Hoenlein and Palin: Match Made in Iran

Well, yesterday's news brings us the sad truth that Palin was "disinvited" when Hillary C dropped her participation.

Anyone interested in a pro-Israel approach is going to tilt towards the Republicans since they are the pro-Israel party.  Honlein wants the participation of all Jews--not just Republicans--to his dismay, Republicans dominate. However, it is possible for even Democrats to be supportive if Israel regarding the threat posed by Iran and if the American people expect some unity regarding vital issues.  If we cannot agree about the world's most dangerous man--there is no hope for SS and Medicare reform, immigration and who is to blame for the recent financial failures.

Palin is pleased to speak to the topic and she has agreed about the Iran threat for many years.  Clinton, the defeated former first lady, is not the right choice to be on the same stage as Palin.  Biden, has to many problems being anti-Israel--but could still show up and make for a balanced program.

Nope--we are not going to get it.  Instead, the Iranian dictator will get an amibivalent greeting from America instead of a united protest. 

Concerning Obama's appeal to our enemies, here is one article worth reading.  

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/why_islamists_cheer_for_obama.html 

David, if you are correct, then that would mean that 2/3 of American Jews are not interested in a "pro-Israel approach".  Can that be possible?  2/3 of American Jews want to throw Israel under the bus?  Or could it just possibly be that the Democrats are as "pro-Israel", and probably even more so, as the Republicans.  Perhaps the majority of American Jews recognize that the main Republican aspiration for Israel is to see it annhilated in prepartion for the return of Jesus.

The Jewcy staff writes that even Henry K wants there to be Iran-US negotionations.  Therefore, they believe Obama has it right.

Wrong.  Of course, the US is engaged with long-standing and rather intense negotiations with Iran.  Here is a news flash--they are not going well.  In fact, they are going horribly.  Iran has entertained negotiations with many states, has broken promises with internnational nuclear authorities, is threatening everyone it can and has specifically targeted Israel.

The wisdom of refusing to send the President to speak with Iranian leaders is that it creates legitimacy for that government and treats Iran's President as comparable to America's.  America and the world loses in such "negotiations" since our stand is clear and Iran has no right to expect favors from us.  If Obama goes to Iran--it means, ipso facto that Iran is getting a benefit and this is the meaning of negotiation.  Obama might be under some fantasy that he has the personal charm to talk him into something, negotiations that have existed for a long time are fruitless for a reason.  It is a naive assumption that talks have not worked simply because we have not sent our President.  When the President is involved, there needs to be a rock-solid sense that the other side will move our way.

This has not happened or Bush would have been there to sign some agreement long ago.

The staff admits that the Republicans are ready and willing to give Israel a "blank check."  This is the nature of having a friendly ally.  We have reason to trust Israel but more to the point, we have enough respect for Israel to allow Israel to act in its own interests if its national interests were at stake.  Curiously, the Dems go crazy over this statement--they want Israel's response to any aggression from the Arab side to by very small and not proportionate--heaven forgive--"disproportionate" and this is what they were screaming concerning the last war in Lebanon--they wanted Israel to stop bombing and the media was full of stories concerning the "innocents" killed by supposedly indiscriminate bombing of Lebanese victims.  America, if you listen to the Dems, will be given a big black eye by Israeli action and they do not want Israel to act or to act in a much more limited way so America will not "suffer" in the eyes of the world from an Israeli response.

Given the facts, why should Honlein hide his preference for Republicans?

I dont see why Palin and Clinton couldnt have shared the podium. This would have conveyed the message that in the midst of a competitive election, both parties shared concerns about a nuclear Iran. Hillary withdrew, probably because the Obama campaign doesnt want the Democratic party to be perceived as opposed to Iranian nukes. When only Palin was left, this was seen as a major embarassment, so J street pulled out all the stops to get her disinvited. This demonstrates to the Iranians that Iranian nukes are not the concern of the Jewish community or the major parties. One can only wonder whether "progressive Jews" want Iran to have nukes to serve as a deterrant to Israel, in order to force it to do as the progressives say. As Richard Silverstein described the rally as 100,000 Jews baying for Iranian blood, instead of a protest against Ahmadinejad. If I were the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, I would flood J Street with cash. It would be a good investment

Correct, anon--it would have been a nice bi-partisan show but Clinton will have no part of sharing a stage with a Republican.  It is really maddening.  McCain-Pail are more than happy to share a stage with Dems in a show of national unity but the Dems will have none of it unless they control it completely.  They would rather give Iran political cover than share a stage.  The ploy here is to offer shame--not to Iran's dictator but to a political female rival.  This is unprecedented and Jews should wake up and notice.  Hillary C is literally treating a sitting Governor of a huge state and the VP nominee to be the next VP as a pariah.  This kind of warped morality may now be standard fare for Democrats but in truth, there is no place for it.

****Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice president of the Conference of
Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, said that Clinton accepted
the invitation to the rally back in August, before Palin was part of
the Republican presidential ticket. "We had approached Republican
leaders because we wanted to have this event on a nonpartisan basis."
The Republicans offered up Palin today, he said.

