Monday, October 23rd | 3 Heshvan 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
May 22, 2015 1:08 pm

Obama: Rise in Antisemitism is Not Some Passing Fad

avatar by Eliezer Sherman

Email a copy of "Obama: Rise in Antisemitism is Not Some Passing Fad" to a friend

President Barack Obama addresses the Adas Israel Congregation in Washington DC. Photo: Screenshot

President Barack Obama declared that the “deeply disturbing rise in antisemitism” around the world was no “passing fad,”  during an address to a Washington DC synagogue on Friday’s “Solidarity Shabbat.”

“In recent years we’ve seen a deeply disturbing rise in antisemitism in parts of the world where it would have seemed unthinkable just a few years or a few decades ago,” the president told the Conservative movement Adas Israel synagogue in DC’s Cleveland Park neighborhood.

“This is not some passing fad,” he said. “These are not isolated phenomenon and we know from history they cannot be ignored.”

“Antisemitism is and always will be a threat to broader human values to which we all must aspire,” he said.

Related coverage

August 29, 2017 5:47 pm
0

US Jewish Groups Praise Tillerson’s Renewal of State Department Antisemitism Envoy

US Jewish groups reacted with praise and relief on Tuesday to the news that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is...

Obama’s address at Adas came a day after an extensive interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffery Goldberg, who is a member of the DC synagogue, which discussed the pending Iranian nuclear deal and the disabled peace process with the Palestinians.

The U.S. president continued to press home on Friday his commitment to pursuing what he called a “good deal” with the Iranians that would ensure security in “one of the world’s most dangerous neighborhoods.”

Obama said he could not “guarantee a deal would be reached.”

The U.S. president said that if Iran is caught cheating on a nuclear deal, “we’ll immediately know about it and sanctions will snap back.”

Obama also called for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, though he noted that the “Palestinians are not the easiest of partners.”

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
    INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
    No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel –
    David Ben Gurion
    (David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State’s main founder).
    “No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in all of the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country or homeland whatsoever. This is a right vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition or circumstance. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”
    BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
    INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
    at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)
    “No country in the world exists today by virtue of its ‘right’.
    All countries exist today by virtue of their ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction.”

  • No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel –
    David Ben Gurion
    (David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State’s main founder).
    “No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in all of the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country or homeland whatsoever. This is a right vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition or circumstance. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”
    BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
    INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
    at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)
    “No country in the world exists today by virtue of its ‘right’.
    All countries exist today by virtue of their ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction.”

  • SARA RIFKA

    OH PLEASE……GIVE ME A BREAK……WHEN KUDDOS ARE HANDED OUT PERHAPS ALGEMEINER WILL GET A HAND TOO.

    DON’T DISPEL THE SITINGS OF ‘OBAMA’….NOW WITH A KEPA….NOW THAT TRULY ROCKS……’ALL THE WAY OUT THE DOOR’

    HE IS OF NO INTEREST AT ALL…..AN OUT THE DOOR POLITICAL SNAKE…..

    THANK G-D I AM NOT AN AMERICAN……TRULY.

  • To better understand the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law consider the following:

