Yechezkel Gordon: EXCLUSIVE- MICHAEL SAVAGE SLAMS ORTHODOX JEWISH RABBIS FOR ATTENDING OBAMA CHANUKAH PARTY; DARES AUDIENCE TO REPORT HIM TO ADL FOR HIS COMMENTS

Michael Savage, a conservative talk radio host, had some harsh words for the orthodox Jewish Rabbis that attended the annual Chanukah party at the White House last week together with President Obama.

On his show this past Friday (December 9th), that is syndicated across the U.S. in over 400 markets and heard by 8-10 million listeners a week, Mr. Savage wanted to know what deal these Rabbis received for attending the party with Obama and, "which sect of hasidim went there as quislings, to sell Israel down the river," singling out Satmar and Lubavitch as the possible culprits.

He started off criticizing the President for celebrating Chanukah two weeks early, saying Obama would never disrespect a Muslim holiday like that. But what really got him going was an off the cuff joke that Obama made at the celebration. Obama joked that he would give a kiss and a hug to everyone in attendance except for the Rabbis with the whiskers.

"Why wouldn't he ever say that to the guys with whiskers who practice Islam? Anyone have an answer to that? Anything with Muslims and Islam there like grim faced in the White House, they follow it to a tea, like they walk on glass." He continued, "But with Jews it's two weeks early, we'll light all the candles (and) we'll joke about you guys with beards. Alright come on up, let's break some Matzoh together. But sir it's not Passover? Never mind, come on have some Manischewitz, we like a good party over here ha ha ha."

That's when he turned his anger away from Obama and redirected it towards the Rabbis that attended.

"What do the Rabbis get for this, the guys with the whiskers, what deal did they get for going there? I don't get this because most orthodox Jews are pretty conservative. Don't they understand that Obama is the most anti-Israel President in history? So who are these quisling Rabbis who were there with the black coats? Which sect of Hasidim was there? Is there a Hasidic Jew listening? Which sect of Hasidim went there as quislings to sell Israel down the river? Anyone know? I don't know who the guys with the whiskers were. Was it the Satmar's, was it the Lubavitch, was it another group I never heard of?"

Apparently, Mr. Savage didn't realize that orthodox Jews don't listen to the radio or make phone calls on Shabbos, which starts at sunset on Friday. Thus, no one called in to respond to these comments that he made during the first hour of his Friday show, which airs from 6-9pm eastern time.

Finally, Savage dared his audience to report him to the ADL for his remarks.

"Go ahead, call up the ADL and see if I care, a lot of good they've ever done for me. They're not there when you need them, and they're there when you don't need them. That's all."

Isi Leibler: KUDOS TO FOXMAN

For some months I have been highly critical of the failure of the American Jewish establishment leadership to speak out against repeated hostile policies and statements emanating from various branches of the Obama administration.

I also expressed concern regarding a joint public statement issued by Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, and his American Jewish Committee counterpart David Harris, which many perceived as an attempt to stifle all political discussion related to Israel in the forthcoming presidential election. If implemented, it would have embargoed both positive or negative comment and discourse concerning policies adopted by parties and candidates in relation to Israel.

Last week, we were bombarded by three separate, appallingly biased and offensive statementsconcerning Israel, expressed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman.

Not surprisingly, the ZOA and Jewish Republicans vehemently condemned these outbursts, but most of the Jewish leadership once again responded with deafening silence.

However, unlike his other Jewish establishment colleagues, Foxman, the effervescent ADL head, spoke out with vigor and dignity, condemning the offensive remarks and calling on the administration to distance itself from all three outbursts.

In a blazing op-ed in the Huffington Post, Foxman related specifically to Panetta’s remarks blaming Israel for the deteriorating situation with Turkey and Egypt. He stressed that Panetta’s remarks were not merely “inaccurate” but “disturbing and potentially dangerous," adding that “finding fault with Israel at a time of great instability and uncertainty in the region is particularly distressing.” He called on the White House to issue “a clear repudiation” because “if the secretary’s remarks are allowed to stand, this is likely to set in motion events that will exacerbate existing problems … and add fuel to the fire of an already raging region."

In a subsequent interview with the JTA, Foxman also condemned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks castigating Israel’s treatment of women making odious and utterly baseless analogies with the manner in which Iranians treat their women.

Foxman pointed out that, “This is a secretary of state who certainly doesn’t go out to the Arab Muslim world and criticize them for inequalities." “Sure," he said, “Israel is not perfect, human rights could use improvement, but my God, in comparison, I think it is inappropriate, it’s excessive." He described Clinton’s remarks as being “out of line."

