Sickening: Left-Wing Peace Now Accuses: “Netanyahu is Racist Toward Obama”

19

obama-netanyahuExtreme left wing group Peace Now accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of racist motivation for standing up to U.S. President Barack Obama in a White House press briefing last week.

In an op-ed piece for Ma’ariv, Peace Now Director-General Yariv Oppenheimer called Netanyahu’s behavior “unprecedented.”

It was no coincidence, he explained, that the Prime Minister’s “Israeli arrogance broke records,” and that “sentences that are supposed to be said behind closed doors and in internal discussions were exhibited for all to see in a condescending and ugly manner.”

Netanyahu’s “supercilious and patronizing attitude” in “scolding” Obama stems from the fact that Obama, the first black American president, is not part of the same social milieu as former presidents like Bush, Reagan and Clinton “and the like,” he went on. Netanyahu did everything he could to “humiliate and hurt” Obama, Oppenheimer told his Israeli readers.

Right-wing American Jews are also guilty of the same attitude, he went on.

Obama’s speech would not have earned the same amount of public condemnations and insults had Obama been “a rich white American president,” concluded Oppenheimer. Netanyahu, he said, should judge Obama by his deeds, which are supportive of Israel, “rather than his ethnicity, his past and the background he grew up in.”

Documents released by the White House this year showed that dark-skinned Obama earned over $1.2 million in 2010, after taxes. Fair-complexioned Netanyahu, on the other hand, earned $51,000 (fifty-one thousand dollars) that year, after taxes. That means that for every dollar earned by Netanyahu, Obama made $24.

Read more at Arutz Sheva.

{Arutz Sheva/Matzav.com Newscenter}

19 COMMENTS

  1. Lets remember how Rev Wright’s disciple treated Bibi since day one. Within 6 weeks of taking office, O released a picture of himself sitting – actually, laying – in the oval office, on the phone, with his feet on the table. The white house made sure to anounce that O was talking to Bibi.

    What was the purpose of releasing that? Only to degrade Bibi. How did he treat Bibi on his first trip to Washington? Bibii was humiliated…

    Come on George Orwell, Yankle and the rest of O’s PR team. We are awaiting your spin, that we won’t bother reading. You have proven yourselves over and over to concoct stories to fool people about Obama and his ideoligies

  2. None of us know what parts of Yerushalayim Obama thinks are outside of Israel but we all know what George W Bush thinks is outside of Israel because George Bush and Olmert offered to Abbas in 2008 all of the West Bank and the Arab Parts of East Jerusalem along with an internationalizing of the “Holy Sites” in Jerusalem.
    This is recorded in George Bush’s published memoirs Decisions Points and in Olmert’s interviews.
    Jerusalem Post records ( one place of countless media stories on this ) Olmert says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control. He last met with Abbas on September 16 of that year – five days before he resigned, and more than six months before he left office – and Abbas did not respond or make a counteroffer.”
    http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=218340
    And we all know that GW Bush would offer this because 7 months prior to the offer “on the eve of US President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel and the region, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice placed the issue of settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem at center stage, telling The Jerusalem Post January 8, 2008: “Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning.” Condi Rice also said “ …The United States doesn’t make a distinction [ between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank ] and Israel’s road map obligations [which include a complete building freeze ] relate to settlement activity generally.”
    Regarding the 2004 Bush letter sent in 2004 as “payment” to the Ariel Sharon for his Disengagement from Gaza Condi Rice described the letter as “the president’s acknowledgement that these changes have taken place and have to be accommodated. This president also said it needs to be mutually agreed [upon]. So the negotiation, the agreement itself, will finally resolve these issues, and we can stop having the discussion about what’s a settlement and what isn’t.”
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=88107

    May 21, 2011: Jay Carney White House spokesperson hours after Obama gave his mideast speech said in response to a question from a reporter on the Bush 2004 letter ( from Whitehose.gov): J. Carney “There is nothing that the president said yesterday that contradicts the 2004 letters that were exchanged between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, or what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today in the Oval Office,”
    And if that isn’t enough Obama reiterated on May 20, 2011:
    President Obama: “The basis for negotiations will be looking at that 1967 border recognizing that the conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides, that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel’s going to have to feel confident about its security on the WB and that security element is going to be important to the Israeli’s. They will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they’ve seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.”

