Barack Obama: The Accidental Anti-Semite

Giulio Meotti is a rare bird.

He is one of the few prominent non-Jewish journalists who covers the Arab-Israel conflict and who is unabashedly pro-Israel, but he’s not the only one.  The Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab, immediately leaps to mind, but there are very few others.

In a recent piece for Arutz Sheva entitled, Obama is Sacrificing Israel on an Iranian Deal Offer, Meotti makes a rather blunt statement.

“Obama’s record against Israeli Jews is long and abundant. He is the most anti-Semitic US president ever.”

I am someone who, having voted for Obama in 2008, became highly critical of his foreign policy, particularly around the Arab-Israel conflict, because the contradictions and tensions within his foreign policy were counterproductve and corrosive toward the well-being of the Jewish people in the Middle East.  For example, demanding a “total settlement freeze” ruined any possibility for a negotiated conclusion of hostilities, or even the easing of tensions between the Jews and the Arabs in the Land of Israel, during his first term.  His support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East as a matter of “democracy” was enough to make any semi-conscious human being want to empty their stomach in the wrong direction.

But, I have to say, while I have considered some of Obama’s policies to be anti-Semitic, I never considered the man, himself, to be anti-Semitic.  The truth of the matter is that if Obama is anti-Semitic, he is an Accidental Anti-Semite.  One of Obama’s most anti-Semitic policies is in his demand to end settlement activity among Jews in Judea and Samaria.  There are few things in this world, both today and historically, more bigoted against Jews than demanding that Jews be allowed to live – and thus build housing for themselves – in one place, but not another.  Obama’s attitude concerning this, along with Mahmoud Abbas’s attitude, very much smacks of medieval Europe in which the various princes and potentates felt free to circumscribe Jewish lives to particular areas of which they approved, which is to say, into the ghetto.

Obama’s policy in regards the so-called “settlements,” however, did not emerge in a vacuum or out of conscious malice for the Jewish people.  It emerged because the Palestinian Authority claimed that Jewish Israelis were stealing “Palestinian land” and because his American Jewish advisers agreed with Abbas that Israeli Jews must cease building housing for themselves on the land that the Palestinian Authority claims for its own.  This is why Obama called for “total settlement freeze.”  He did so because the idea was given the seal of kashrut by his Jewish advisers who told him that the Jews in Judea and Samaria represented obstacles to peace.

Thus one of the foremost blunders of the Obama administration came upon the advice of his Jewish counselors.

Meotti writes:

Obama sees the Israeli Jews as “disturbers of the peace.” He wants to see them so disheartened that in the end they will choose not to fight, but to surrender.

Obama has become very dangerous for the Judeo-Christian civilizations and values. He backed Egypt’s Islamist president Mohammed Morsi, who called Jews “apes” and “pigs”, and appeased Iran’s leaders, who want to incinerate the Jewish State and its people.

My, my.  Those are harsh words, aren’t they?

Perhaps I am just too polite, but I don’t think that I would go quite so far.  Of course, it is true that Obama backed Morsi and Morsi does call Jews “apes” and “pigs.”  It’s also true that Obama will not likely prevent the Iranian regime from gaining nuclear weaponry, although I am willing to hold out hope on that question.

Under the Obama Administrations, a malignant growth has raised its head: anti-Jewish legislation in Judea and Samaria, “the occupied territories”. By imposing a freeze on “settlement”, Obama’s Trojan horse against the Jews, the White House sent Islamists the message that this is a right which the Israelis are willing to waive under threat (his) and force.

That’s actually a very good point.  By imposing a “freeze” on settlements Obama sends the message that Arab anti-Jewish racism is well-founded and that, therefore, Arabs should not have to live among Jews in the region of Judea.  Did he make such a move out of disdain in his heart for the Jewish people?  I honestly do not think so.   He did it because he falsely believed that it was practical policy-making and the reason that he falsely believed that it was practical policy-making is because his pro-Israel Jewish advisers told him it was so.

If future historians conclude that Barack Obama was the most anti-Israel president in American history they will need to give considerable credit to his Jewish friends and advisers.  The problem with his Jewish friends and advisers is not that they are anti-Israel or, in any way, anti-Semitic, but that they yet labor under the Delusions of Oslo.  They still believe that the Palestinian Authority wants a state for itself in peace next to the Jewish one and that it is primarily the Israelis who are preventing any such outcome.

