Sunday, July 29, 2012


By Schmoel Yitzhak

Who really is Israel's true friend -- Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

More than ever this question demands an answer now that each candidate is hustling the American-Jewish vote.

The Democrats believe that they recently gained an edge when Washington approved a new military package for Israel.

On paper, the ostensibly "generous" gesture would suggest that Obama genuinely wants to help the Jewish State. But on closer scrutiny the "generosity" falls remarkably short of its intended mark. 

Only the most naive will fall for the president's latest ploy which has a two-fold purpose; One was to upstage his rival's visit to Israel. (Obama is not coming and hasn't shown his face in the Middle East's only true democracy since Hector was a pup.) And, two was to persuade on-the-fence Jewish Democrats that the president really has "Israel's back," as he once claimed.

On closer scrutiny the ploys fail because of Obama's deep-seated love of Muslims and his not-so-subtle support for militant Islam. 

While respected analysts continue to note that the Muslim Brotherhood is an anti-American organization infested with a deep-seated hatred for Israel, the White House could hardly wait to invite Egypt's MB reps to Washington. 

As Israel Hayom columnist Isi Leibler accurately notes, doing business with Egypt's MB is roughly equivalent to lighting a cigarette while holding a gallon of gas.

"We should be under no illusions," says Leibler. "The Islamic forces of the Brotherhood seeking to control Egypt are ultimately committed to revoking the peace treaty. Their motives are deeply rooted in fanatical extremist Islamic ideology."

With friends like those, Washington is inviting a Middle East version of Pearl Harbor.

But it doesn't stop there. While Romney was winning Israel hearts on his tour of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Obama's press aides couldn't even answer a simple question simply put: "What is the capital of Israel?" 

Alas, the White House could not say what every Israeli -- every Jew -- knows and that is, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. 

To which Republican legislator Eric Cantor explicitly pointed out that, once again, Obama's leanings, truly, are with the Arabs. "The president should be standing by its ally, Israel," Cantor asserts.

Now, before getting to Romney, let's address the arms package and its so-called value. What it amounts to is defensive support of the most limited kind.

In other words Israel may be able to counter a fraction of rocket fire from Lebanon, Gaza or -- as threatened -- from Iran but that is not good enough. 

If the Second Lebanese War proved anything, it is that the Arab enemy is able to blanket Israel with thousands of missiles. Stopping ten percent of such an onslaught is meaningless if ninety percent gets through; especially if the rockets are accompanied by advanced destructive capacity.

Therefore the arms "gift" offers false security because what Israel needs more than defensive arms is offensive assistance and not just the explosive kind.

The political kind -- at this critical point in time -- counts a lot more in terms of Israeli security.

Look at it this way; if Uncle Sam is Israel's closest ally, the White House should take off the gloves an support an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Avenue strategists prefer obsequious appeasement mixed with useless sanctions which, if anything, merely embolden the Iranians.

In this case, On Obama's part procrastination is the thief of time because Iran's nuclear program continues moving at an express pace and Israel is running out of attack time.

Which brings me to the Republican candidate who came to Israel and pointedly was asked what his reaction would be to a pre-emptive attack by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities. 

"I would respect that decision," Romney replied. 

My conclusion: Romney's vibes are in tune with Benjamin Netanyahu's. The GOP platform looks a lot more Israel-friendly than the left-oriented Democrats. In the end, Mitt is a lot more believable than the other guy.

Whether these points register with America's Jewish voters remains to be seen. Republicans are pouring plenty of campaign dough into luring Jewish Democrats over to the Romney side and maybe they'll succeed for a couple of reasons:

1. There's more concern than ever that the Jewish state is encircled by enemies determined to destroy it.

2. Obama's stated demand that Israel return to the 1967 borders has been salt in the wounds of even Jewish Democrats who understand the consequences.

3. The president's rude treatment of Bibi on the Prime Minister's first visit to Washington has not been forgotten.

Nevertheless, all the aforementioned points pall in comparison to the BIG issue; the Iranian nuclear threat. And it comes to this: Obama will not sanction nor support a necessary Israeli strike and Romney will at least "respect" such a necessary move.

Bottom Line: Romney is Israel's unequivocal friend. When it comes to the Jewish State, Obama has been a four-year fraud!


  1. Please help circulate this

  2. One man does not establish American Policy. It is established by the government think tank. That think tank provides the same information to the Repubicans and Democrats.

    If Obama was anti-Israel, he would not have had Mrs Clinton travel back and forth for two years, in an attempt to broker a deal on land.
    I live in Canada, and in Quebec, the town of Stanstead sits on the border. For some homes, the kitchen is in the USA and the bedrooms are in Canada. This is a situation that does not satisfy either country. Since the town is Canadian, the border should be moved back into the USA so that the entire town is in Canada. But would the USA do it?

    So if this problem can't be solved between Canada and the USA, how do you expect the city of Jerusalem (which before the state of Israel, was 80% occupied by Jews, and is probably now at a higher percentage.

    Talk is cheap and free when you are not the president. Do not be hasty in passing opinions.

    1. Yes, talk is cheap, and yours is about the cheapest I've heard around. You sound really open minded. Just do it your way, and give in to your demands and your happy and that's fair to you. If the town is Canadian, then why did they expand it over into another country's territory? Why not move the border so the Canadian side so the whole town will be on the U.S. side? Not that i care one way or the other, I'm just pointing out how one sided your thinking is.

      As far a little miss hillary hopping over to Israel on a few occasions, anyone but you knows the obvious answer to that. They have to at least act like they are concerned and trying, it's just to put on a show. That's what democrats do very well, they always present a false facade to the public to hide their true intentions. It's plain to anyone here and anyone living anywhere else in the world that obama is anti-Israel and anti-America. It's sad but true. Hopefully America change that at the next election, if there's enough good people left in the country to do so. People that don't vote on the color of a candidates skin color like the blacks in America did the last election. Maybe the so called independents who aren't smart enough to even understand the issues at hand or what they truly believe in or stand for will wake up and stop swaying in the wind. Time will tell, one can only hope.