By Schmoel Yitzhak
When is the act of "having one's back" actually a kick in the tooches?
Answer: When America's president tries to sell his phony pro-Israel policy to his country's Jewish voters.
Uncle Sam's citizens will go to the polls in November with a Democratic president desperate to win a second term.
Despite the fact that Barack Obama has failed to achieve virtually every one of his domestic and political goals he somehow has a chance to win . next Fall because of Republican ineptitude at producing a truly inspirational -- try Rudy Giuliani for one -- no-nonsense competitor.
In order to cement his victory the president must ensure that he captures enough Jewish votes to put himself over the top and that requires remarkable assaults on the truth that, somehow, are easily digested by eager American Jews who viscerally cannot see themselves pulling a G.O.P. lever.
Yet, a closer look at Obama's rhetoric during Benjamin Netanyahu's recent White House visit clearly reveals that the President has been talking out of both sides of his mouth. And that, by the way, is the same mouth that piously proclaimed at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington -- "I have Israel's back."
If he's to be taken at his word, the president must be confusing the "back" with another part of one's anatomy because no sooner had the Israeli Prime Minister departed for home, Bibi was getting a long-distance kick in the tooches from Pennsylvania Avenue.
That kick, by the way, was so effective that it even prompted one of America's staunchest foes, Iran's supreme leader Ayotollah Ali Khamenei, to hail Obama's remarks against an Iran strike by Israel.
When the president insists that there's still room for "diplomacy" in an effort to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, he's merely playing for time; that is time enough to get through the Autumn elections, win a second term and thereby fulfill his diplomatic wooing -- a better word is appeasement -- of the Arabs.
If Obama really has "Israel's back," he would have loudly condemned the latest Gaza-based rocket barrage aimed at Israel. As usual silence was the order of the day on Pennsylvania Avenue; and that should surprise no one because the facts clearly depict the president's anti- Israei stance over and over and over again. Columnist Daniel Mandel cites several of these verbal back-stabs in an article "Obama at AIPAC -- Truth In Advertising?"
Mandel points out that the administration has used the terms "condemn," an "insult" and an "affront when expressing disagreement with Israel's March 2010 announcement of a program of housing construction in -- now get this! -- a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. And that, by the way, violated no agreement with Uncle Sam.
"The words 'condemn,' and 'insult' and 'affront' are harsh and ugly terms that America and Obama have never used in reference to an ally's actions," notes Mandel. "To the contrary, when Turkey did not vote along with the U.S. for further sanctions on Iran, the Administration was merely 'disappointed.'
"When Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai spoke publicly of considering joining forces with the Taliban, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it 'respected' him."
But there's no respecting from Obama or his lackeys when it comes to Israelis wanting to build homes in Israel. Go figure.
Well, the answer is clear if you check the president's roots; cleverly concealed by America's liberal press but easily discovered as proven by the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens. This is one columnist who swings hard and hits home runs, pointing out how Obama kicks Israel in the toochus.
"Here," writes Stephens, "is a president who fought tooth-and-nail against the very sanctions on Iran for which he now seeks to reap political credit. He inherited from the Bush administration the security assistance to Israel he now advertises as proof of his 'unprecedented' commitment to the Jewish state.
"His defense secretary has repeatedly cast doubt on the efficacy of a U.S. military option against Iran even as the president insists it remains 'on the table.' His top national security advisers keep warning Israel not to attack Itran even as he claims not to 'presume to tell Israeli leaders what is best for them.'"
While the administration engages in its pre-election "penalty-killing," the Iranian threat grows yet no government -- with the possible exception of Israel's friends in Canada -- has ripped Iran for its state-sponsored, pre-genocidal hate campaign against Israel and the Jewish people.
No, the Iranians are not kidding around and they make no secret of their blueprints. According to the reliable Simon Wiesenthal Center, a website run by the head of the Iranian Parliament's research center details the following:
* A step-by-step plan to wipe out Israel's infrastructure and annihilate her citizens.
* A theological basis for mass murdering Jews.
* Maps of Israeli population centers.
* Distances to strategic targets within Israel and the range of Iranian missiles.
* Specific stages of attacks.
* A chilling final stage targeting "urban settlements until final annihilation of Israeli people."
And the American president believes diplomacy is the answer?
Sure does -- just as Neville Chamberlain believed in Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1937!