate places, Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal is the target of an international diplomatic stampede.

In 2005, Egypt circulated a draft resolution that was substantively identical to its current draft. But in stark contrast to today’s conclave, the NPT review conference in 2005 ended without agreement, because the Bush administration refused to go along with Egypt’s assault on Israel.

Particularly in light of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the Iranian regime’s expressed goal of destroying Israel, the Bush administration preferred to scuttle the conference rather than give any credence to the view that Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal is a greater threat to global security than Iran’s nuclear program – which, as in today’s draft, wasn’t mentioned in Egypt’s resolution five years ago. The Obama administration has no problem going along with Cairo.

Obama’s willingness to place Israel’s nuclear program on the international agenda next to Iran’s is par for the course of his utterly failed policy for contending with Iran’s nuclear program. After his diplomatic open hand policy towards Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was met with a clenched fist, Obama’s attempt to convince the UN Security Council to pass “smart sanctions” against Iran has been checkmated by Iran’s nuclear deal with its newest strategic allies, Turkey and Brazil.

That deal, which facilitates rather than impedes Teheran’s nuclear weapons program, has ended any prospect that the Security Council will pass an additional sanctions resolution against Iran in the near future. But then, in order to secure the now weakened Russian support for his sanctions resolution, Obama exempted Russia from the sanctions and turned a blind eye to continued Russian and Chinese nuclear proliferation activities in Syria, Turkey and Pakistan. Furthermore, Obama agreed to make most of the remaining provisions non-binding.

In the meantime, and in spite of the fact that his sanctions bid is in shambles, Obama has asked congressional Democrats to stall their sanctions bills for another month. So, too, Obama prevailed on his Democratic colleagues in Congress to exempt Russia and China from their sanctions bills.

AS PART of the administration’s attempt to woo American Jews back into the Democratic Party fold despite its anti-Israel policies, last week a group of pre-selected pro-Obama rabbis was invited to the White House for talks with Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and with Dan Shapiro and Dennis Ross, who hold the Palestinian and Iran dossiers on Obama’s National Security Council, respectively. According to a report of the meeting by Rabbi Jack Moline that has not been refuted by the White House, the three men told the Democratic rabbis that the administration has three priorities in the Middle East. First Obama seeks to isolate Iran. Second, he seeks to significantly reduce the US military presence in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. And third, he seeks to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

These priorities are disturbing for a number of reasons. First, isolating Iran is not the same as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. By characterizing its goal as “isolating” Iran, the administration makes clear that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is not its goal. Moreover, as Iran’s deal with Brazil and Turkey makes abundantly clear, Iran is not isolated. Indeed, its foreign relations have prospered since Obama took office.

In his write-up of the meeting, Moline indicated that Ross and Emanuel view Obama’s rejection of Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in Jerusalem as motivated by his goal of isolating Iran. So in the view of Obama’s Jewish advisers, his preferred method of isolating Iran is to attack Israel.

Add that to his third priority of establishing a Palestinian state by the end of next year and you have a US president for whom bashing Israel is his first and third priorities in the Middle East.

When one factors in his willingness to put Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal on the international chopping block, it is clear that there is no precedent for Obama’s hostility towards Israel in the history of US-Israel relations.

THIS BRINGS us to Obama’s meeting next Tuesday with Netanyahu. Obama’s continued commitment to his anti-Israel policies indicates that there are two possible scenarios for next week’s meeting. In the best case, the meeting will have no substance whatsoever. It will be nothing more than a public display of presidential affection for the Israeli premier.

The more likely scenario is that Obama will use the meeting as an opportunity to pressure Netanyahu not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations; not to attack Hizbullah’s and Syria’s missile depots, launchers and silos; and to extend the prohibition on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria beyond its September deadline and expand the prohibition to Jewish home construction in Jerusalem.

Regarding the latter scenario, it can only be hoped that Netanyahu has learned from his previous experiences with Obama. In December, in the hopes of alleviating US pressure, Netanyahu announced an unprecedented 10-month ban on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria. For his efforts, Netanyahu was rewarded with an escalation of American pressure against Israel.

After he pocketed Netanyahu’s concession on Judea and Samaria, Obama immediately launched his poisonous assault on Israeli rights to Jerusalem.

Likewise, Netanyahu’s willingness to outwardly support both Obama’s effort to appease Iran and his efforts to pass anti-Iran sanctions in the Security Council gained Obama a year and a half of quiet from Jerusalem. During that time, Iran has moved within months of the bomb and the US has abandoned its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This experience has one clear lesson: If Obama seeks policy concessions from Israel during their meeting, Netanyahu must reject his entreaties. In fact, it may even be counterproductive for Netanyahu to abstain from responding in the hopes of buying time.

If on the other hand, Obama avoids discussion of substantive issues and devotes his meeting with Netanyahu to a discussion of Michelle Obama’s war on obesity, Netanyahu should consider what Obama did to the family of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl while the president signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act last week.

Pearl was decapitated in 2002 by jihadists in Pakistan. Among other things, his killers claimed he had no right to live because he was Jewish. At the ceremony, Obama barred Pearl’s father, Judea Pearl, from speaking. In so doing Obama reduced Daniel Pearl’s family to the status of mere props as Obama vapidly and reprehensibly proclaimed, “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

This appropriation of Pearl’s murder and denial of what it represented served Obama’s purpose of pretending that there is no jihad and that radical Islam is not a threat to the US. And by silencing Pearl’s father, the president turned him into an unwilling accomplice.

Netanyahu should take two lessons from Obama’s behavior at the ceremony. First, Netanyahu must do everything he can to avoid being used as a prop. This means that he should insist on having a joint press briefing with Obama. He must also insist on having a say regarding which journalists will be included in the press pool and who will be permitted to ask the two leaders questions.

Second, Netanyahu must not become Obama’s spokesman. As part of his unsuccessful bid to convince Obama to change his policies towards Israel, Netanyahu and his advisers have gone on record praising Obama for his support for Israel. These statements have stymied attempts by Israel’s US supporters to pressure Obama to change those policies.

The Israeli official who has been most outspoken in his praise for Obama and his denial that Obama’s policies are hostile towards Israel has been Ambassador Michael Oren. Oren has repeatedly praised Obama for his supposedly firm support for Israel and commitment to Israel’s security – most recently in an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday. Moreover, according to eyewitness reports, in a recent closed-door meeting with American Jews, Oren criticized the Republican Party for attacking Obama for his animosity towards Israel.

This quite simply has to end. As foreign officials, Israeli diplomats should not be involved in US partisan politics. Not only should Israeli officials not give Obama undeserved praise, they should not give Republicans undeserved criticism.

At the end of the day, American Jews have the luxury of choosing between their loyalty to the Democratic Party and their support for Israel. And in the coming months, they will choose.

The government of Israel has no such luxury. The government’s only duty is to secure Israel and advance Israel’s national interests in every way possible. Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.