    And we all know that GW Bush would offer this because within 12 months of when he and Olmert offered it up, He and Condi Rice went on tour together and he collaborated with her to tell the media the following:
    Jerusalem Post Jerusalem Post January 8, 2009:
    On the eve of US President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel and the region, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice placed the issue of settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem at center stage, telling The Jerusalem Post January 8, 2009:
    Condi Rice said ” Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning” Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that quote “the United States doesn’t make a distinction between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank” and “Israel’s road map obligations which include a building freeze relate to settlement activity generally.”
    Regarding the 2004 Bush letter […Regarding Bush’s 2004 letter written in response to the Ariel Sharon Disengagement from Gaza…]…Rice described the letter as “the president’s acknowledgement that these changes have taken place and have to be accommodated. This president also said it needs to be mutually agreed [upon]. So the negotiation, the agreement itself, will finally resolve these issues, and we can stop having the discussion about what’s a settlement and what isn’t.”
    http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/George_W._Bush

    and Obama said the same on May 20: May 20, 2011
    President Obama: “The basis for negotiations will be looking at that 1967 border recognizing that the conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides, that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel’s going to have to feel confident about its security on the WB and that security element is going to be important to the Israeli’s. They will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they’ve seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.

    Furthermore, the next day, May 20, on the BBC, President Obama told the interviewer Andrew Marr of the BBC quote:“The basis for negotiations will be looking at that 1967 border recognizing that the conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides, that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel’s going to have to feel confident about its security on the WB and that security element is going to be important to the Israeli’s. They will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they’ve seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13485946

  3. The anonymous #1 has told us that ” We are awaiting your spin, that we won’t bother reading.”

    Two points, if I may, please:

    1. Who are this “we” you have written about?

    2. If you “won’t bother reading their spin” why “are you awaiting” it?

  4. I would willingly pay good money to read the coded cables being sent from AmEm TLV to the State Department on this story.

    Where is WikiLeaks when it is needed most?

  5. Happens to be that Obama is rich.
    Happens to be that Oppenheimer is a paid agent of the Son’ei Yisroel of Europe & the Muslim world.
    For the Maariv newspaper to give this Menuval a speaker’s podium is a disgrace.

  6. #1 you realize what youve said is “ive made up my mind, please dont confuse me with facts”
    I look forward to Yankel’s And Orwell’s take as it is refreshing to know that not all in our community repeats over-used drivel-laden limbaugh hannity talking points. Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and would very much like to hear rational opposing viewpoints

  7. who is giving comment # 1 his medicine?

    the photo is supposed to convey that he is not in a fight with obama but rather that he is talking friend to friend.

    Men used to stand up for women as well, so dont be such a bigot and nail O because he puts his feet up while working at one the hardest jobs in the world.
    You wouldnt have said this if Whitey Mccain was in office with his feet up

    in the ol cheit of ol sinas chinom it says i believe in the GRA or it is just a Met. Sid commentary that the primary isur is to disregard or hold a dislike for someone on account of the mores of a person or community.
    I’m not intimating that you should not have chinom for a nachri olts the isur but that the mussar is that it is not good middos to be concerned with or allow your feelings on their mores to have implications on your hashkafas hachaim

  8. Really #1 thats the best you can do? I supply facts and quotes and you reply with “feet on the table”

    Dont you want to help your favorite tzedka? The prize has been raised to $150 all you have to do is show were im wrong.
    Ive even simplified the task.
    Here is my position:
    Bush’s mideast policy – there will be peace in the mid east when Israel gives up most of the land liberated in 67′
    Obama’s mideast policy – there will be peace in the mid east when Israel gives up most of the land liberated in 67′
    In other words they are one and the same.
    (To be clear: I dont agree with either of them theyre both wrong and can both drop dead for all I care, this isnt about being pro-Obama, its about being anti-stupid)