Foxman noted that the remarks from all three members of the Obama administration reflected a common theme that came to the heart of the “problem we’ve had with this administration." The three of them are “putting all the onus on Israel and that’s with Panetta, with Hillary and with the ambassador” (referring to the U.S. ambassador to Belgium whose offensive remarks implied that Muslim anti-Semitism was a by-product of Israeli intransigence in the Middle East).

He was careful not to ignore the positive aspects of the administration’s attitude toward Israel such as the ongoing defense commitments which have brought the U.S.-Israeli military alliance to newfound heights. But, he pointed out that the attitude toward Israel is “bifurcated” and the administration has regrettably also “done more to politically distance itself from Israel."

This is not the first time that Foxman spoke out as a lone voice amongst mainstream American Jewish leaders. In the early stages of the Obama administration, he was the only Jewish establishment spokesman to criticize the president when he initially displayed his bias against the Israeli government. In August 2009, in a full-page advertisement in the New York Times, Foxman called on Obama to recognize that "the problem is not the settlements. It is Arab rejection … Mr. President, it's time to stop pressurizing our vital friend and ally."

In March 2010, Foxman was again one of the few Jewish leaders to condemn the histrionics displayed by the president and secretary of state against Jewish construction in the residential areas of Jewish East Jerusalem. He even went so far as to propose a protest march on Washington.

Nobody could accuse Foxman of being a hawk in relation to Israel and over the past six months he made a number of statements with which many of his less dovish Jewish constituents took great umbrage. But this does not negate the fact that when the chips were down and he believed red lines were being crossed in relation to the Jewish state, he was one of the few willing to courageously speak up against the Obama administration.

Once again, despite the fact that it may create major problems with those of his supporters who still blindly endorse all aspects of the Obama administration's policies, the former child Holocaust survivor who rose to become head of one of U.S. Jewry’s foremost organizations again proved to be a trailblazer. One can only hope that his courageous response will serve as an example for other Jewish leaders to emulate.

Isi Leibler: ISLAMIC ASCENDANCY INTENSIFIES US APPEASEMENT

It is ironic that while President Barack Obama portrays himself as a friend of Israel and solicits funds from Jewish donors, two senior members of his team were providing chilling insights to what Israel may expect should the current administration be returned to office.

After reaffirming that the U.S. retains "an unshakable commitment to Israel's security,” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta crudely told a Brookings Institution forum that it was high time for Israel to "get to the damn negotiating table.” He ignored the fact that even after a 10-month settlement freeze, the Palestinians had refused to engage in direct negotiations with Israelis. He went on to repeat the mindless mantra that Israel is "partly" responsible for its diplomatic isolation. He demanded that Israel take further bold action to overcome the conflict with the Palestinians by making additional unilateral concessions which the Arabs would no doubt take on board in the context of their long-term strategy to dismantle the Jewish state in stages.

He demanded that Israel "reach out to mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability,” specifically mentioning Turkey and Egypt. Here, he also he failed to take account of Israel's extraordinary efforts to retain good relations with Egypt, which is currently in the process of being taken over by jihadist groups and disregarded the fact that Erdogan’s Turkey is now openly allied with the genocidal Hamas. For a U.S. defense secretary to implicitly blame Israel for the erosion of relations with these countries is simply inexplicable.

In the same speech, he warned Israel that if it acted alone in relation to Iran, it would place America in an unenviable position, cost many lives and lead to global economic chaos. As former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams observed, Panetta eased Iranian concerns by effectively nullifying long-standing American statements that "all options are on the table" to curb the nuclear threat.

A defense secretary does not make such statements unless he has the backing of his president.

Panetta’s provocative address was followed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pontificated on Israel as a democratic state and harshly criticized proposed legislation restricting the foreign funding of non-governmental organizations. While this has generated considerable controversy in Israel, it is unprecedented for an American secretary of state to become involved in such a debate and publicly criticize the government of a purportedly close ally. Especially when one considers that Clinton has hardly been forthright in condemning human rights violations and vile anti-Semitic outbursts displayed in Muslim countries or by groups who are emerging as the new dominant forces in such countries.

Even more disconcerting were Clinton’s remarks concerning a marginal number of misguided Israeli soldiers who sought to boycott events in which female singers participated. This issue and the clumsy manner in which it was handled by the Israel Defense Forces has admittedly distressed many Israelis. But what justifies an American secretary of state who says nothing about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries becoming involved in this? And to make an analogy of this episode with the segregation of African-Americans in the 1950s does not merely reflect ignorance, but is downright offensive. Clinton even said that this Israeli behavior reminded her of the way Iranians treated women.