And that is how they turned Barack Obama into the Accidental Anti-Semite.

Giulio Meotti, unlike Barack Obama, is a good friend to both the Jewish people and to the Jewish State of Israel, but he is too harsh in his assessments because he focuses those assessments on Obama, himself, while giving Obama’s Jewish advisers a pass.

Until such a time as American Jewish political leadership internalizes the truth that the problem is not with the minority Jewish population of the Middle East, but with the far larger, racist Arab majority, then we will continue to conjure up Accidental Anti-Semites, like golums, out of the imaginations of diaspora Jewish political kabbalists.

If Barack Obama is an anti-Semite, he is an anti-Semite mainly of our own creation.

Check Also

From Israel: “Give No Quarter!!”

The world is in horrendous shape.  And yet, yet the focus is on us, here …


  1. Giulio Meotti… I love you. You’re spot on.

    How he speaks the truth.

    Maybe Obama is not an antisemite but he is most definitely not pro-Isreal and favours the Arabs

  2. I would start by saying that nobody is born an antisemite, someone instils it, as well as any other beliefs, in the human’s brains, usually other humans, born before the antisemite in the making – sometimes after, but that’s another ontological matter -.
    I will only agree that the multitude of Obama’s Jewish advisers, political groomers etc. were Jewish. I would go as far as saying that without Messrs Rappaport et co. Obama would still be a very active and highly respected subburban lawyer, mainly very West of Washington DC or who would have cared where else.
    I will also insist here, for the first time and maybe only time, that what could be seen as anti Israel is not necessarily antisemitic.
    Another thing I am very keen on is the fallacy that Obama encouraged and was responsible for the political success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I will notqualify that statement by saying “the temporary” successof the MB, because Obama, in my book, WAS resposnivble for the TEMPORARY success of the MB. I will qualify that by introducing the notion of the INEVITABILITY of the raise and success of the MB. I will insist, consequently, that Obama is responsible for the END of that “inevitability”. All we have to look at it the ABSENCE of Obama decrying the demise of the MB and, implicitely, the solid installment of the anti MB institutions in current Egypt, something not many people are willing to comment on.
    More can be said about the alleged support for the MB, but right now we are enjoying an outcome which allays anu suposition that Obama has ecer been a true MB suporter.

    The issue of the settlements and the apparent support Obama is extending to gthe Palestinian instransigence is, again, a metter of relative political balancing and implicit necessary ostensive iamges. I will throw in only one importnat issue: USA must exit the anti USA zone of hatred well entrenched in the Islamic world !!! As such, it must have been agreed between the friends that Israel shall be bearing the brunt of anti Zionist, anti settlement etc. policies now seen as an organic part of the ME comprehensive political….settlement efforts.

    to be continued…………but I largely disagree with the author and that’s just good ol’ me.

    • I must apologise for the excessive typos in the text above. “Someone” was pushing me and pushing me to get off the computer and do something for her………………….

  3. Susan Parsons

    Hi Michael,

    I don’t know if you are feeling guilty about voting for Obama or something of this nature.

    I do not see him as an ‘accidental anti-Semite’.

    I think this is ridiculous!

    How can anyone develop/have an “accidental opinion”?

    Perhaps a person, if caught in some drastic situation, can be an accidental hero, an accidental victim etc etc.

    If one wants to be an anti-Semite it doesn’t happen by accident – it is a choice and he is a grown up! (So they tell us).

    In any case, and I have said this before, the end result is the same.

    Obama will do nothing to stop the destruction of Israel. That’s the key point.

    You know this. I know this. And so do most people.

    Another Meotti article:

    Are all these churches accidental anti-Semites? Or is Meotti biased?

    I have been reading his articles for years and I think he is spot-on!

    I totally concur with Shirlee.

    I know there are a lot of Jews in the Democratic Party. I know Emmanuel and Axelrod are Jewish too.(in a manner of speaking).

    But they are not my kind of Jew. These are J-Street Jews.

    I have relatives like that and they haven’t even heard of J-Street.

    I find it hard that Left-wing Jews are Zionists. I find this to be virtually incompatible.
    I think many Jews are ignorant of Islam.

    Barry is not ignorant of Islam.