    AXIOM: In 1967 Israel liberated occupied Jewish Palestinian territories. This was done not only for the enemies of Israel, but also to appease Allies and a majority of Israelis. However, the world community, and the enemies of Israel hold forth that during the Six Day War, Israel “captured” the same liberated Jewish Palestinian territories. Furthermore, Israel is accused of then installing its’ “settlers” with impunity and in obvious violation of international law. Which is true, the AXIOM of 1967 or the current interpretation of international law by the enemies and critics of Israel? For obvious current political and diplomatic reasons, the truth has been swept beneath a new wave of anti-Semitism. However, in order to clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law, we only need to examine HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS which many have chosen to forget or ignore. Upon examination of said HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS the only factual conclusion to arrive at is the critics (whether Arab, American, European, or the Israeli Extreme-Left) who accuse Israel of “occupation” are wrong.
    Prof. Eliav Cho’hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law “Shaare Mishpat” wrote: “When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why … Balfour and San Remo”. To understand this issue, we must go back to November 2, 1917. At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing agrees with Chaim Weitzman, then president of the World Zionist Organization. Lord Balfour, in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, (honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England) writes that the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This is the famous “Balfour Declaration” when in the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted Britain with a mandate over Palestine.
    Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, a conference is held in San Remo, during which the great powers share the “spoils of victory”, namely the conquered territories during the war. At this conference, it was decided to introduce the 1917 Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Treaty of 1920 (its terms are in effect in perpetuity) and the British Mandate for Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people. This decision confirms the international recognition of the Jewish right to “self-determination” in Palestine. Furthermore, Britain is entrusted to work towards the realization of this statement (Balfour. note): “to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.” Furthermore, and of great importance, The San Remo Treaty, and documents thereto, DID NOT state of any other nation or people; ONLY the Jewish people were allocated ALL of Palestine.
    It must be noted that including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate of the United Kingdom, the text is the same international resolution supported by 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and the United States, which becomes a member of the international organization a few years later.
    In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Remo, we read: “No territory of Palestine will be sold or leased or held in any way under the control of the government of any foreign power.” Also: “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights of other parts of the population are not altered, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency The dense settlement of Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”
    Furthermore, the text states: “The Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Must be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who acquire permanent residence in Palestine.” At that time, it must be remembered, Palestine is not just the West Bank of the Jordan, but also, and most importantly (at 70% of the territory) the East Bank, where today is located the new State of Jordan. Per the above stated documents, Jordan is in fact unlawfully occupying land which belongs to Israel.
    Mi’kmaq of the British Empire:
    What happens next is related to internal political changes in Britain and the election of a government hostile to the creation of a Jewish homeland throughout the territory of Palestine. Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920, decides to change its’ mind. Britain begins to weave tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders in an effort to control natural resources, such as oil. It was after this rapprochement in 1921 that Transjordan is created. Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state compared to the British, led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan.

    In regards to the West bank of the Jordan River, and the West Bank – Judea and Samaria – nothing changed: these regions are still part of the territories over which should be established the Jewish national home.
    According to many lawyers, including Prof. Dr. Cho’hatman with Talya Einhoren and American lawyer Eugene Rostow, (one of the drafters of the famous U.N. Resolution 242), the Partition Plan of 29 November 1947 DOES NOT change the legal right of Israel either. Indeed, having been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and NOT by the Security Council, the Partition Plan cannot be considered legally binding. At most, it is only a recommendation that only obtains legal validity upon endorsement by the parties in question: The Jews and the Arabs. It must be noted, since the Partition Plan was rejected by the Arab powers, its status remains protocol.
    For other lawyers, ignoring documented claims, the Partition Plan has somehow transformed the Judea and Samaria territories into a status which remains cloudy. On one hand, they are not part of the state of Israel created in 1948. Yet, Judea and Samaria do not belong to Jordan which occupied the territory during the War of Independence until the 1967 war liberated it.
    The Jordanian occupation
    Did the Jewish people lost temporarily the rights to Judea and Samaria with the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967? For many lawyers, the answer is no. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950. However, the annexation was held illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Jordan proclaimed sovereignty of the territories the support of only two countries, Britain and Pakistan. Moreover, the same Jordan decided in 1988 to abandon its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Incidentally, the term West Bank would therefore no longer be needed.

    Does the dissolution of the League of Nations, which was replaced by the UN, and the end of the British Mandate for Palestine cause any change in the rights of the Jewish people to their land? Again, the answer is no because, under section 80 of the UN Charter, “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as affecting directly or indirectly in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the Organization may be parties. ” Clearly, this means that the UN is committed in 1945 to protect the legitimacy of the Jewish land rights established by the League of Nations.

