The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos


Obama, Jews, Israel and Anti-Semitism Part 2 -- Five Articles


Related Articles:
Obama, Jews, Israel and Anti-Semitism Part 1 -- Five Articles
Obama, Jews, Israel and Anti-Semitism Part 2 -- Five Articles
Obama, Jews, Israel and Anti-Semitism Part 3 -- Four Articles
Obama and the Chicago Muslim Mafia -- Three Articles
Kisses for My Muslim President


Top Obama adviser: NYC, Miami Jews 'the problem'

Republican Jews demand Obama fire top adviser

Top Obama adviser deflects 'Jewish problem' remarks

Racists again endorse Obama on candidate's website

Why more Jews won't be voting Democrat this year


Top Obama adviser: NYC, Miami Jews 'the problem'
Also compares Muslim terrorists to religious 'radicals' in Oregon


By Aaron Klein
2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59920

JERUSALEM - Sen. Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman has implied U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Merrill A. McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff, also compared the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations to what he described as religious radicals in Oregon and claimed "born-again [Christians]" supported the war in Iraq to help Israel.

Discussing Middle East politics during a 2003 interview with the Oregonian newspaper McPeak stated, "We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . .something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough."

The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether the problem in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated with the White House or the State Department.

"So where's the problem?" the interviewer asked.

McPeak replied, "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

McPeak went on to insist that to solve the conflict, Israelis must "stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically."

McPeak did not point to Palestinian terrorism or the recent election of Hamas to power as problems impeding an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

As a follow-up question, the Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether "there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"

McPeak responded by comparing the two terror groups to "radical" Oregonians.

"There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place."

McPeak said there was "some" good will toward peace on the Israeli side, but qualified, "that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population - I think there's enough good will there.

"I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well," McPeak said.

The McPeak interview circulated on several large blogs yesterday, including the popular Powerline blog, after it was first pointed out in the American Spectator online magazine by Robert Goldberg, a writer and vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Interpreting the identity of voters in Miami and NYC McPeak had referred to, Goldberg stated: "Translation (as if it's needed): Jews - who put Israel over every American interest - control America's policy on the Middle East."

Goldberg also pointed out McPeak once claimed Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel.

Stated McPeak while discussing the Iraq war: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense . So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical...."

McPeak is the latest Obama adviser to be highlighted for controversial views regarding Israel.

WND recently quoted Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group

Also Samantha Power, who was described as Obama's closest adviser until she resigned earlier this month after making strong remarks against Sen. Hillary Clinton, advocated in an interview investing "billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Stated Goldberg: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."


Republican Jews demand Obama fire top adviser
Campaign co-chairman said Jewish voters in Miami, NYC 'the problem'


By Aaron Klein
2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59948

The Republican Jewish Coalition has demanded Sen. Barack Obama immediately fire his military adviser and national campaign co-chairman, Merrill A. McPeak, who implied U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff, also compared the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations to what he described as religious radicals in Oregon and claimed "born-again [Christians]" supported the war in Iraq to help Israel.

"By choosing to have a military adviser and national campaign co-chairman like General McPeak, serious questions and doubts are once again being raised about Senator Obama's positions and judgment on Middle East issues," said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a lobbying group that advocates Jewish support for the Republican Party.

"Rather than putting the blame where it belongs - on the Palestinian leadership and their continued reliance on terror - General McPeak finds it more convenient to blame American Jewry and their perceived influence," said Brooks.

"This is the same dangerous and disturbing canard being promoted by the likes of (former President) Jimmy Carter and authors Mearsheimer and Walt in their book, 'The Israel Lobby,'" Brooks said.

"Obama continues to surround himself with advisers holding troubling and disturbing anti-Israel bias," Brooks said. "We call on Senator Obama to immediately remove McPeak from his campaign leadership role and as a key adviser."

Obama's campaign yesterday released a statement the presidential candidate "disagrees" with McPeak's comments but the campaign did not reply to calls for McPeak to be fired.

"Senator Obama's longstanding commitment to Israel is clear to anyone who has reviewed his voting record, read his speeches or looked at his policy papers. As he has said, his support for our democratic ally Israel is based on America's national interests and our shared values. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama agrees with every position their advisers take, and in this case Senator Obama disagrees with General McPeak's comments," the statement said.