Finally, the Jewish U.S. Ambassador in Belgium, Howard Gutman, appointed to the role because he was a major fundraiser for Obama, tells European Jewish leaders and lawyers that "a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The clear innuendo was that Muslim anti-Semitism is a byproduct of Israeli intransigence in the Middle East, and therefore can be understood and implicitly justified. These sickening remarks were made by a U.S. ambassador to Belgium, one of the most anti-Israeli countries in Europe.

These outbursts signal that despite favorable public opinion and congressional support, Israel continues to face hostility and difficulties from the U.S. administration.

The timing of these provocative outbursts makes them especially reprehensible. They occurred concurrently with the election results from Egypt, which confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood, combined with the even more extreme Salafis, emerged with 60 percent of the vote, reflecting the radical Islamist tide sweeping through all the North African Arab states.

In fact, our worst fears have been realized, and Israel is now surrounded by a ring of fanatically hostile Islamic states. The Muslim Brotherhood, creator of Hamas, is an outright jihadist organization whose charter unequivocally calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews.

In this context, it is exasperating and sickening to continue to be subject to delusionary spins by Western politicians and liberal media suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood has turned a new page, is now tolerant and, to quote some U.S. administration officials, is even in the process of becoming "secular.” In addition, the only issue over which Sunnis and Shiites have been able to overcome their passionate differences is their frenzied shared hatred of Israel and dissemination of anti-Semitic propaganda indistinguishable from the vilest Nazi propaganda.

Yet, in the Islamic grand order, Israel and the Jews are merely the "canary in the mine" and represent a minor component of their global ambitions. Were Israel to disappear from the map or succumb to Islamic aggression, far from easing tensions, this would merely embolden Islamists towards their goal of conquering Europe and, ultimately, global domination.

Israel can do little to influence the course of events in the Arab countries, and its leaders have wisely stood aside. But it is surely now time for the Obama administration to recognize that its policies of appeasement have led to disastrous consequences. Instead of trying to mollify Islamists by distancing themselves and making one-sided criticisms against Israel, they should gird themselves for a long-term struggle against fanatical Islamists who have been conditioned into believing that they can best achieve their global objectives through intransigence and intensification of violence.

American Jews can make an important contribution in this area. Yet, alas, most of their leaders remained silent despite the reprehensible remarks directed against Israel by leading Obama administration officials. While, not surprisingly, the Zionist Organization of America, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Jewish Republicans protested, so far of the Jewish establishment leaders only Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League actually condemned Leon Panetta’s remarks. The principal American Jewish agencies responded with deafening silence. One is even tempted to enquire whether they have in fact collectively decided not to rock the boat and to eliminate Israeli issues from political discourse. How else can one explain the absence of response to such provocations? Which leads us to ask, will Jews at the grassroots level remain satisfied that their principal spokesmen remain silent on such issues?

Yechezkel Gordon: OBAMA'S UN SPEECH PROVES THE WHITE HOUSE IS PANICKING OVER LOSING THE JEWISH VOTE

In the history of pro-Israel speeches it wasn't that dramatic, in the history of Obama's speeches it was downright monumental!

President Obama has heard you loud and clear. You sent him a clear message earlier this month by voting for Republican Bob Turner in the special congressional election- well, today at the UN Obama has said message received.

Obama started off his speech at the UN by stating his opposition to a unilateral Palestinian state. “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us -- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem,” he said.

Then he affirmed America's commitment to Israel's security, "America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable," he said. "Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day." That was pretty much where the old Obama ended and the new Obama took over.

"Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it," Obama said. "Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are."

Israeli officials were extremely happy with the Presidents speech, and they all made sure to go out of there way and express it. Netanyahu called Obama's position a “badge of honor” and thanked him for “wearing that badge of honor.” Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman gushed about the speech saying, "I laud this speech and sign off on it with both hands. The president made two important points in his speech: first, that it is impossible to resolve the conflict in any international forum and second, he did not mention the issue of the 1967 borders. This was the speech of a friend and ally." Defense Minister Ehud Barak continued the Obama praise parade, "It has once again been proven to all the doubters that President Obama is an ally and friend of Israel. The Obama administration has lent its support to Israeli security in a broad, comprehensive and unprecedented manner."

The Palestinians on the other hand were fuming. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas could be seen shaking his head in disapproval during the speech, and afterwords his henchmen competed for ways to express their anger. "All that's left is for Obama to join the Zionist Congress," said a senior member of the Palestinian delegation. Another senior official said, "Americans massacred the Indians and now they identify with the massacre perpetrated against us by the Israeli occupation."

It seems like the true colors of the Palestinian Authority are starting to finally seep out of their carefully crafted suits and ties.

But before you start popping champagne or begin campaigning for Obama to win re-election, remind yourself that once Obama wins his second term, there's nothing stopping him from turning back into the original pro-Palestinian peace lover.