Hoenlein said that Clinton had been informed of Palin's plans to
attend the Monday protest, adding that she had no intention of pulling
out.

But Clinton aides told the Associated Press tonight that they learned of Palin's involvement only when informed by reporters.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a
partisan political event," Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines told the
AP. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."***

Obviously, Palin's participation with Hillary C's makes it bi-partisan!!   Good grief.  Why Jews stick with the Democrat party is some mystery.  Change is in the air.

I want to know who forced Hillary to cancel her appearance. Hillary was forced because otherwise, she would never pass up an appearance in front of Jews in her home state. This is the true scandal

Malcom Hoenlein was just on the radio speasking about the issue.  I am afraid I still don't get it--he made reference to the fact that the IRS issued a letter than scared some Democratic attendees.  I don't get the punch line about this matter--the Obama campaign was sending both Hillary and a proxy for Biden--then, something about IRS letters and Hillary and the Demos concelled,, causing Hoenlein to disinvite the Republican speakers, including Governor Palin.

I suppose we will read more about it in the papers.  Right now, it does not make sense. 

So, are you saying that Obama also committed the same sin and deviltry when he had this Rockstar Tour.

So, Palin is learning Obama's sin and deviltry? Nahh.  You just made a non-partisan gathering into a partisan activity.

Jewcy Staff, you are also suffering from the same sin and deviltry of partisanship.

Council Demands Palin Ouster from Fallout Shelter

Newark, Blast Ring 4: Radioactive mutants from the National Jewish Democratic Council today tapped an angry Morse code press release message on the lid of the fallout shelter of another Jewish organization, demanding that it "immediately disinvite" controversial Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin from its fortified underground bunker.

"As an evangelical extremist Republican, Sarah Palin is no friend to surviving American Jews, or the former country of Israel," said NJDC chairman Mark Stanley. "Allowing Palin into a Jewish refugee shelter creates not only a partisan circus, but a health hazard for fellow Jews who will be exposed to her dangerous Alaska redneck cooties."

A spokes-tapper from the organization, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, defended the invitation of Palin to the join the group in the bunker, noting it had given similar invitations to several Democratic politicians after former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared at the United Nations last week strapped with a 50-megaton nuclear device. However, all of the Democratic invitees canceled under pressure from the NDJC.

"Just because Senators Clinton and Schumer were vaporized in the attack last week is no excuse for you to continue hosting Sarah Palin," responded Stanley. "It is an affront to all Jews that you would actually share your freeze-dried kreplatch and tzimmes with this dangerous meshuggah shiksa."

NJDC Spokesmutant Steve Rabin said if the CPMAJO did not comply with the Palin ouster by a 7pm glow-down deadline, it would seek federal sactions including a cancellation of the group's tax-exempt status. Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason was unavailable for comment, and presumed vaporized in the weekend annihilation of Washington.

Barring immediate federal sanctions, he said the NJDC would seek other relief, including blocking the shelter's exhaust fans and water supply.

"Frankly, I am angered and disgusted this kind of rank partisanship," said Rabin. "Now that the Iranian nuclear attack are subsiding, surviving Americans of all religions and mutations need to come together and unite against our common enemy - Sarah Palin."

In a possible thaw of relations between the two groups, officials inside the CPMAJO shelter late today tapped an offer of shelter and medical attention to the NJDC representatives in advance of expected afternoon Iranian nuclear strikes. Rabin and Stanley declined, saying that even if Palin were to be thrown out the shelter, it was far too contaminated with Republican germs to be safe.

"These people are freaks," said Stanley. "What kind of person paints their shelter door lid with lamb's blood?"

You have got to be kidding.

 Palin breathes the same air as some nobody from "Jews for Jesus" and that disqualifies her. It must prove that Christians are not as intolerant as you may suspect. Hillary Clinton and her husband played host to the odious Arafat for several years and Sen. Clinton even kissed and embraced Arafat's detestable wife who then went back to Paris to live off of the millions she and her husband stole from the American and EU tax payers. 

As for no partisan political tension at past rallys, at the 2006 and 2007 demonstrations at the UN, they were almost entirely Democrat politicans there including Sen. Clinton. The one year when a well known Republican is invited, suddently it becomes partison. This combined with the thuggish tactics of threatening the tax exempt status of groups involved is particualrly disgusting. This is what the left has been reduced to; legal and financial threats. Talk about McCarthyism.

I wish you would admit the truth. The Democrats at the rally would have been greatly impressed with Sarah Palin and perhaps they would have tried to look past the mud thrown by bigoted critics like yourself which was apparent in the last line of your rant. Thankfully several people were at the rally who made the crowd aware of the absence an insulting snub of Gov. Palin who regards Israel as a great friend and Iran as a devote enemy.

Caroline Glick in the JPost.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1222017359617&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Henry Kissinger said he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement

OK...let's move on to the next falsehoods in your column.