Obama offended by attacks on Jews who back Iran deal

[webfact]

Obama offended by attacks on Jews who back Iran deal

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama said people who attack Jews who support the Iran nuclear deal are like African-Americans who differ with him on policy and then conclude he's "not black enough."

Obama, in an interview with the Jewish newspaper The Forward, was asked whether it hurt him personally when people say he's anti-Semitic.

"Oh, of course," Obama said. "And there's not a smidgeon of evidence for it, other than the fact that there have been times when I've disagreed with a particular Israeli government's position on a particular issue."

The president added, though, that he's "probably more offended when I hear members of my administration who themselves are Jewish being attacked. You saw this historically sometimes in the African-American community, where there's a difference on policy and somebody starts talking about, 'Well, you're not black enough,' or 'You're selling out.' And that, I think, is always a dangerous place to go."

Obama didn't mention any specific critics or targets by name.

Asked to whom the president was referring, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday mentioned former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's charge that the nuclear deal was like "marching the Israelis to the door of the oven," a reference to the Holocaust. Earnest added, "It's certainly not the only example of the kind of political rhetoric that certainly the president and others find objectionable."

Obama's Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, who is Jewish, was heckled this summer at a Jewish-themed conference in New York when he defended the nuclear deal and spoke of the administration's support for Israel.

Obama, in the Forward interview, said that while those who care about Israel have an obligation to be honest about what they think, "you don't win the debate by suggesting that the other person has bad motives. That's, I think, not just consistent with fair play; I think it's consistent with the best of the Jewish tradition."

Secretary of State John Kerry, the chief U.S. diplomat in the negotiations with Iran, is to make a speech in Philadelphia on Wednesday on the importance of the agreement to U.S. national security, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday.

On a lighter note, Obama was asked about his bagel of choice.

He described himself as "always a big poppy seed guy." As for toppings, he added, "lox and capers OK, but generally just your basic schmear," referring to a smear of cream cheese on the bread.

The interview was conducted Friday and released Monday.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-01

[Ulysses G.]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

[Bakseeda]

Thank God Almighty that Obamas reign of terror will soon be over ... Bring in the King.. Donald(where's yoor troosers) Trump. White, blond haired, blue eyed Presbyterian boy.... And his mom from Stornaway... Wee Free comes to mind....

[lifeincnx]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

You’d be hard-pressed to find any sort of parallel in the six-party talks with Iran. Name one.

[Ulysses G.]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

Youd be hard-pressed to find any sort of parallel in the six-party talks with Iran. Name one.

Not hard at all. Both contemporary Iran and Nazi Germany are fascistic regimes, headed by anti-Semitic and anti-democratic leaders. Much like pre-war Germany, Iran has continued to position itself for regional territorial gains throughout the Middle-East. Iran wants power, control, land, and influence and the easiest path to an empire these days is through nuclear technology. Like the Munich Agreement, this is another bad deal with another bad regime

[Michael8511]

Thank god that Obama have the European leadership behind him. This is nothing he have done alone. It may be a bad idea, we have to see when U.S. Gets a republican war president next election and they start a new useless war this time with Iran. Let's see how many European countries will back that war. In 6-10 years we will know if this agreement was good or the solution with war will be better for the Jews.

[abrahamzvi]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

Youd be hard-pressed to find any sort of parallel in the six-party talks with Iran. Name one.

Not hard at all. Both contemporary Iran and Nazi Germany are fascistic regimes, headed by anti-Semitic and anti-democratic leaders. Much like pre-war Germany, Iran has continued to position itself for regional territorial gains throughout the Middle-East. Iran wants power, control, land, and influence and the easiest path to an empire these days is through nuclear technology. Like the Munich Agreement, this is another bad deal with another bad regime

Whilst I agree with the first two sentences of your comments, I would like to point out that the sanctions about which the 5 years negotiations were all about, and the lifting thereof,that are the subject of the Agreement, were solely about Iran developing nuclear arms and not about the character of Iran and its harmful and evil attitude and activities. The agreement sees to it that at least for the next 15 years, this would be impossible for Iran and proper controls were built in the agreement. If Iran breaks the terms of the agreement, sanctions can be effected immediately. Thai is why I say this is a fair agreement, the best that can be achieved under the circumstances. In view of what you correctly point out in the first two sentences, it is a very important agreement and in the interests of the USA and Israel.