    If anybody can provide a quote that indicates that the two differ in their policies (this can be done by disproving one of the 2 above statements) $150 to the tzedaka of your choice.
    If you cant please stop embarrasing yourselves by repeating mindless drivel

  9. Thank you #2 for your rambling, repetitive liberal left wing interpretation of out of context media op-ed pieces.

    If the readers of MATZAV want to know what the truth is all they have to do is go to truthful news sources such as Arutz Sheva, FoxNews, etc. Stay away from liberal rags like the BBC, NY Times, Ha’aretz, etc.

    Compare news stories about Israel in the publications that I’ve mentioned above and you will clearly see the difference.

  10. Yankel,

    I translated nothing from Obama’s speech: the term “land swaps” goes back to the Clinton Camp David talks of July, 2000 and refers specifically to the land encompassed by the Israeli settlement blocs of Ariel, Gush Etzion and Ma’ale Adumim. It has never included the Jordan Valley, which Obama clearly stated would have to be given back in order that a Palestinian state should share a border with Jordan.

    Bush never demanded that of Israel!

    BTW, if, as you say, Bush’s and Obama’s plans are identical and there’s nothing new here, why did Sen. Lieberman (I-CT) and Rep. Hoyer (D-MD) publicly criticize Obama for his speech last Thursday?

  11. Yanki they criticized it becasue they disagree with it. I do too just as I did Bush’s proposal. I went to Annapolis to protest Bush’s push to “return” most of Yehuda and shomron and to divide Yerushalyim (seriously how do people not remeber that, how is at as a tzibur we have such short memory. Id go again to protest Obama’s plan which I strongly disagree with, just as I did with Bush’s exact same plan.

  12. Yesterday, Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) said that Obama is “tilting toward Hamas”. He emphasized that Congress would never base its approach to Israeli aid on Obama’s position.

    If Obama’s plan is exactly like Bush’s, what are all these Democrats yelling about when they didn’t yell until now? Are they also dishonest haters?

    Where’s my money?

  13. a. you dont get money its for tzedaka
    b. Im not sure how you even think you fullfilled the chalenge of course people view it differently,the game isnt to find somebody who views it differntly but rather to find an difference (in substance not tone between the two) reread the rules please in #9 dont give up

    As to your question, yes they are dishonest. Bh being pro-israel is very much in vogue in this country (bh bh bh, who knows whatll happen in a few years as the muslim population surpasses the jewish one shudder) As was evident in bibi’s speach where he mentioned how Israel has “many friends, democrat and republican alike” So critscing the President in a percieved difference in his speach although it may not be factually accurate, is a great way to pander to the less-informed, it seems to be working in your case

  14. Yes, I know the money is for tzedaka.

    Their plans are not “one and the same”: Obama called for a Palestinian state sharing a border with Jordan, necessitating Israel’s surrender of the Jordan Valley and Bush didn’t.

  15. Best attempt so far, by anybody including many pundits. Kudos!
    Though sadly, not accurate at all. Obama called for ” secure and recognized borders ” and repeatedly endorsed Israel’s right to security. IF The Jordan river valley is neccessary for Israeli security it is thus included. Bush felt the ame exact way, he never specificly endorsed the Israeli view that the valley is necessary for security, leaving that open to negotiatian much as Obama did. IF those two statemtns are contradictory, which we maintain that they are, why go why ay this is davka maybe the other is.

  16. Yankel,

    My statement is completely accurate and I quote Obama from 5/19/11: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.”

    No other U.S. President has ever explicitly called for a Palestinian state sharing a border with Jordan until Obama did last Thursday. This would force Israel to surrender 600 square miles that it has always deemed necessary for its security!

    Democrats have been lining up to criticize Obama’s speech and all you can say is that they’re also dishonest and uninformed?

    Stop stalling – you owe $150 to the tzedaka of my choice!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here