The New York Times is the mother ship for Jewicidals both foreign and domestic. Today, the Jew tool whom Obama used to sell his taqiyya on Israel, jihad Jeff, wrote this oped in The New York slimes:
More like, Goldberg's self loathing problem.
By JEFFREY GOLDBERG Washington
WHEN the prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, arrived at a Jerusalem ballroom in February to address the grandees of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (a redundancy, since there are no minor American Jewish organizations),
There it is -- kicking off with the protocols of the elders of Zion.
he was pugnacious, as is customary, but he was also surprisingly defensive, and not because of his relentlessly compounding legal worries. He knew that scattered about the audience were Jewish leaders who considered him hopelessly spongy — and very nearly traitorous — on an issue they believed to be of cosmological importance: the sanctity of a “united” Jerusalem, under the sole sovereignty of Israel.
"United" in quotes??? WTF? And the use of the word sanctity. Jerusalem is sacred, you asshat.
These Jewish leaders, who live in Chicago and New York and behind the gates of Boca Raton country clubs,
Ugh. Get that visual, folks? Those rich Joooooos hiding behind the gates of Boca. Ugh.
loathe the idea that Mr. Olmert, or a prime minister yet elected, might one day cede the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to the latent state of Palestine. These are neighborhoods — places like Sur Baher, Beit Hanina and Abu Dis — that the Conference of Presidents could not find with a forked stick and Ari Ben Canaan as a guide.
How does he know that? Because he can't find them? Has he ever been on an AIPAC or JCPA mission to Israel?
And yet many Jewish leaders believe that an Israeli compromise on the boundaries of greater Jerusalem — or on nearly any other point of disagreement — is an axiomatic invitation to catastrophe.
It's jewicide.
[...]
When I spoke to Mr. Olmert a few days after his meeting with the Conference of Presidents, he made only brief mention of his Diaspora antagonists; he said that certain American Jews he would not name have been “investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government of Israel.”
Seems more like they're investing in Olmurderer's wallet.
But he was expansive, and persuasive, on the Zionist need for a Palestinian state. Without a Palestine — a viable, territorially contiguous Palestine — Arabs under Israeli control will, in the not-distant future, outnumber the country’s Jews.
[...]
The unsentimental analysis of men like Mr. Olmert and Mr. Barak came to mind this week as I spoke to Barack Obama about his views on Israel. He spoke with seemingly genuine feeling about the post-Holocaust necessity of Israel; about his cultural affinity with Jews (he may be the first presidential candidate to confess that his sensibility was shaped in part by the novels of Philip Roth); and about his adamant opposition to the terrorist group Hamas. He offered some mild criticism of the settlement movement (“not helpful”) and promised to be unyielding in his commitment to Israeli security.
There are some Jews who would be made anxious by Mr. Obama even if he changed his first name to Baruch and had his bar mitzvah on Masada.
Baruch and a bar mitzvah? You're a liar and an asshat, jihad Jeffro.
But after speaking with him it struck me that, by the standards of rhetorical correctness maintained by such groups as the Conference of Presidents and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak. (To say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush, who spoke to the Knesset last week about external threats to Israel’s safety but made no mention of the country’s missteps.)
The country's misstep? Only in giving up Gaza. Here again is further proof of Goldberg's ignorance. AIPAC wil not play politics. They work with whatever administration that is in power. They are non-partisan (which I think is jewicidal), and I have taken issue with AIPAC on this blog for this very reason.
Obama is more pro-Israel than Hitler, maybe ..........
This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within.
"Helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within"? Jihad Jeff, that would be Jews like you.
A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state.
Read that again. Prods (as in pressures) Israel to surrender Jewish land to Islamic jihad. That's what this kapo is saying. And we know what Islamic jihad wants -- all of Israel -- "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left.
So what? The Nazis were, too, and they had to be destroyed. So will Hamas. But here Jihad Jeffro is toeing the pro-Hamas Obama platform.
And the best way to bring about the birth of a Palestinian state is to reverse — not merely halt, but reverse — the West Bank settlement project. The dismantling of settlements is the one step that would buttress the dwindling band of Palestinian moderates in their struggle against the fundamentalists of Hamas.
The best way to bring peace is not to annihilate the jews, Jihad Jeffro, but to crush Islamic jihad. Then the world will live in peace.
So why won’t American leaders push Israel publicly? Or, more to the point, why do presidential candidates dance so delicately around this question? The answer is obvious: The leadership of the organized American Jewish community has allowed the partisans of settlement to conflate support for the colonization of the West Bank with support for Israel itself. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel.
Support for Israel, hurts Israel. Leftard logic.
The people of Aipac and the Conference of Presidents are well meaning, and their work in strengthening the overall relationship between America and Israel has ensured them a place in the world to come. But what’s needed now is a radical rethinking of what it means to be pro-Israel. Barack Obama and John McCain, the likely presidential nominees, are smart, analytical men who understand the manifold threats Israel faces 60 years after its founding. They should be able to talk, in blunt terms, about the full range of dangers faced by Israel, including the danger Israel has brought upon itself.
But this won’t happen until Aipac and the leadership of the American Jewish community allow it to happen.
Jihad Jeff Goldberg, from one Jew to another, go to hell. Cuz it's foe shizzle you are going to rot there.