[abrahamzvi]

Thank God Almighty that Obamas reign of terror will soon be over ... Bring in the King.. Donald(where's yoor troosers) Trump. White, blond haired, blue eyed Presbyterian boy.... And his mom from Stornaway... Wee Free comes to mind....

Reign of terror? which terror?????

[abrahamzvi]

Thank god that Obama have the European leadership behind him. This is nothing he have done alone. It may be a bad idea, we have to see when U.S. Gets a republican war president next election and they start a new useless war this time with Iran. Let's see how many European countries will back that war. In 6-10 years we will know if this agreement was good or the solution with war will be better for the Jews.

I agree with what you say, but I would prefer to replace the word "Jews" by the words "Israel and the USA"

[Bignose]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

Youd be hard-pressed to find any sort of parallel in the six-party talks with Iran. Name one.

Not hard at all. Both contemporary Iran and Nazi Germany are fascistic regimes, headed by anti-Semitic and anti-democratic leaders. Much like pre-war Germany, Iran has continued to position itself for regional territorial gains throughout the Middle-East. Iran wants power, control, land, and influence and the easiest path to an empire these days is through nuclear technology. Like the Munich Agreement, this is another bad deal with another bad regime

Yours is a heavily skewed view of what has been recently achieved, as was previously stated this was not an agreement to change the administration or it views, it was an agreement to remove the possibility of Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons. That being the end result means this will be an effective and durable agreement, something that will be good for the whole region and to a lesser extent the world.

Yes the present ruling body in Tehran is far from perfect, it is based on an extremist and dangerous fundamentalist doctrine which we must all be careful with, but it is also a country with many millions of inhabitants who are developing a social awareness.

The Arab Spring may have faltered but it has not disappeared entirely, the ruling Iranian administration may (for the present) be all powerful but it will not be immune forever to the aspirations and ambitions of it's people. It is for this reason (IMHO) that the Iranian government had to move forward and walk away from it's previous position on nuclear weapons.

This was an opportunity that could not be missed and the US were perfectly correct in persevering towards a settlement, the Iranian government were under immense pressure to remove the sanctions. In a region that has been strife torn and scarred for generations there have been very few win/win situations, this I believe was one of those few.

Netanyahu and his fellow hawks (both at home and in the US) should be ignored, they are the other side of the political coin as their preferred course of action would be to bomb the reactors and plunge the region into chaos. Their's is a view too extreme to countenance or consider, their intractable stance regarding the West Bank and the Palestinian people is isolating them more and more each year.

Only when Tel Aviv see's some return of reason and moderation (as I hope has been the case in Tehran) will they have a place at the world table...

[Mazungu]

The Iran deal is an agreement for world peace. The only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War. If this deal falls through there won't be 'a better one' negotiated (a pipe dream) and the tough sanctions that are in place currently will dissolve as Russia and China will likely ignore them. So then you have an Iran getting back on its feet through holes in the sanctions and they will also be free to develop nuclear weapons without any constraint. The likely outcome -- war --as the Israelis attack the nuclear sites. This is not 'Obama's Deal' but a world powers agreement with multiple signers. If this deal falls through there will be no alternative but War.

[Ulysses G.]

The Iran deal is an agreement for world peace. The only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War.

That is a false choice. A BETTER DEAL is the alternative.

If not for Obama's crazy "non-binding agreement", the world could have kept tightening the screws until Iran capitulated to the terms we were demanding in the first place. If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it really a treaty?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Mazungu]

The Iran deal is an agreement for world peace. The only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War.

That is a false choice. A BETTER DEAL is the alternative.

If not for Obama's crazy "non-binding agreement", the world could have kept tightening the screws until Iran capitulated to the terms we were demanding in the first place. If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it really a treaty?

Your "better deal" is the false choice. This was the best deal the multi-party powers could get and there won't be another one. Iran would have capitulated with the sanctions just like North Vietnam capitulated during the US bombing.

[Jingthing]

Well, I think Obama has good intentions with the Iran deal but I wouldn't bet the house that it will actually work out given the words and actions of the Iranian regime. The hope here is that the Iranian regime will CHANGE for the better. Apparently some Iranian dissidents support the deal and think that will be the result and some oppose it as they think it will make the regime even stronger. I don't really know either way and neither does anyone here or really anywhere.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Jingthing

[lifeincnx]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

Youd be hard-pressed to find any sort of parallel in the six-party talks with Iran. Name one.

