THE SOURCE OF OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY

Submitted by Bishop E W Jackson Sr (United States), Jun 29, 2009 at 11:25
THE SOURCE OF OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY
E.W. Jackson Sr.
June 16, 2009

Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama's policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.
We heard it in Jesse Jackson's "HYMIE town" remark years ago during his presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright's remark about "them Jews" not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle East as a "Jew" problem.
Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in Pennsylvania, I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were "greedy cheaters" who could not be trusted, according to my family and others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were "evil". Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community.
In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Most African Americans are not followers of "The Nation", but many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, "he speaks the truth" and "stands up for the black man". What they mean of course is that he viciously attacks the perceived "enemies" of the black community – white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians buy into his demagoguery.
The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does. First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under". You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan – Wright's friend – to attend and help organize his "Million Man March". I was on C-Span the morning of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and anti-Semite, no matter what "good" he claims to be doing. Yet a future President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support.
The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World," he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation".
Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly ant-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest – albeit undeclared – sensibilities.
Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentorship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe as I do that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.
NEVER AGAIN!
E.W. Jackson is Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries, an author and retired attorney.
Email: bshpjksn@gmail.com
---------------
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/01/barack-obama-and-islam-an-ongoing-saga
Barack Obama and Islam: An Ongoing Saga
by Daniel Pipes
January 19, 2009
updated May 25, 2009

During the presidential campaign, Obama did his best to distance himself from Islam. How are things looking, now that he is president? Already in December 2008, a Muslim preacher called on Obama to return to his roots and convert to Islam. This weblog follows the story.

The rules have changed: Thomas Lifton notes a new, positive disposition towards Obama's Islamic origins:
Now that he is elected and almost inaugurated, the rules of public discourse have changed when it comes to Barack Obama and Islam. During the campaign, you were a racist if you noticed that his middle name is Hussein. If you added that his father was a Muslim, and that Islam regards anyone born of a Muslim father as a Muslim, then you were a fear-mongering hysteric.
But tomorrow when he takes the oath of office, he has let it be known he will use his full name. He has also let it be known that he will travel to the capital of an Islamic nation to meet with leaders of Muslim nations. Suddenly, Islam is "in".
So much so that a previously unthinkable thing has happened: CNN has actually compared tomorrow's inauguration gathering to the Haj pilgrimage in Mecca! Watch this video and see for yourself.
Are we about to see a wave of celebration of Obama's Islamic heritage? Is Muslim chic in the future?

(January 19, 2009)
"Barack Hussein Obama": Jim Sleeper, an Obama acolyte, explains "Why It's 'I, Barack Hussein Obama...'," along the way side-swipping me (and, as liberals tend to do, getting wrong what I have been saying):
Even as we progress from symbolism to substance in the most stately way imaginable, I hope that everyone appreciates the symbolic and substantive rewards of Obama's being sworn in as "Barack Hussein Obama." This is the moment to explain again briefly why it matters so much.

During the campaign, neo-conservatives such as Daniel Pipes and other Obama detractors thought it smart to highlight his paternal Muslim roots and associations. But now that he's becoming president, you'd have to be as naive as a neo-con to miss the nobility and world-historical gains this country achieves as, having overthrown a bad Hussein, it installs a good one—not in Baghdad, but in Washington.
Sure, the mind reels. Hussein is a title of honor applied to metaphorical descendants of the prophet Mohammed. An American president bearing that name, even only residually, enacts what philosophers call a transvaluation of values. He gives a wicked case of cognitive dissonance to millions of people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, but also to millions in the Muslim world who are not like them at all. …

the very prospect of our Hussein's inauguration raised millions of young Muslims' democratic hopes even higher than America has raised their material and sensual ones. (And, given present economic circumstances, it's telling that just when Obama's election was about to reflect Western democracy's deepest strengths, the iconically Western Gordon Brown was begging the Saudis to aid the International Monetary Fund.)

Comment: For the record, I thought it was "smart" to highlight Obama's having lied about his birth and childhood religious affiliation. (January 20, 2009)
"Christians and Muslims": Obama's inaugural speech contained a startling formulation: "The United States is a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." Hugh Fitzgerald comments on it at JihadWatch.org:
The traditional formulation has always paired "Christians" with "Jews"—"Christians and Jews." Such a blatant change, then, in that traditional formulation is sure to attract notice. It invites inspection. It disturbs. The order in which these adherents of different faiths are named, and which is paired with the obviously, and rightly, dominant "Christians" (this country was both founded on Christian or, to include the Old Testament, Judeo-Christian principles, and owes its development right up to the present day to those same ideas, enshrined in our political and legal institutions which are, after all, the best thing America has to offer) both count. …

on what basis did Obama make the decision to move up "Muslims" in the ranking, right after, or even possibly paired with, Christians, leaving the Jews demoted, in a sense? It cannot be on the basis of population, for there are twice as many Jews in the United States as there are Muslims...Was this one more attempt to impress on the public the notion that we must appease Muslims, we must make of them something they are not in this country, in order to hold onto their loyalty that otherwise is in danger of being lost?

(January 20, 2009) Jan. 23, 2009 update: A backlash among conservative Christians, including African-American ones, has taken place to the inaugural speech phrase quoted here, reports AOL News. The upset has partly to do with the inclusion of "non-believers" and partly with the list of faiths. For example, Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Virginia said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.'" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'" Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a non-believing nation."'