Yesterday, controversial comments made by McPeak were circulated on major blogs and reported by WND after the statements were first pointed out in the American Spectator online magazine by Robert Goldberg, a writer and vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Discussing Middle East politics during a 2003 interview with the Oregonian newspaper, McPeak stated, "We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so, the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough."

The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether the problem in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated with the White House or the State Department.

"So where's the problem?" the interviewer asked.

McPeak replied, "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

McPeak went on to insist that to solve the conflict, Israelis must "stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically."

McPeak did not point to Palestinian terrorism or the recent election of Hamas to power as problems impeding an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

As a follow-up question, the Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether "there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"

McPeak responded by comparing the two terror groups to "radical" Oregonians.

"There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place."

McPeak said there was "some" good will toward peace on the Israeli side, but he qualified, "that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population - I think there's enough good will there.

"I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well," McPeak said.

Interpreting the identity of voters in Miami and New York City to whom McPeak had referred, Goldberg stated: "Translation (as if it's needed): Jews - who put Israel over every American interest - control America's policy on the Middle East."

Goldberg also pointed out McPeak once claimed Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel.

Stated McPeak while discussing the Iraq war: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations (sic), then it makes sense . So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical. ..."

McPeak is the latest Obama adviser to be highlighted for controversial views regarding Israel.

WND recently quoted Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group

Also Samantha Power, who was described as Obama's closest adviser until she resigned earlier this month after making strong remarks against Sen. Hillary Clinton, advocated in an interview investing "billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Stated Goldberg: "Obama has a Jewish problem, and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."


Top Obama adviser deflects 'Jewish problem' remarks
Retired general references wrong interview in response to calls for his resignation


By Aaron Klein
2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=60140

JERUSALEM - Merrill A. McPeak, Sen. Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman, yesterday sought to deflect calls for his resignation over comments he made during an interview in which he implied U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff, also compared the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations to what he described as religious radicals in Oregon and claimed "born-again [Christians]" supported the war in Iraq to help Israel.

But in his response yesterday, McPeak referred to the wrong interview and largely did not address the comments that prompted calls for his ouster.

"This all stems from an article I wrote in the mid-70s, (and) I urge you to get the article," McPeak said in an interview with Shalom TV, which bills itself as a "mainstream Jewish cable television network."

"The Council on Foreign Relations has published it again on their website. I will happily buy you dinner anywhere if you can find those words in that article. This is baloney," McPeak said in a phone interview with the Jewish network.

The article McPeak referred to is a lengthy piece he wrote in 1976 for Foreign Affairs magazine in which he questioned Israel's insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.

The Golan is strategic mountainous territory looking down on Israeli population centers that was twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state. The West Bank borders Jerusalem and is within rocket-firing range of Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport.

McPeak's views at the time were in direct contradiction to a 1967 report by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, which argued in a memorandum to the Defense Department that Israel must retain control of much of the Golan and "the prominent high ground [of the West Bank] running north-south." The report has since been upheld by over 100 retired U.S. generals and admirals.

But the comments that landed McPeak in hot water stem from a 2003 interview with the Oregonian newspaper.

Discussing Middle East politics in the interview, McPeak stated, "We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so, the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough."

The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether the problem in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated with the White House or the State Department.

"So where's the problem?" the interviewer asked.

McPeak replied, "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

McPeak went on to insist that to solve the conflict, Israelis must "stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically."

McPeak did not point to Palestinian terrorism as a problem impeding an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

As a follow-up question, the Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether "there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"

McPeak responded by comparing the two terror groups to "radical" Oregonians.

"There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place."

McPeak said there was "some" good will toward peace on the Israeli side, but he qualified, "that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population - I think there's enough good will there.

"I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well," McPeak said.

Blaming Jews

As WND reported, McPeak's comments prompted the Republican Jewish Coalition this week to demand Obama immediately fire his military adviser and national campaign co-chairman.

"By choosing to have a military adviser and national campaign co-chairman like General McPeak, serious questions and doubts are once again being raised about Senator Obama's positions and judgment on Middle East issues," said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a lobbying group that advocates Jewish support for the Republican Party.

"Rather than putting the blame where it belongs - on the Palestinian leadership and their continued reliance on terror - General McPeak finds it more convenient to blame American Jewry and their perceived influence," said Brooks.

"Obama continues to surround himself with advisers holding troubling and disturbing anti-Israel bias," Brooks said. "We call on Senator Obama to immediately remove McPeak from his campaign leadership role and as a key adviser."