Not hard at all. Both contemporary Iran and Nazi Germany are fascistic regimes, headed by anti-Semitic and anti-democratic leaders. Much like pre-war Germany, Iran has continued to position itself for regional territorial gains throughout the Middle-East. Iran wants power, control, land, and influence and the easiest path to an empire these days is through nuclear technology. Like the Munich Agreement, this is another bad deal with another bad regime

Your (and Dick Cheney's) Munich Agreement comparison is simply far-fetched. The major powers signed the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938. German troops crossed into Czechoslovakia THE FOLLOWING DAY. Thousands of political prisoners sent to concentration camps, tens of thousands of refugees, and violent anti-Semitic pogroms almost right out the gate.

If the six-nation deal with Iran really is "the worse deal since the Munich Agreement," then it has quite a hill to climb to get there.

The bottom line is you want a BETTER DEAL, that's all. You didn't get it, the US didn't get it, the 6+ nations didn't get it, and Iran didn't get it. Your better deal is fairy dust and your own far right conservative sour grapes. Meanwhile, back in reality, Iran's nuclear arsenal program will be stalled. But, no doubt, that's just not good enough for you.

[chuckd]

A couple of posters have claimed this deal was ONLY about Iran gaining nukes.

If that is really the case, why were sanctions lifted on Iran's obtaining conventional weapons? Why were they even addressed in the agreement to begin with?

Now the reality.

The horses are out of the barn, never to be returned. The Obama administration couldn't wait to go before the UN and get a Security Council vote. The SC agreed to lifting the sanctions and they are now gone, with the possible exceptions of some that Obama does not have the power to waive without Congressional approval.

We are now down to trusting the Ayatollahs. The world hasn't been able to do that since the Iranian regime began in 1979.

Who could possibly believe the leopard will magically change his spots now?

[Boon Mee]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

That loser sure loves the word smidgeon, eh?

Appeasement in our time, man...

[Chicog]

It seems Republicans are incapable of any kind of sensible discussion on the particulars of the agreement, probably because most of them never read it.

So instead we are treated to extreme nonsense like "This is like the MUNICH AGREEMENT, they are NAZIS!", etc. etc.

Fortunately, diplomacy does not work in such absurdities.

There is a delicious irony in the number of times you can hear Republicans bemoaning "Extreme Rhetoric" from others on the Fox Entertainment News Channel.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Chicog

[Jingthing]

Of course the leopard will not magically change his spots. The optimists seem to think that over time the wealthier and less isolated life there will put pressure on the regime to change with the times. From the regime's POV that might be better than being at risk of having the choice of revolution or shooting up lots of their own people. Personally, I am not an optimist on all this but resigned that the deal will indeed happen and then we will see.

[ggt]

"not black enough."

Me thinks Obama has proven time and time again that he is "black enough"...taking the "black" side and promoting the black view point on all sensitive racial issues...

His polarizing speeches has done much to divide the country...

[thaibeachlovers]

You saw this historically sometimes in the African-American community, where there's a difference on policy and somebody starts talking about, 'Well, you're not black enough,' or 'You're selling out.'

Never once have I seen the great one acknowledge that he is half white and raised as a "white". However, given that he is always lying ( if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, if you like your Dr you can keep your Dr, and I am going to close Gitmo ), that should not be a surprise to me.

[thaibeachlovers]

It seems Republicans are incapable of any kind of sensible discussion on the particulars of the agreement, probably because most of them never read it.

So instead we are treated to extreme nonsense like "This is like the MUNICH AGREEMENT, they are NAZIS!", etc. etc.

Fortunately, diplomacy does not work in such absurdities.

There is a delicious irony in the number of times you can hear Republicans bemoaning "Extreme Rhetoric" from others on the Fox Entertainment News Channel.

Hmmmmm. just like the Dems then. They passed Obama care without reading it ( Nancy Pelosi- if you want to know what's in it you have to pass it ).

Why cross out Entertainment in relation to Fox? They have little to do with hard news and much to do with entertainment.

[Ulysses G.]