    For Professor Eugene Rostow, mentioned above, the UN CHARTER above clearly holds that “the right of the Jewish people to settle in the land of Israel has never been interrupted on all the territory west of the Jordan River, and since a peace agreement has not and will not be signed between Israel and its neighbors.” He later wrote that “Israel has an undeniable right to establish settlements in the West Bank.”
    No unilateral approaches
    Did the Oslo agreements affect the status of Judea and Samaria under international law point of view? Again, the answer is to be found in the texts themselves. Indeed, it is stated in the preliminary agreement in 1993 that the final peace agreement will be signed by both parties “through negotiations”. The agreement called Oslo II, ratified in 1995, provides for its part that neither side “does not initiate or commence proceedings can change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the end of negotiations on the final peace agreement.” In other words and clearly stated, ANY unilateral approach – such as the announcement in September by the Palestinians of an independent state – will therefore be in stark contrast not only with the Oslo agreements, (which may be null and void), but also with resolution 242 of the UN that supports each party has the right to “live in peace within secure and recognized borders.” The borders of a Palestinian state proclaimed are of course far from being “secure and recognized” the point of view of Israel … Incidentally, Resolution 242 does not speak of at all about ”Palestinians”, but only of existing states, that is to say, Jordan, Egypt and Syria.
    The above text and documents, written in black and white and dating, for some, a century old are easy to read and understand. Yet, it seems hardly anyone in the Prime Minister’s office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or that of Hasbara, has taken the time to build a strategy based upon these documents. Documents which clearly prove Israel is NOT the colonial and occupying power it is accused of being since 1967.
    Moreover, when considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, it is evident that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ”scared” than it is today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of much less need of justification for founding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until that time, Israel did not seem to beg for the international community, and the Arab world in particular, to grant Israel the ultimate favor of keeping the famous “settlement blocs.” According to Prof. Eliav Cho’hatman, lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law “Shaare Mishpat”: “there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude” which he deemed as “catastrophic.” He explained, “Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag of our rights over all the land of Israel from the point of view of international law, but since the agreements were signed, only security patterns are referred to beg that part of these territories we are entitled to remain in our hands.” Prof. Cho’hatman says he sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999) his work on the above, but regrets such effort was to no avail.
    Do not just be right, but also know.
    There are other arguments for the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. For example, the fact these territories cannot be considered ”busy” since they do not belong, de facto, to an enemy state. Nor can be considered the inconsistency of the term ”1967 borders”, which are NOT “borders” but the cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian armies at the end of the War of Independence of 1948. Based upon Documents and International law, the only fully supported rational legal conclusion is Israel has the right to full expectations of “TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY”. As such, and under International Law, any imposition by force or coercion of a border change is “an act of aggression”.

    Yet the above arguments are not raised. The reasons? They are many: Israel and the Israelis became convinced themselves that they were a colonial power and archives in the world will not be able to release this distorted image. Also in Jerusalem, it probably feels that right or not right, the world has already chosen sides. In the corridors of the Foreign Ministry, it is even said that under international law, “it is 99% opinion, and 1% policy of law.” But in Israel, there is another expression that says it is not enough to be right, but you must also be smart. Thus, it is time now for the good of the State of Israel, to be smart and to make the world know what is right.
    The Jewish and Arab Refugee resolution
    Since the late 1940’s the Arab States have expelled over a million Jewish people. The Arab States confiscated Jewish assets, businesses, homes and Real Estate which amounts to approx. 120,440 Sq, Km. or 75,000 sq. mi. The confiscated land is about 5-6 times the size of Israel and with the other confiscated assets is valued in the trillions of dollars. The Arab States, like the Nazis, could not then, and cannot now justify such confiscation. The State of Israel has resettled the majority of the million Jews expelled from the Arab countries in Greater Israel. The Arabs claim that about 600,000 Arabs were displaced from their homes during the 1948 war. What seems to be forgotten is the fact most of the Arab population abandoned their homes at the request of the 5 Arab Armies who were sure to defeat the newly reconstituted Jewish State. About 300,000 Arabs stayed.
    Since then the Arab and Jewish population has increased dramatically. Many new Arabs have moved into the area and many new Jews from the Holocaust and other areas have immigrated to Israel. It is about time that the Arab countries that expelled over a million Jews should resettle the Arab refugees in their vast lands. Instead of funding weapons and war, the Arab countries should utilize the funds to help the Arab refugees to relocate, build housing, schools, commerce and industry and resolve this tragedy once and for all. This simple solution will bring peace and tranquility to the region.
    YJ Draiman

