Friday, November 20, 2009


Sometimes a reporter, sometimes a critical columnist, Caroline Glick is always an Obama hater. If the facts don't fit her anger, she ignores them as she did in a vicious attack on Obama in something called Jewish World Review (November 13, 2009). After accusing Obama of forcing Prime Minister Netanyahu to enter the White House under cover of darkness from an anonymous van and barring the "regular" photo op for the PM with the President, she went off as follows

"Obama's hostility was evident as well during his meeting with fifty Jewish leaders at the White House this week.

In an obvious bid to split American Jewry away from Israel, Obama refused to discuss Israel or Iran with the concerned American Jewish leaders. As far as Obama was concerned, all they deserved from him was a primer on the brilliance of his economic policies and the worthiness of his plan to socialize the American healthcare industry. His foreign policy is none of their business.

Obama's meeting with American Jewish leaders was supposed to be a consolation prize for American Jews after Obama cancelled his first public address to American Jews since taking office. The White House claimed that he cancelled the speech because his visit to the Fort Hood memorial service made it impossible for him to attend. But then the conference was a three-day affair. The organizers would probably have been happy to reschedule.

Instead, as Iran races to the nuclear finish line, America's Jewish leaders were forced to sit through White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel's kitschy Borscht Belt schmooze about his bar mitzvah."

Having spoken with several federation leaders who were present, none of Glick's allegations...none...appear to be true. I have every confidence that had American Jewish leaders been told that they could not discuss Israel with the President, they would have politely declined the meeting. The problem, of course, is that none of these leaders has discussed with their leadership what were the subjects discussed with the President (and prior to that meeting with his key aides); leaving Glick an open field to offer speculation as fact. Do we ever learn?

Now, Caroline Glick may be brilliant. She grew up, some years later than I, in my old neighborhood of Hyde Park, which she describes in her bio as ultra-liberal(true), anti-Israel (false) and, of all things, "anti-American" (unbelievable). She described her alma mater, Columbia University, as "Beir Zeit on the Hudson." She pals around with Michelle Malkin. She is an Israeli. She is apparently an expert on all things. Just has some apparent trouble with the facts. and is rabid in her criticism of our President. Her screed, including the Obama-haters references to Reverend Wright, et al., is Sarah Palin on steroids.

While no more is needed, on 19 November, Glick outdid herself, supporting the mendacity of Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and others in their unreasoned rabble-rousing against anything and all Obama by attacking the ADL's report on the growing anti-semitism that these hooligans have helped to rouse and attacking the small number of Hillels which have influenced their campuses against Israeli policies. Maybe Ms. Glick ought to return to Chicago (and other venues as well) where the Jewish campus movement has been strong, even brave, in confronting the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic attacks of Arabists and some Jews alike. But, that would get in the face of her narrative, wouldn't it?

Relying on Caroline Glick as an authority on how American Jewry is being treated by this Administration would be wrong.



paul jeser said...

Glick is right more than most MSM. In this case she is more right than wrong. Obama's treatment of Netanyahu during the DC 'visit' was horrible - from beginning to end - this fact is well known and covered also by others. Obama apologists aside....

Anonymous said...

yes, the enemies of the Jewish people and Zionism are real but the unsustainability of the occupation and the greater land of Israel movement is real as well. Those on the radical Israeli right are,in their desperation, not fighting the last war but the next -- the "who lost the territories" war and the lining up of their scapegoats has begun. They were betrayed by Sharon, then Olmert, then Livni, last week it was Mofaz and Bibi is as always on the fence. Their last hope is to join the "Birthers" and the T party crowd and the evangelicals in bringing on a political armeggedon. How pathetic - yet how dispicable and scary as well.

paul jeser said...

Dear 'anonymous': What 'occupation'? Do you mean Ma-ale Adumim, Gilo? Do you mean land that was once Jordan but lost when they ATTACKED Israel? Or do you mean 'occupation' as in the whole land of Israel? - which, under your definition, is also 'occupied' territory.

I'm not saying that Israel should not 'give back' land (although previous 'give-backs' have proven unsuccessful') - but that is up to them. If you feel so strongly about the 'radical Israeli right' -move to Israel, serve in the IDF, pay taxes - then you can vote to effect change.

Anonymous said...

Paul, I do not want to shanghai Richard's blog but will offer a simple reply. All Jews of good will, left or right, can comment and voice opinions on the future of our Zionist enterprise -- it is that important to all of us. And last I looked, being American, Obama was my President so an attack on him by an Israeli citizen or you gives me some talking rights. As for the word "occupation" I prefer to use the hebrew word "kibbush" (to conquer)and then we might agree regardless of your politics that the Arabs of what your might call the liberated territories are not thrilled or particularly well treated living under Israeli rule. And for the record, like Ben Gurion, Rabin and Sharon I believe a practical partition of the land offers Zionism its most hopeful future.

The first anonymous