Jackson paraphrased here a statement by Obama on June 28, 2006 (at 1:04 in the recording): "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
This formulation places Muslims after Jews but it strikingly refers to a "Muslim nation," a term that invokes both the Nation of Islam and the umma. Will this phrase be resurrected?

"I have Muslim members of my family, I have lived in Muslim countries": Stated in the course of a lengthy interview to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television channel, this comment startles because Obama had run away from his family connections to Islam when running for office. Now, when he finds it useful for reaching out to Muslim opinion, however, he is no longer shy about calling on it. (January 26, 2009)
"America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers": That same Al-Arabiya interview includes this curious variant on the earlier two formulations, cited above:

"we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

"a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers."
The tally so far: four categories (Christians, Jews, Muslims, non-believers) mentioned three times, Hindus twice, and Buddhists once. Muslims twice ranked ahead of Jews, Jews once ranked ahead of Muslims. (January 26, 2009)

Jihadis apprehensive about Obama: According to the February issue of inSITE (not accessible online), newsletter of the SITE Intelligence Group, most members of jihadi forums "were pessimistic when discussing Obama and his initial address to Muslims, and many argued that his charisma made Obama an even greater danger for Muslims than George W. Bush. Posters noted that unwary Muslims could be seduced by the rhetoric of change and cease working for jihad."

This confirms what Rita Katz found in the January issue of inSITE devoted to the forthcoming U.S. presidential inauguration: "once Obama was elected, the top leaders of al-Qaeda, demonstrating an apprehension about the Obama presidency, embarked on a very harsh propaganda campaign targeting the President-elect, even resorting to personal insults." (February 1, 2009)
Provides brief religious autobiography: Obama used the occasion of the National Prayer Breakfast to tell about himself:
January 20, 2009) Jan. 23, 2009 update: A backlash among conservative Christians, including African-American ones, has taken place to the inaugural speech phrase quoted here, reports AOL News. The upset has partly to do with the inclusion of "non-believers" and partly with the list of faiths. For example, Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Virginia said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.'" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'" Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a non-believing nation."'

Jackson paraphrased here a statement by Obama on June 28, 2006 (at 1:04 in the recording): "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

This formulation places Muslims after Jews but it strikingly refers to a "Muslim nation," a term that invokes both the Nation of Islam and the umma. Will this phrase be resurrected?

"I have Muslim members of my family, I have lived in Muslim countries": Stated in the course of a lengthy interview to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television channel, this comment startles because Obama had run away from his family connections to Islam when running for office. Now, when he finds it useful for reaching out to Muslim opinion, however, he is no longer shy about calling on it. (January 26, 2009)
"America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers": That same Al-Arabiya interview includes this curious variant on the earlier two formulations, cited above:
"we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

"a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers."
The tally so far: four categories (Christians, Jews, Muslims, non-believers) mentioned three times, Hindus twice, and Buddhists once. Muslims twice ranked ahead of Jews, Jews once ranked ahead of Muslims. (January 26, 2009)
Jihadis apprehensive about Obama: According to the February issue of inSITE (not accessible online), newsletter of the SITE Intelligence Group, most members of jihadi forums "were pessimistic when discussing Obama and his initial address to Muslims, and many argued that his charisma made Obama an even greater danger for Muslims than George W. Bush. Posters noted that unwary Muslims could be seduced by the rhetoric of change and cease working for jihad."

This confirms what Rita Katz found in the January issue of inSITE devoted to the forthcoming U.S. presidential inauguration: "once Obama was elected, the top leaders of al-Qaeda, demonstrating an apprehension about the Obama presidency, embarked on a very harsh propaganda campaign targeting the President-elect, even resorting to personal insults." (February 1, 2009)

Provides brief religious autobiography: Obama used the occasion of the National Prayer Breakfast to tell about himself: was reported locally to have been stopped from going to a Seventh Day Adventist Church by Muslims because they thought the church would try to convert her. "We had invited her to grace our meeting in Kisumu which was to mark the end of a three-week convention, but although she had prepared, she did not attend," Lewis Ondiek, a senior church figure, told Ecumenical News International.

It was claimed that family members stopped Mrs Obama from attending the service led by an Australian evangelist, John Jeremic, because they feared the church was trying to convert her to Islam [sic, should be "to Christianity"] but the family said she did not attend because she had a knee complication and could not go. Sheikh Mohamed Khalifa, the Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya secretary, said: "Mama Sarah should not be forced by anybody to join Christianity since she is a Muslim. Muslims will not sit and watch one of their own being coerced by some religious leaders to convert to Christianity." …

Tom Obuya, of the SDA, denied the claims. "This is not true, she was never to be converted, this newspaper did not report well. she was due to be with us at a ceremony at the end of a three week evangelistic conversion mission, alongside other special guests." Saidi Obama, Barack's uncle and Sarah's son, said: "this is not true, she was not to be converted. she was to attend as a VIP but in the end she did not go because she had other commitments."

(April 24, 2009)
The United States "one of the largest Muslim countries"? Obama made the amazing statement to French television today that "if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
Comments: (1) According to one listing of Muslim populations, the United States, with about 2.5 million Muslims, ranks about 47th.

(2) Poor Dan Quayle, poor George W. Bush. Had only they been liberals, they too could get away with saying the stupidest things and few would notice. (June 1, 2009) June 2, 2009 update: For an example of uncritical coverage, see how the New York Times under-reported this senstational statement at "Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too." June 3, 2009 update: Ivan Rioufol, Le Figaro's columnist and the best in France, agrees: "je m'étonne que la presse n'ai pas corrigé l'erreur" ("I am amazed that the press has not corrected the error").