  • Yale

    The man has an amazing ability to write himself out of the problems his ineptitude has caused. Maybe he should be tutored on how denunciations of Israel and its leaders stimulate anti-Semitism.

  • Steven Sass

    Obama LEADS anti-Semitism! he is Islamic and will do all he can [under cover] to move the world to that idiotic control system!

  • Lynne T

    “not the easiest of partners”, must be the biggest understatement of the day. And the public beating up on Netanyahu without dishing up the same “frankness” about Abbas has done what for peace talks?

  • art

    Obama knows, in fact I believe that when Obama kept saying that if Israel failed to surrender to the pa anti Semitism would rise he helped encourage it. It was his indirect threat, similar to his statements that, again, if Israel did not give the pa what it wanted the eu would act against Israel. Obama is openly anti Semitic even worse than Jimmy ” apartheid” carter

  • KMan

    Reminds me of a Cigarette company CEO being disturbed by a rise in cases of lung cancer.

  • Daniel

    Despite all the naysayers and highly critical voices of Obama people really should trust this man more – he is definitely on the side of those wishing for peace and stability in our world. It’s basically a bunch of conservatives around the world be they hard line nationalists, Islamo-fascists or certain conservative big business and media tycoons that shall remain nameless who are largely to blame for the world’s woes. He is unquestionably a patient liberal minded man and the one thing that can be almost for certain ascertained from what he believes in and strongly suggests is that DESPITE the majority of the world being anti semitic (still…*sigh*) and DESPITE the devious plans of Islamo-fascists such as Iran’s revolutionary leadership the US will not allow the same evil that tore the world apart last century. The rise of antisemitism worldwide is a sign of those who wish to cause mayhem for no good reason and it never ends with simply Jews so it is not just in the interests of Jews that the US will stick firmly behind the state of Israel. Ito is in the interest of global stability and economic well being.

  • Mickey Oberman

    Obamas permissible infestation of America by Muslims is to a very high degree responsible for the increase in anti Semitism.

    • Mike

      The word you were looking for is “permissive”. Some say that America is infested with Jews.

    • Jenny P

      I’m glad Obama said these things. It has been my opinion that Obama has made the same amount of pro-Muslim comments as any other president (other than Jimmy Carter, later). GWB knew about Iran’s threats since 2001, when he began receiving briefings. It took 4 years from the date of the first briefing for Bush to even make one sanction. Prior to that, Reagan had sold Iran weapons. Israel asked permission of the US to do something about Iran, but GWB refused to grant. Our political divide in the US doesn’t help. Iraq was a ridiculous venture that Israel never really supported, but hoped it would lead the world to do something about Iran. However, now that the US has spent billions in Iraq, Obama and any other president we have will be leery to make real moves on Iran. Sadly, in the end, the US is a wishy-washy ally, and one that is always predisposed to support oil rich lands even at the cost of our own country and lives therein.

  • Dennis B. O’Neil

    A palestinian state was already “offered” and refused. Obama tried to suggest their state would occupy the boundaries set before the 1967 war. Not safe for Israel. He’s also bargaining a deal with Iran that will give them the bomb sometime in the not too far distance. Not safe for Israel. Threatened to abandon Israel at the UN and vote for a Palestinian state. Not safe fort Israel. He says if the agreement with Iran is violated by Iran the sanctions will “snap back”. Obviously a lie since everyone else has admitted sanctions are too complicated to “snap back’. Not safe for Israel.

  • RobiMac

    Trying to figure out why Obama ‘cares’ so much about antisemitism when he himself is antisemitic as well as anti American.