Speaking to Shalom TV, McPeak accused the Republican Jewish Coalition of partisan politics in calling for his ouster. "You'll have to check with [the RJC] on what they're trying to do here. Or with the Clinton campaign. This has the smell of politics, doesn't it?" he said.

Although he referenced the wrong interview, McPeak did speak in general terms about American Jews.

"American Jewry has some influence, just like [American] Irish have influence about Ireland policy, just like the National Rifle Association has something to say about our arms policy," he said.

"I don't object to interest groups or lobbying groups exercising influence. I think our government takes account of the various kinds of competing interests that are represented in our country, and then acts in a way that is consistent with our own best interest."

The latest

McPeak is the latest Obama adviser to be highlighted for controversial views regarding Israel.

Anti-Israel and anti-America comments by Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor and spiritual adviser of more than 20 years, recently prompted the presidential candidate to deliver a major race policy speech.

Obama's church also printed an opinion piece by Hamas and published an open letter in which a Palestinian activist accuses Israel is constructing an "ethnic bomb" that "kills blacks and Arabs."

WND recently quoted Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group

Also Samantha Power, who was described as Obama's closest adviser until she resigned earlier this month after making strong remarks against Sen. Hillary Clinton, advocated in an interview investing "billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Robert Goldberg, a doctor who first pointed out McPeak's controversial statements, wrote in a piece in the American Spectator online magazine: "Obama has a Jewish problem, and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."


Racists again endorse Obama on candidate's website


By Aaron Klein
2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=60325

An anti-white and virulently anti-Semitic black supremacist party has once again endorsed Sen. Barack Obama on the presidential candidate's own website, WND has learned.

Following criticism earlier this month of an online endorsement from the New Black Panther Party, or NBPP, Obama's campaign removed the controversial organization from the presidential candidate's official website. The NBPP had been a registered team member and blogger on Obama's "MyObama" campaign site.

But the NBPP endorsement was reposted on Obama's official website today.

"Obama is capable of stirring the 'melting pot' into a better 'molten America,'" states the NBPP endorsement posted on Obama's site.

The NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious for their racist statements and for leading anti-white activism.

Malik Zulu Shabazz, NBPP national chairman, who has given scores of speeches condemning "white men" and Jews, confirmed his organization's endorsement of Obama in a recent interview with WND.

"I think the way Obama responded to the attack on him and the attempt to sabotage his campaign shows true leadership and character. He had a chance to denounce his pastor and he didn't fall for the bait. He stood up and addressed real issues of racial discord," stated Shabazz.

Shabazz boasted he met Obama last March when the politician attended the 42nd anniversary of the voting rights marches in Selma, Ala.

"I have nothing but respect for Obama and for his pastor," said Shabazz, referring to Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.

It is Wright's racially charged and anti-Israel remarks that were widely circulated this month, landing the presidential candidate in hot water and prompting Obama to deliver a major race speech in which he condemned Wright's comments but not the pastor himself.

Speaking to WND, Shabazz referred to Obama as a man with a "Muslim background, a man of color."

Shabazz's NBPP's official platform states "white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind," refers to the "white racist government of America," demands black people be exempt from military service and uses the word "Jew" repeatedly in quotation marks.

Shabazz has led racially divisive protests and conferences, such as the 1998 Million Youth March in which a few thousand Harlem youths reportedly were called upon to scuffle with police officers and speakers demanded the extermination of whites in South Africa.

The NBPP chairman was quoted at a May 2007 protest against the 400-year celebration of the settlement of Jamestown, Va., stating, "When the white man came here, you should have left him to die."

He claimed Jews engaged in an "African holocaust," and he has promoted the anti-Semitic urban legend that 4,000 Israelis fled the World Trade Center just prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

When Shabazz was denied entry to Canada last May while trying to speak at a black action event, he blamed Jewish groups and claimed Canada "is run from Israel."

Canadian officials justified the action stating he has an "anti-Semitic" and "anti-police" record, but some reports blamed what was termed a minor criminal history for the decision to deny him entry.

He similarly blamed Jews for then-New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani's initial decision, later rescinded, against granting a permit for the Million Youth March.

The NBPP's deceased chairman, Khallid Abdul Muhammad, a former Nation of Islam leader who was once considered Louis Farrakhan's most trusted adviser, gave speeches referring to the "white man" as the "devil" and claiming that "there is a little bit of Hitler in all white people."