    And a bit off topic…

    I recently watched “The Bible” miniseries as I watch a lot of anything about the Bible – both Old and New Testaments.

    Did they accidentally cast a Moroccan actor to play Satan who just happens to look like an older Barry?

    Did they accidentally cast a very good-looking young man to portray Jesus?

    I suppose the jury is still out on that but my view is that it wasn’t an accident. Just MHO.

    • I am with you all the way here Susan.

      Mike, he was educated in a Madras in Indonesia, where he was educated in the ways of Islam and the Quran. No one will convince me otherwise, but if a person is a ‘true believer’ then it follows they are antisemitic. One only has to read verse after verse, and passage after passage to know that. Mind you it’s not only Jews.

      For years he attended the church of Jeremiah Wright, where he was well and truly indoctrinated. Look how quickly he left that establishment when it was revealed in the media.

      “Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but contended that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama’s strong links to Trinity, he had not thought it appropriate to leave the church.

      He began distancing himself from Wright when he called his pastor the night before the February 2007 announcement of Obama’s presidential candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event.

      A spokesperson later said, “Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but… decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself.”

      Wright attended the announcement, prayed with Obama beforehand, and in December 2007 Obama named him to the African American Religious Leadership Committee of his campaign.

      The Obama campaign released Wright after the controversy.

      Obama’s critics found this response inadequate; Mark Steyn, writing in the conservative publication National Review, stated:

      “Reverend Wright[‘s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old.”

      On March 18, in the wake of the controversy, Obama delivered a speech entitled “A More Perfect Union” at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the course of the 37-minute speech, Obama spoke of the divisions formed through generations through slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws, and the reasons for the kinds of discussions and rhetoric used among blacks and whites in their own communities.

      While condemning the remarks by the pastor, he sought to place them in historical context by describing some of the key events that have formed Wright’s views on race-related matters in America.

      Obama did not disown Wright, whom he has labeled as “an old uncle”, as akin to disowning the black community.The speech was generally well received. Obama said that some of the comments by his pastor reminded him of what he called America’s “tragic history when it comes to race.”


      • Susan Parsons

        Thank you, Shirley!

        • “Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign”

          Why at the beginning?

          Hadn’t he been attending that church for years?

          As Marcellus said in ‘Hamlet’

          “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”

  4. How does one stave off the claims of “legitimacy” of prejudice !!??
    Obama has been forced by so many attributes, African American, American, indeed involved with Islam at an early age, even his middle name etc. to balance a multitudes of acts.
    Could he dismiss traditional black American expressions of racial claims and objections, most of them spoken from religious pulpits !!?? Could he not endorse the legitimacy of black prejudice against “agents” of racism !!?? If even if not black, any American President needs to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of racial prejudice against the blacks in America today. When excessively expressed the same Obama did intervene and calmed down the spirits. The same with anti Islamism expressed from the church and the savage reactions by islam.

  5. The myth of the supposed “illegality” of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is in the tradition of the blood libels. No doubt about it.

  6. The main point here, of course, is that Obama would never have demanded the anti-Semitic notion that Jews must not be allowed to live beyond the 49 armistice lines were it not for the bad advice of his Jewish counselors.

    It was they who told him that the Jewish villages in the area represented an impediment to peace. It was they who encouraged him to take an anti-Semitic stance.

    If we do not wish others to be bigoted toward Jews than we should not advise them to be bigoted toward Jews.

  7. Michael

    I detect with great satisfaction your intimation that, in fact, Obama was not and still does not claim to be a Middle Eastern policy expert or even that in his political morphology Israel, never mind the whole bloody ME almost ever occured. Absolutely right about the political groomers responsible for his meteoric ascendancy. Even here I would suggest that Israel has not been a major concern for Obama the political contender. That Rappaport comes from a non ( at least ) Zionist background is a given. Yet, as a Jew, one would expect him to dwell on Jewish issues as such. I, for one, DO not believe to this having been the case and the same goes for the other, far mor obnoxious bloke, the current Mayor of Chicago………. We attribute Obama traits he does not have. Obama is Jewish indiferent at best. Yet he must be interested because this is part of his daily routine in the oval office.
    Bibi is by far the most intense Lod-NYC PM traveller in the bilateral USA-Isr. relationship precisely because he is still “educating” the current Obama Admin in being the expected allies of Israel USA is meant to be. This is one of the reasons Bibi is just as keen and more at home with the Congress and the Senate. Over there he is trully among reliable old friends.

