Modern Rashi on: Netanyahu, GOP Endanger U.S. Ties
Translation: Pro-Israel groups are revealing me as anti-Israel
In this article, a self-hating Jew, Shai Robkin, attempts to convince the broader audience that the Israeli Prime Minister is a “bad guy”. Now, as a leftist writing in a southern Jewish newspaper, if he tries to tackle the issue in an honest way, the impact of his words will inevitably be very limited. Realizing this, he attempts to come across as a non-partisan to convince the broader audience of his far-left world view. As head of the local NIF chapter in Atlanta, which I view as an anti-Israel organization that opposes banning BDS and channels significant funds to organizations that support it, his far-left opinions aren’t well hidden with a little digging. Had he written this article acknowledging his far-left opinions, that would have been fine, but he attempts to hide his leftist opinions in this article in an attempt to turn the uneducated Jew against the Israeli Prime Minister.
The reason for the existence of Shai’s article is really a conflict of interests. Netanyahu points out the anti-Israel bias on the left, and this hits Shai right where it hurts. Shai Robkin votes Democrat and those to the right of him who actually support Israel, reveal him as anti-Israel. Because he is a Jew, he feels the moral need to “support Israel”. Unfortunately, he has no idea what supporting Israel really means, nor does he have any idea why he’s “doing so”.
In the “Our View” opinion piece “Play Nice, Kids” in the Jan. 30 edition, the Atlanta Jewish Times contends that Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama “disagree on every substantive issue in the U.S.-Israel relationship.” One can only surmise that the writers are prepared to dismiss as nonsubstantive those actions, not just rhetoric, on which the two countries’ leaders obviously do agree, including $3.1 billion in annual U.S. aid to Israel; U.S. replenishment of Iron Dome munitions after Israel’s war this past summer with Hamas; historically unprecedented, ongoing military collaboration and cooperation; and U.S. efforts to prevent a Palestinian state from gaining recognition in international bodies. (And I’m sure I left out a few other “nonsubstantive” issues where American and Israeli administrations are collaborating, such as those affecting trade and economic development.)
In this paragraph, Shai attempts to convince himself that he can be “pro-Israel” and a Democrat at the same time. He takes serious issue when another writer for the Atlanta Jewish Times says that Obama and Bibi disagree on every substantive issue in the relationship between these two countries. This is a problem for Shai, because if this is true, how can he say he is pro-Israel? As a response, Shai lists a number of issues that he feels Obama and Bibi agree on:
$3.1 billion in annual aid to Israel
U.S. replenishment of Iron Dome munitions after Israel’s war this past summer with Hamas
Historically unprecedented, ongoing military collaboration and cooperation
U.S. efforts to prevent a Palestinian state from gaining recognition in international bodies
These are very good points and I will address each in an orderly fashion:
Aid is leverage, not agreement. Also, the aid has very little to do with Obama’s wishes and much more to do with political pressure put on him by bipartisan support in congress and other political lobbies. Doing anything other than giving the aid would be political suicide for him.
This is the dumbest one in the bunch. Obama told Bibi he would replenish it if he took it up the ass long enough from Hamas (accepting Hamas rockets raining down on Israeli cities) which he dumbly agreed to. So no, they did not agree on that.
This, also would be political suicide to stop.
Imagine if you were being bullied in school and I was there to “protect” you. I offer you my protection, but it comes at a cost. You have to do exactly what I say when I say it, and any time you refuse I threaten you: “Do you want me to let the bully come after you? Unless you give me your cookie from your lunch, I’m not going to protect you.” That is not agreeing with you on an issue, that is me using you. This is Obama using a bully tactic on Bibi, not two leaders seeing eye to eye.
This doesn’t even begin to cover all the issues they disagree on, which is virtually every single issue. As we can see, Shai is living in a fantasy world in which he tries to convince himself that he is a moral Jew because he “supports Israel”. Clearly, as we can see, he doesn’t.
Even where there is disagreement, primarily over the negotiations with Iran, it is a disagreement about tactics, not the overarching goal of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, about which there is a consensus in the entire Western world, thanks to American leadership.
Caving into major Iranian demands, all of which are for the purpose of covertly progressing towards a nuclear weapon, is not indicative of someone with an overarching goal of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.
But it’s apparent that Prime Minister Netanyahu also doesn’t place much value on or simply takes for granted these and the many other benefits of American patronage that Israel enjoys, benefits that exist because the two countries do indeed see eye to eye on the most substantive issues that they collectively confront.
This is the paragraph where Shai Robkin reveals his actual worldview. Israel is not an ally, Israel is a client. A well behaved client must show gratitude and if Israel asserts itself, that is ingratitude. On brand for a ghetto Jew such as Shai.
More disturbing is Netanyahu’s decision to play politics with the long-standing bipartisan U.S. support for Israel by scheming (is there any other word for it?) with congressional Republicans to bypass the White House and their Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill.