In a 1993 speech condemned by the U.S. Congress and Senate, Muhammad, lionized on the NBPP site, referred to Jews as "bloodsuckers," labeled the pope a "no-good cracker" and advocated the murder of white South Africans who would not leave the nation subsequent to a 24-hour warning.

All NBPP members must memorize the group's rules, such as that no party member "can have a weapon in his possession while drunk or loaded off narcotics or weed," and no member "will commit any crimes against other party members or black people at all."

The NBPP endorses Obama on its own page of the presidential candidate's official site that allows registered users to post their own blogs.

The group labels itself on Obama's site as representing "Freedom, Justice, and Peace for all of Mankind." It links to the official NBPP website, which contains what can be arguably regarded as hate material.

The NBPP previously endorsed Obama on the presidential candidate's site, but following publicity of that endorsement, the Obama campaign removed the NBPP posting.

"It's our policy [to remove] any content generated by a group that advocates violence," explained Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor to FoxNews.com.

Before the campaign removed the party's page, Obama spokeswoman Tiffany Edwards told FoxNews.com the NBPP endorsement on Obama's website "has nothing to do with us."

"People can form their own groups," she said. "It's not something that the campaign - it's not something that we've done."

While it appears anyone can initially sign up as a registered supporter on Obama's site, it isn't clear whether the campaign monitors the site or approves users. There is a link on each blog page for users to report any abusers, such as those who post controversial entries, to the administrator.

Shabbazz chalked up the Obama campaign's initial removal of his NBPP endorsement from the website to "the game of politics."

"The Obama camp's move to remove our blog doesn't mean much because I understand politics. We still completely support Obama as the best candidate," he told WND.

Shabazz said that aside from promoting black rights, he also supports Obama because he may take what he called a "less biased" policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I have hopes he will change the U.S. government's position toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because our position has been unwarranted bias. Time and time again the U.S. vetoed resolutions in the U.N. Security Council condemning [Israeli] human rights violations. ... I hope he shifts policy," Shabazz said.

But he added he doesn't believe Obama could change America's policy regarding Israel very much since, he said, "other, powerful lobbies" control U.S. foreign policy.

Shabazz's comments follow recent reports highlighting the anti-Israel views of scores of Obama advisors.

Merrill A. McPeak, Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman, last week sought to deflect calls for his resignation over comments he made during an interview in which he implied U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff, also compared the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations to what he described as religious radicals in Oregon and claimed "born-again [Christians]" supported the war in Iraq to help Israel.

WND recently quoted Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.

Also, Samantha Power, described as Obama's closest adviser until she resigned earlier this month after making strong remarks against Sen. Hillary Clinton, advocated investing "billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Additionally, Obama's church printed an opinion piece by Hamas and published an open letter in which a Palestinian activist accuses Israel of constructing an "ethnic bomb" that "kills blacks and Arabs."

Robert Goldberg, a doctor who first pointed out McPeak's controversial statements, wrote in a piece in the American Spectator online magazine: "Obama has a Jewish problem, and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."


Why more Jews won't be voting Democrat this year


By JENNIFER RUBIN
July 2, 2008
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726181011&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Defenders of Barack Obama, and sometimes Obama himself, seem frustrated that some American Jews refuse to assume their traditional role of support for the Democratic presidential nominee. The Obama defenders are irked that not all Jews accept at face value Obama's expressions of devotion to Israel and commitment to her security.

Why can't these contrarians just take Obama at his word (he is a Zionist, he really is, they insist)? The answer is "1973."

But the explanation starts in 2008. Many Jewish Obama doubters are convinced that Israel faces a true existential threat unlike any in 35 years. From nation states like Iran, which threaten to destroy Israel, to Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists, Israel may in the next decade be pushed to the brink of its existence. Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah in 2006 demonstrated the limits of Israel's historic military advantage.

With the spread of nuclear weapons and other deadly technologies a second Holocaust - that is, the annihilation of a substantial portion of world Jewry - is not out of the realm of imagination.

These OBAMA skeptics recall a similar time, 1973, when Israel also faced extermination. Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat's willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat.

The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon's staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don't antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.

Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: "Tell them to send everything that can fly." Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.

Israel was saved due to this massive infusion of military aid. Meir referred to Nixon with enormous affection for the rest of her life. Nixon, despised by many in the US, was hailed as a hero in Israel. And Nixon (who had garnered a minority of the Jewish vote in 1972) received little or no political benefit at home for his trouble, leaving office the following year.

