Israeli journalist and deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post Caroline Glick has some strong opinions about Barack Obama. Specifically, she feels that the President is an anti-Semite.
Like her Tea Party counterparts, Glick took issue with President Obama’s “failure” to emphasize that victims of a deadly attack at a Paris deli last month that left four hostages dead were Jewish. Instead, the President referred to the victims as people.
“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” the President told Vox following the attack.
“In other words, Ahmedy Coulibaly, the terrorist at Hyper Cacher, the kosher supermarket he targeted, was just some zealot, Glick wrote. “The Jews he murdered while they were shopping for Shabbat were just ‘a bunch of folks in a deli,’ presumably shot down while ordering their turkey and cheese sandwiches.”
Of course, as White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained on Twitter:
Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.
But who needs those pesky facts?
“Obama’s statement about the massacre of Jews in Paris is notable first and foremost for what it reveals about his comfort level with anti-Semitism,” Glick continued. “By de-judaizing the victims, who were targets only because they were Jews, Obama denied the uniqueness of the threat jihadist Islam and its adherents pose to Jews.”
But Obama’s anti-Semitism does not stop there, says Glick. “It runs as well through Obama’s treatment of Israel and its actions to defend itself against its jihadist enemies from Hamas to Hezbollah to Iran,” she asserts.
“Today, the most outstanding example of Obama’s exploitation of anti-Semitic tropes to diminish US support for Israel is his campaign to delegitimize Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ahead of his scheduled speech before the joint houses of Congress on March 3,” she added.
Glick’s support for Netanyahu is not exactly shocking, as it was recently announced that he is eyeing the journalist for a seat on Israeli Parliament, or the Knesset. While Glick has been critical of the Prime Minister in the past, much of that centered around his decision to release more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners of war, calling it “immoral and irresponsible.”
Glick would not be the first member of the Knesset to hold barbaric views toward Palestinians. Last year, Deputy Speaker Moshe Feiglin, posted on Facebook that Israel’s army must:
…designate certain open areas on the Sinai border, adjacent to the sea, in which the civilian population will be concentrated, far from the built-up areas that are used for launches and tunneling. In these areas, tent encampments will be established, until relevant emigration destinations are determined.
Yes, concentration camps. Once they have rounded up most of the population, “The supply of electricity and water to the formerly populated areas will be disconnected,” and those “formerly populated areas” would be “shelled with maximum fire power.” The army would “exterminate” any and all resistance.
Feiglin also feels that, like Hitler’s lovely yellow badges Jewish citizens were forced to wear, Palestinians who have signed “a declaration of loyalty to Israel” would receive “a blue ID card similar to that of the Arabs of East Jerusalem.”
Regarding Netanyahu’s visit, Glick claims that:
Netanyahu did not breach White House protocol.
He did not behave rudely or disrespectfully toward Obama.
The only one that behaved disrespectfully and rudely was Obama in his shabby and slanderous treatment of Netanyahu. It was Obama who peddled the lie that Netanyahu was using the speech not to legitimately present Israel’s concerns regarding the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, but to selfishly advance his political fortunes on the back of America’s national security interests and the independence of its foreign policy.
It was Obama and Vice President Joe Biden who spearheaded efforts to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech by announcing that they would refuse to meet with the leader of the US’s closest ally in the Middle East during his stay in Washington.
So far only 15 members of the House and three Senators have announced their intention to boycott Netanyahu’s speech. But even if all the other Democratic lawmakers do attend his speech, the impact of Obama’s campaign to defame Netanyahu will long be felt.
First of all, if all goes as he hopes, the media and his party members will use his demonization of Netanyahu’s character as a means to dismiss the warnings that Netanyahu will clearly sound in his address.
Second, by boycotting Netanyahu and encouraging Democrats to do the same, Obama is mainstreaming the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions movement to isolate Israel.
Of course, Glick seems to be willfully ignoring that Boehner himself admits that he kept Obama in the dark. The New York Times reports:
Speaker of the House John Boehner admitted he purposely kept President Obama in the dark about inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress.
“I frankly didn’t want them getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity,” Boehner said on Fox News Sunday.
Boehner defended the backdoor invite to Netanyahu to address Congress when asked whether he turned the nation’s bipartisan relationship with Israel into political football.
“I have not,” the GOP House leader said. “The fact is we had every right to do what we did.”
Netanyahu, who has campaigned against the Obama Administration’s nuclear weapon negotiations with Iran, is facing an election on March 17. He is scheduled to speak to Congress on March 3.
Obama won’t meet with Netanyahu and Vice President Joe Biden won’t attend the congressional address. The Obama administration argues the visit is too close to Israeli elections and violates protocol of interfering in international elections.
Glick accuses Obama of supporting Iran, whose goal is “to kill Jews, as many Jews as possible.”
“Perhaps Obama is acting out of anti-Semitism, perhaps he acts out of sympathy for Islamic fascism,” Glick reasons. “Whatever the case may be, what is required from Israel, and from Netanyahu, is clear. Speaking to Congress may be a necessary precondition for that action, but it is not the action itself.”
Readers latched on to Glick’s ridiculous claims of anti-Semitism as the motivator for even one of President Obama’s decisions:
Unfortunately, this seems to be the general sentiment some hold toward our President: That he does not consider a borderline genocidal terrorist state to be supreme is almost a sin in the eyes of those who believe in the genocidal and almost Hitlerian direction in which Israel is headed.
A more than 200-page report resulting from an independent fact-finding mission revealed that the Israeli army indiscriminately murders civilians — and, perhaps, worse.
“A majority of hospitalised patients interviewed reported people being injured or killed while in, or very close to, their homes or those of relatives and neighbours,” the report reads. The Fact Finding Mission found that Israeli soldiers routinely occupy homes and, if the occupants are unfortunate enough, deny food and water or use the unlucky civilians as human shields.
In July 2014, the Israeli army mowed down evacuating civilians who were waving white flags and loudly declaring their peaceful nature.
As long as it is normal for journalists to advocate for outright genocide as a means to an end, supporting Israel blindly and in all things — or showing undeserved deference to its leader — is irresponsible. The President knows this.
Perhaps it is time for Israel to seek solutions that don’t involve packing so many new bodies into Gaza’s morgues that the bodies of dead children must be stored in ice cream freezers.
Perhaps Ms. Glick should consider that.