  • Kris Kristian

    Why did he not put the blame whjere it is.
    The media, TV, etc.
    They all give distorted reports.
    the media and TV reporters are obviously paid by the Arabs to create hatred of Jews and Israel.
    Britain, USA, Belgium, Holland, France etc have allowed millions of Muslims into their countries. That is qwhere the hatred started.
    The reporters are afraid to report the truth. If they did, they would be fired, and never get a job anywhere else.

    Typical is what was reported in the Cape Times Thursday.
    IN BOLD LETTERS’
    ISRAELI OFFICER SHOOTS PALESTINIAN DRIVER”
    The first reaction, is. “these damn Israelis shooting innocent Palestinians>
    Then the report states “after he drove his car into Israel policewomen.He was shot by the police

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY read the body opf the article?
    The headline tells a story.

  • His , meaning Pres. Obama are partly correct. However, the right of creation of the purported palestinian state is not due course. Just as squatter has no right to my living room, merely because once he sat on my sofa.
    Of the Pelestinians, ” Not the easiest of partners “, is too kind. Adoni , help us.

  • Unfortunately, the Palestinians have shown themselves to be a danger to the nation of Israel. Acts of terror cannot be dismissed easily.

  • JPoland

    LOL! wow. maybe you should watch the full thing and not take excerpts that just go with your view. Context is everything.

  • Isabella

    Obama is full of lies and self-serving crap. Sorry I can’t think of a more polite word. He does NOT have Israel’s best interest in his black heart. Only wants the support of Kapo’s in the Jewish community, Of which I also wash my hands.

  • B B

    We were over run by Jews and Yankees starting in the early 1960’s. They took advantage
    Of all the college bound high school courses. My Daddy worked in the rain and
    Snow to pay taxes for that. I and most of the other “Poor White Trash”, Southern Children
    In our Native School District were excluded. A few of the children of Scalawags were allowed
    In the courses. So, you can stop your whining and Take off your Democrat “Victims Blanket”. You bring this crap upon your selves. It will not stop until you
    Stop treating the rest of humanity
    Like dirt.

  • zorka

    This guy is not to be trusted….

  • lovezion

    Why is this article called “Obama: Rise in Antisemitism is Not Some Passing Fad”??? Here, obama’s words are very reassuring of support to us. Why publishing this thing???

  • noellsq

    You cannot believe anything he says .

  • Yoni Hallak

    lol look who’s talking!!!

  • E Pluribus Wombat

    Obama said “It’s deeply disturbing that after 6 years it’s taking me longer to complete the Final Solution than I had hoped”

  • Lou VanDelman

    He says this to us, but, he does the opposite. He encourages anti-Semitism.

  • Mr President, Sir, if you are truly worried about the rise in anti-Semitism stop stoking it by enabling Israel’s enemies.

  • Fred

    Obama does not come even close. It is just a bunch of Jews who are always complaining of anti Semitic acts. We must do something about it but what. We can’t ask the preachers in the Mosques to tone down hate speeches after all its written in the good book the Koran to hate the Jew.

  • manasseh

    I’m sorry! Antisemitism only continues too grow on his watch! Why is obama continuing to persuade us of a nuclear deal with Iran who continues too state they have no ENTIONS of honoring it?

  • Bullfrog Europe

    Well forgive me for saying Mr President, you have certainly done your share in flaming the anti Semitic flames. You’ve held a privileged position & could have done a lot more to dampen anti Semitic sentiment.

    How dare you !

  • Mandrake

    1.Sanctions cannot snap back, like the Red Line in Siria?2.a “good deal” with the Iranians that would ensure security in “one of the world’s most dangerous neighborhoods.” A good deal for Israel threatened to be wiped off the map? Iran does not need nuclear bombs for that. The treaty allows Iran to wipe out Israel!
    What about the billions released that will expand more Iranian terrorism in the neighborhood which reaches Argentine?
    3.What about Abbas not willing to recognize a Jewish state while demanding a Palestinian state?
    4.Holding approval of delivery of weapons in the last conflict with Gaza?
    5.Anti-semitism? What about anti-christianism? Christians being decapitated, burnt alive, etc.?