SO WHAT does this have to do with Obama? The Obama skeptics do not for a moment believe that Obama, in the face of domestic and international pressure similar to what Nixon faced, would rise to the occasion at a critical moment in Israel's history and "tell them to send everything that can fly."

In every significant interaction in Obama's adult life with those who distain and vilify Israel - from Rashid Khalidi to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Louis Farrakhan - Obama has demonstrated passive resignation and indifference.

He did not stand up to his friend Khalidi, the Palestinian activist, professor and former Palestinian spokesman whom Obama honored at a farewell dinner, and object to Palestinian invectives that Israel was an apartheid state. He did not recoil, until Wright insulted him at the National Press Club, from Wright when he learned that Wright considered Israel a "dirty word" and postulated that Israel had invented an "ethnic bomb."

He did not heed (or was oblivious to) public pleas from Jewish organizations to avoid the Million Man March that Farrakhan organized; nor did he years later leave his church when it honored Farrakhan. It took a hateful rant from another wide-eyed preacher against Hillary Clinton, just when Obama needed to cool intra-party animosities, to do that.

AND IF any further proof were needed, Obama's actions with regard to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, the measure to classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, should settle the question of Obama's intestinal fortitude when it comes to Israel. An issue presented itself: a choice between, on the one hand, taking a stance against Israel's most vile enemy, Iran, and, on the other, appeasing the far Left of his own party.

Obama chose to satisfy the MoveOn.org crowd and opposed the amendment. The amendment would have been "saber rattling" and unduly provocative, Obama argued at the time. Senators Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and three quarters of the US Senate voted for the amendment.

Once his nomination was secured, Obama told those assembled at the AIPAC convention that he supported classification of the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, a move he well understood was important to Israel's security and to AIPAC's members. Yet under just a smidgen of political pressure during the primary race, he had not been able to muster the will to support a modest measure which inured to Israel's benefit.

IS THERE anything in all this to suggest that in a potential crisis, when much of the world would be pressuring him to let Israel die, Obama would push all the naysayers aside and demand to "send them everything that can fly"? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he would be beyond persuasion when it came down to Israel's survival. In fact, all the available evidence indicates that the opposite is true.

That does not mean Obama will not carry the majority of the Jewish vote. Jews are overwhelmingly Democratic, and it is certainly the case that for many American Jews the secular liberal agenda takes precedence over everything else in presidential politics.

For these voters, then, "1973" is not uppermost in their minds. Their devotion to liberalism is controlling, and for their own peace of mind they are willing to accept Obama's generic expressions of warm feelings toward Israel.

Indeed the temptation to believe in Obama's bland promises of support for Israel is a tempting one for liberal Jews. If they can convince themselves that he will be "fine on Israel," no conflict arises between their liberal impulses and their concern for Israel. The urge to believe is a powerful thing, especially when the alternative is an intellectual or moral quandary.

It is also the case that some American Jews simply do not believe Israel is in peril, or that "1973" is remotely relevant. They imagine Iran is merely spouting nonsense, that Hizbullah and Hamas lack the organization or competence to threaten Israel's survival, and that Israel will muddle along indefinitely.

BUT SOME Jews are incapable of deluding themselves that Obama would be the most resolute candidate in defending Israel. In quiet moments of contemplation and in noisy debates with family members and friends, they worry about the tenuous nature of Israel's existence and the dangers which lurk from within and outside Israel's borders. These Jews cannot imagine a world without Israel and could not countenance election of a president who, in Israel's moment of peril, could well falter.

And that is why these obstinate Obama skeptics, some even after a lifetime of Democratic voting, will not pull the lever for him. For them some things rank higher than even the top items on the liberal political agenda. The risk is, in their minds, too great that when Israel needs help the most, Obama will buckle and Israel will be crushed.

Many, albeit not all and likely not even most, American Jews will therefore decline to vote for Obama. They know that if the majority of their co-religionists had their way and George McGovern, rather than Richard Nixon, had been in the White House in 1973, Israel might not have survived.

A few barbs from their fellow congregants, amazed they would not vote for a Democrat for president, are a small burden to bear as they cast their vote for the candidate who - they are certain - when the chips are down, will send everything that can fly.

The writer blogs at Commentary Magazine's CONTENTIONS Web site and is a regular contributor to Weekly Standard, New York Observer, Human Events, American Spectator and other print and online publications. She lives in Northern Virginia.
Reading List