Netanyahu speech deepens rift between U.S., Israel — and American Jews

Print More
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

WASHINGTON (RNS) The divisiveness among Americans mirrors that of many Israelis equally concerned the visit will plunge traditionally close relations between U.S. and Israeli leaders to an unprecedented low.

  • Pingback: Netanyahu speech deepens rift between U.S., Israel — and American Jews - by Rev. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • “They’re obviously concerned about Iran and want a good deal and think it’s really unfortunate that Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing this — creating a conflict outside the existing conflict.”

    Netanyahu is not responsible for Obama’s petulence.

  • James

    USA criticizes the Speech that has not yet been given? How ludicrous and myopic can the liberal-cultural press be – and – how stupid do they think the American public is to even consider their biased hogwash?

  • Jack

    How does one know exactly what a speech will or won’t do before the speech is even given?

    Given that this article was written before the speech was delivered, it’s a fair question.

  • Jack

    “Rabbi Marvin Heir, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, said he wants people to focus on the Israeli leader’s message about nuclear negotiations with Iran, not partisan conflict.”

    It appears that Rabbi Heir is the adult in the room.

  • Jack

    Stephen, you’re the bigot. You have lots of issues, including your hating Jews and wanting to be Jewish at the same time. The main reason your posts get flagged is that they often don’t respond to the article being posted, but attempt to hijack the conversation and take it your way to reflect your issues and obsessions.

    As for the article, again, your post has nearly nothing to do with the subject matter. The subject matter is the divide within the American Jewish community over whether Netanyahu’s speech was a good thing or a bad thing. You have made it perfectly clear that you hate that community or at least its cultural and religious underpinnings. Your repeating that fact ad nauseum contributes nothing to the issue being discussed. In fact, it removes you from it, because the presumption behind the discussion is that participants care about Jews, America, and Israel.

  • Jack

    Exactly, James. They already had their talking points before the speech was even delivered.

    One can certainly have an opinion on the wisdom of delivering the speech before delivery….but to comment on whether the content itself was divisive is ludicrous until it’s delivered.

  • Jack

    The article leads one to assume that this is the first time Obama snubbed Netanyahu, when in facts he’s done so a number of times.

    For left-leaning American Jews who think that Netanyahu’s the main problem, they should listen to counterparts in Israel who, while against Netanyahu, remain quite concerned about Obama’s statements and attitudes toward issues that go far beyond Netanyahu. Simply stated, Obama, like everybody else, is a product of his upbringing — and from the day he was born through college, he was surrounded by radical-left critics of America, Israel, and the West. We’re not talking about mainstream liberalism, but radical-left ideology that believed that America was a major source of evil in the world and that Israel was her lackey. While that doesn’t mean Obama agrees with every jot and tittle of this thinking, he clearly has been influenced by it. It would be very odd if he weren’t.

  • — and from the day he was born through college, he was surrounded by radical-left critics of America, Israel, and the West

    Not surrounded. His mother (with whom he never lived after age 12 and about whom he appears not to have cared much) and Frank Marshall Davis. It’s atypical for mothers to have much influence over their children’s conceptions in religion an politics (Bill Gates’ mother an exception). I’d wager Marshall was more consequential. The question would be to what extent Marshall had gone native after long residence in Honolulu.

  • Pingback: Thinking Religion: Objectivity And Mosul | Thinking.FM()