Translation: Netanyahu is accepting those who are offering him actual support. Shai is upset at this because it makes him and his BDS activities look bad (which they are). But go ahead and moralize like a suburban nonprofit donor who thinks politics should be polite if Jews are involved. The horror of a Jewish leader who does not wait for permission before protecting his country!
As the opinion piece does correctly point out, there is no love lost in the personal relationship between Netanyahu and Obama. But it is the Israeli prime minister, not the U.S. president, who has chosen to bring the private distaste for each other into the public eye.
And here, the self-hating Jew reveals himself! A self-hating Jew will always take the side of the non-Jew in an attempt to garner respect from them so that they will not want to be antisemitic. This is a very retarded idea that has been tested through every generation of the Jewish people and has yet to work... Obama’s disappointment with the Israeli Prime Minister has been made known throughout the news agencies on a very regular basis. He doesn’t even deny that they seriously dislike each other, simply stating “we have a business-like relationship”. It is not Bibi’s fault. Bibi wants to be left alone, but because Obama supplies Israel with aid, he feels that he should have a say on Israeli policy.
Now an argument that a self-hating Jew might make is: When the US provides aid to Israel, they should have a say in Israeli policy. Clearly this is not what they really mean, for if Mike Huckabee were president and Yitzchak Herzog were Prime Minister of Israel (G-d forbid) and Mike decided to send a billion dollars to fund settlement enterprise, Shai would be the first person to say “The President of the United States has no business interfering in Israeli policy.” What Shai really would mean is “The President of the United States can only interfere in Israeli policy if he’s pushing a left-wing agenda that I agree with.” Clearly Obama sending over Jeremy Bird to Israel to help campaign efforts aimed at making Bibi lose an election didn’t upset Shai in the slightest.
At the recent Marcus JCC Book Festival, Rabbi Daniel Gordis was asked about the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and a different U.S. president, Jimmy Carter. Gordis noted that while Begin personally despised Carter, he was careful to avoid showing his disdain in public.
Begin also lived in an era when American presidents did not try to reshape the Middle East every other month. And Jimmy Carter certainly never showed his disdain for Israel in public either, right? Yet you would never criticize a non-Jew for fear of causing antisemitism.
Even those who objected to Begin’s policies and performance as prime minister recognized that in the international sphere he remained the consummate diplomat at all times. Apparently, as the AJT editorial states, Netanyahu has “used up every ounce of his diplomatic reserve.”
Just be honest and say that you wanted Bibi to shut up and smile while an American administration tried to normalize the Iranian nuclear program. That is not diplomacy, it’s national suicide.
There are many in the American Jewish community who believe that public statements in the United States regarding the Jewish state should be limited to support of the policies and positions as determined by the democratically elected Israeli government. But even those who hold that opinion
He’s referring to himself here implying that he doesn’t hold of that opinion, proof of my previous statement.
would certainly recognize that such unqualified backing for Israel must stop at the line where the statements and actions of Israel’s leaders endanger the bipartisan support that the country has so long enjoyed in Congress as well as in the White House.
Your real complaint here is that the Republican party has become too supportive of Israel and is making you and your buddies look increasingly anti-Israel (which you are). I am looking forward to your follow-up article in which you criticize the Democrats for not sending out an invitation to the Prime Minister themselves, but I’m not holding my breath.
As an organization dedicated to maintaining and strengthening this bipartisan support, it is not surprising that we have seen no public statement from AIPAC concerning Netanyahu’s scheduled address to Congress.
You said “it is not surprising”. I am not sure if you meant that “it is surprising” or if you were making a pass at AIPAC for being less than partisan..... (I’ll see you at J Street, eh?)
However, we should all hope that behind closed doors AIPAC is making it clear to Republicans and Democrats alike that supporters of Israel in America in no way endorse the invitation that Speaker John Boehner extended to Netanyahu and that all care should be taken in the future to keep support for Israel from becoming a tool for partisan political gamesmanship. And that same message needs to be delivered loud and clear to the Israeli political leadership.
I love the victim blaming which you engage in here, it is quite clever. Instead of criticizing the Democratic party for making it a partisan issue by not extending a joint invitation to the Israeli Prime Minister, you criticize the Prime Minister for accepting an invitation to speak at Congress which he feels plays a very crucial part in his country’s survival.
When the author, Shai, says “GOP endanger Israel-US ties”, what he really means is that he believes that it is unfair that the Republican party is by and large much more pro-Israel than the Democratic party is. He doesn’t like this because this points out the fact that as a Democrat, he is not as pro-Israel as his Republican counterparts (for whom he has much disdain for). Therefore, the parties are unequal in their support of Israel, and he feels that the Republican party is “too pro-Israel” and that is what is “endangering US ties”. Instead of criticizing the Democratic party for not being pro-Israel enough, he criticizes the Republican party for being too pro-Israel and the Israeli Prime Minister for trying to make sure his country doesn’t look like Hiroshima.