Why cross out Entertainment in relation to Fox? They have little to do with hard news and much to do with entertainment.

Nonsense. According to Pew Research, they do about 12 hours per day of straight news, which is a little less than CNN. MSNBC does almost none.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/

[Ulysses G.]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

Youd be hard-pressed to find any sort of parallel in the six-party talks with Iran. Name one.

Not hard at all. Both contemporary Iran and Nazi Germany are fascistic regimes, headed by anti-Semitic and anti-democratic leaders. Much like pre-war Germany, Iran has continued to position itself for regional territorial gains throughout the Middle-East. Iran wants power, control, land, and influence and the easiest path to an empire these days is through nuclear technology. Like the Munich Agreement, this is another bad deal with another bad regime

Your (and Dick Cheney's) Munich Agreement comparison is simply far-fetched. The major powers signed the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938. German troops crossed into Czechoslovakia THE FOLLOWING DAY.

So, the comparison is "far-fetched".because Iran did not set off a nuke the day after it was signed? Please stop being completely ridiculous. From all reports, it will be a few months before they are capable of that. They have to get all that money back and recover from the sanctions that the president has dropped for little to nothing concrete in return. No wonder they were partying in the streets of Tehran.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[thaibeachlovers]

Why cross out Entertainment in relation to Fox? They have little to do with hard news and much to do with entertainment.

Nonsense. According to Pew Research, they do about 12 hours per day of straight news, which is a little less than CNN. MSNBC does almost none.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/

Are you now supporting Fox as a news channel? That's one for the books, .

BTW I actually watch a lot of Fox, and if they put news on it's pretty soft for the most part. A lot of hard news is repeats ad nauseam through those 12 hours.

Actually, as they have at least 15 minutes of ads every hour, and they have 4 hours of opinion shows repeated at least once ( total at least 8 hours ) and if you delete shows like out# and the Five etc there isn't much time left for any real news.

[Ulysses G.]

Why cross out Entertainment in relation to Fox? They have little to do with hard news and much to do with entertainment.

Nonsense. According to Pew Research, they do about 12 hours per day of straight news, which is a little less than CNN. MSNBC does almost none.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/

Are you now supporting Fox as a news channel?

Pew Research says they do about 12 hours per day of straight news and other American 24 hour networks do not do much more - some do much less. I am a lot more interested their professional analysis than your spin.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Why cross out Entertainment in relation to Fox? They have little to do with hard news and much to do with entertainment.

Nonsense. According to Pew Research, they do about 12 hours per day of straight news, which is a little less than CNN. MSNBC does almost none.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/

I don't need to rely on Pew Research to say that this is a load of codswallop, as I have it on in the office every day, and being in the sandpit that includes half of the weekend.

Unless of course you count fun youtube videos and puppy stories as news. The rest of it is such blatantly right wing propaganda that it's no surprise that Fox News viewers are considered the most misinformed.

Remember that survey that said you would actually have a better understanding of domestic and current affairs watching NO news than you would watching Fox.

I count 17 hours of bullcrap masquerading as news per day during the week, allowing for repeats of Kelly, O'Reilly, Van Susteren and Hannity.

Rubbish like RedEye and The Five is not news, and "Fox and Friends" is 50% "We hate Hillary", 30% "We hate Obama" and the rest is mostly bitching about people that aren't republican or pet/baby videos.

12 hours of news a day is utter garbage.

MSNBC are marginally better only because they spend more time on Business News and less puppy/baby videos.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Does your remote control not have a "mute" button on it?

[Ulysses G.]

12 hours of news a day is utter garbage.

I'll take facts from Pews Research over your personal opinion any time. There is nothing in your posts that even remotely suggests the credibility of a respected, nonpartisan think tank.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

American Jews are diverse and some (a majority of them) support the Obama Iran deal and many don't. Some, like me, are rather neutral on it. American Jews should be free to express their political opinions freely and without personal insults, such as accusations of being traitors, just like any other kind of Americans. In my view, American Jews support the Iran deal more than Americans overall, which might surprise some people, but it doesn't surprise me.

I suppose if I was an elected official I'd have to not be neutral, but I do see the pros and cons of both sides of this so just can't get excited about either side. I understand Israelis DO feel differently ... and they have very good reasons for feeling that way considering the actions and rhetoric of the Iranian regime.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Jingthing