  • Joy Appelbaum

    We’ll only know about Iran’s cheating on a nuclear deal when
    Iran causes severe havoc here in the USA, Israel or else where. Havoc is Iran’s middle name, in case our president didn’t know. Now that his term of office is ending and elections will be coming up, the Democrates probably forced him to speak at a synagogue and to say something about the rise in Anti-Semitism. He’s been too silent for too long except when arguing with Israel.

  • steven L

    HE HAS PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE RISE OF ANTISEMITISM.
    Snap back like the red lines.
    the Pal have not come yet with a single counter-offer. Only preconditions that they don’t even respect. 10 months on construction freeze during the 1st Obama mandate went to the garbage.

  • Stuart Kaufman

    Shame on Adas Israel for offering this Jew hater a venue to try to mask his Jew hatred. Disgusting!

  • Mayven

    President Obama came to office with great determination . He has succeeded in many in spite of slings and arrows… never ending.
    it does not get any easier. And not for want of trying.
    we remain hopeful.

    Shavuot tov

  • This speech makes me want to ask: Would you buy a used car from Obama?

  • Anti semitism is as old and as dangerous as any prejudice recorded in history and Iran is only the most obvious of the obvious – with most Europe once again so able to look away as the scourge grows – with immigrants doing what the indigenous do not have to do, with the flood gates open. Not the easiest of partners typifies the speaker. When a president seems to flinch and flirts with a leading fascist, fascists the world over come out of the closet to dance. In trading, the trend is your friend. I prejudice this trend is your death. And it is death to so many, for today the slaughter extends to Christians young and old, any that do not bow and scrape for the nihilists that claim at more perfect Islam… while the typical simply line up and watch, slightly less than indifferent to the result, not knowing that they are next… That sad bell is ringing again, but most are deaf. Not to remember is not to know… While not to know condemns all to the worst of it… again and again. We must not turn away, nor can we turn the other cheek. The fist clenched is all they understand.

  • Livin’ Out Loud

    From your lips, to His Ears….Shalom

    Thanks 🎈

  • noanoa

    This rise in global anti-semitism is 95% attributed to muslims in various countries.
    The problem/issue with Obama, is his logic/explanation:

    Obama is far too sensitive towards islamophobia than he is with anti-Semitism.

    Obama will negotiate with a country like Iran, which sponsored terrorism, and spews out anti-Semitism. Obama must be either delusional/incompetent person, or an anti-Semite himself.

    Obama = IDIOT !!!!!

  • If you revere a mass of Jews like Mohammad who personally decapitated 600 – 900 unarmed Jews, you are an antisemite. Look in the mirror POTUS!

  • Howard Kahan

    What a genius. “Antisemitism is not a passing fad” I never knew that. It sickens me to see this piece of S..T wearing a yarmulka.

  • Michael

    The sole intent of those Hamas rockets was to kill Jews. President Obama his Secretary of State John Kerry and his White House spokespeople intervened on the side of the Arabs. In unison, they bashed Israel.It was this dramatic change in American foreign policy that single handedly opened the door to the rekindling of European anti-Semitism. President Obama renewed the license of a 60 year moratorium of anti-Semitism in Europe.

  • Michael

    Snake oil folks. Pure unadulterated snake oil being sold by the master the flim flam. The simmering embers Semitism have always been there but President Obama fanned the flames of hate during Operation Protective Edge.Israel was protecting its citizens n territory from a massive barage of thousands of Arab rockets being fired indiscriminately from Gaza

  • Josh Korn

    So these are what 21st-century crocodile tears look like.

    We’d better make sure we remember this.

  • Alyce Goldstein

    If the congregants at the Shul believe anything he said, please tell them I am selling the Brooklyn Bridge very cheaply!

Algemeiner.com