    One other thing and that’s it for now: the Pentagon is a serious problem here. They run their own strategies not just militarily but POLITICALLY too. They are like the judiciary, a distinct force, and that is the operative term. We must look at the Pentagon more attantively when it comes to US policies which involve military notions, never mind interventions. Israel is a military proposition par excellence !! It is per se as well as in intimate conection with everything else USA is involved in terms of any operations which involve Islamic counterparts and Israel is an Islamic issue.

    ……… be continued……………….

    • Otto,

      “Obama is Jewish indifferent at best. Yet he must be interested because this is part of his daily routine in the oval office.”

      It seems like a contradiction yet, in fact, it is not. Obama doesn’t dislike Jews as Jews. Heck, very many of his associates from Columbia to Harvard to the Illinois state senate were Jews. He thinks of Jewish people as, for the most part, friends and supporters because, in the United States, we have tended to be friends and supporters.

      He doesn’t trust Israeli Jews, however, and they do not trust him. The reason he stirs the pot on the Arab-Israel conflict is not because of any particular disdain for the Jewish people, as a whole, but because he sat at the feet of Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi. He therefore views Israel within the western post-colonial paradigm.

      He is the “Accidental Anti-Semite” because he would not have taken the view that Jews must not be allowed to build housing for themselves on Jewish land were it not for people such as Rahm Israel Emanuel, the current mayor of Chicago, not to mention Alan Dershowitz, who I generally respect… but not always!

  8. Michael

    ……at the very personal, intimate, level we my assume lots of things about Obama and what you have been suggesting icould be seen consistent with every aparent details offered by public Obama.
    Yet, within the political conditions of any modern US Presidency, major decisions are the responsiboility and domain of colective structures and, in this respect there are many and varried.
    One of the revealing cases in this respect has been Pres. Carter. “His” administration was consistent with US policies toward Israel. Israel availed herself of unaffected support, yet, once Jimmy Carter became a private citizen, completely distinct features dominated his persona in relation to Israel. Most importantly, during his presidency, Carter did not attract any criticism from any Jewish quarters, yet, based on his post presidential behaviour, Obama is a rabid Zionist compared to Carter.

  9. Susan

    can we agree that dealing with the palestinians is done at different levels, each according to the source. This means that US deals with them the US way, considering the complexities of US position/general exposure and Israel is ALLLOWED, within the US-Israel cooperation/understanding, to deal with the same palestinians/Fatah/Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran her own way !!
    I have detected heaps of convergence locums between US and Israel. There are fundamental consistencies and that, to be frank, makes me feel quite calm and placid. Isn’t that selfevident ??!!

    • Susan Parsons

      Yes, Otto, we can agree on that.

      My issue is simply that the USA today is not what it used to be. It’s that simple.

      I have friends there who are immigrating because they no longer recognize their own country.

      I don’t trust this government.The lies that have come from the top are incredible.

      • 1st I wish to remind you what Graucho said: ” My eyes are not what they used to be. They used to be my feet.”

        2nd I will say myself – simply because not great name has conceived it yet – that the principal function of a Government, particularly the top echelon, is to produce lies. Your function and, humbly, mine is to see through the lies.

        • Susan Parsons

          True, Otto.
          All politicians lie. I know that and have for years. However in all my life I have never seen the amount of lies and deceit that has come from the Obama admin and the Rudd/Gillard admins.

          Cultural Marxism and moral relativism have enabled the left to take lying to a whole new level!

  10. ….I’m glad you mentioned Marxism.
    At the strict ideological level, Marx and marxism that folloowed, created falsehoods in a very appealing way. At the pragmatic level, when in POWER – THE operative word – they produced “incredible” lies in an attampt to render those falsehoods real. Many a Marxist – Lenin, Gramsci, Lukacs and even Adorno, to name a few – tried very nicely to adjust ideological incongruities to the best expressions of formal logic, knowing, por buggers, that their determinants were false. Sartre went along for a while and, eventually, realised that one can only be a social hedonist for so long untill Ridicule shows her merciless features.

    Incidentally, according to Engels – and here I agree with him – morality can only be relative. See his notion of dialectical materialism.