Getting Rid of ‘Anti-Israel’ Presidents

Exclusive: Some staunch supporters of Israel believe that its interests are so compelling that they trump American self-governance, with one extremist suggesting the murder of President Obama. Others, however, appear to have joined in an earlier subversion of U.S. democracy, Robert Parry reports.

By Robert Parry

The Israeli press is debating the significance of an article by the publisher of a Jewish magazine in Atlanta, Georgia, urging Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to consider sending Mossad hit men to assassinate President Barack Obama.

After Internet attention focused on this Jan. 13 piece, Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, apologized for what he had written, which listed as one of several options for Netanyahu: to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

President Barack Obama in the Situation Room (White House photo by Pete Souza)

Adler’s two other options for Netanyahu were a pre-emptive strike against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, or an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Adler made clear that he knew what he was suggesting in option three. He added: “Yes, you read ‘three’ correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.”

Adler’s extreme suggestion was roundly denounced by American Jewish leaders and Israeli media commentators. For instance, Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, decried Adler’s words as “irresponsible and extremist,” while taking note that Adler’s ideas “reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists even in some segments of our community that maliciously labels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’”

Chemi Shalev, a blogger for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, called comments like Adler’s “the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom that some of Obama’s political rivals, Jews and non-Jews included, have been spewing for the last three years.

“Anyone who has spent any time talking to some of the more vociferous detractors of Obama, Jewish or otherwise, has inevitably encountered those nasty nutters, and they are many, who still believe he is a Muslim, who are utterly convinced that he wants to destroy Israel.”

Adler told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, a wire service for Jewish newspapers in North America, that he regretted that he “made reference to it [assassination] at all.”

Removing a President

Though Adler’s remarks about employing what is sometimes called “executive action” to alter U.S. government policy toward Israel is surely outrageous, there has existed for several decades a more general perspective in some quarters that U.S. policy must move in accord with Israel’s desires and that any action deemed “anti-Israel” must be made politically unacceptable.

U.S. neoconservatives, for instance, have argued that there should be no space between how Israel and the United States view security concerns in the Middle East. Many neocons favored invading Iraq in 2003 because it was a longtime enemy of Israel and many now call for attacking Iran because Israeli leaders claim its potential acquisition of a nuclear weapon represents an “existential threat.”

In Campaign 2012, leading Republican presidential candidates have denounced Obama for allowing even a slight separation to occur in America’s shoulder-to-shoulder support for Israel. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone so far as to suggest that he would join Netanyahu in a full-scale invasion of Iran to achieve “regime change” if that was what the Israeli prime minister wanted.

And the notion of Israel participating in efforts to change American political leadership is not as far-fetched as it might seem. There is extensive evidence that Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin intervened covertly more than three decades ago to undermine President Jimmy Carter’s reelection hopes because Begin feared that Carter would push Israel into accepting a Palestinian state.

Despite strong evidence that Likud officials joined in Republican efforts in 1980 to stop Carter from gaining the release of 52 Americans then held hostage in Iran a failure that sank Carter’s hopes for a second term Israeli supporters in the United States have heatedly disputed these allegations and have sought to demonize anyone who takes them seriously.

Yet, among those who give credence to the accusations are people who served in sensitive positions within the Israeli government, including former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. In 1993, I took part in an interview with Shamir in Tel Aviv during which he said he had read Gary Sick’s 1991 book, October Surprise, which made the case for believing that the Republicans had intervened in the 1980  hostage negotiations to disrupt Carter’s reelection.

With the topic raised, one interviewer asked, “What do you think? Was there an October Surprise?”

“Of course, it was,” Shamir responded without hesitation. “It was.” Later in the interview, Shamir, who succeeded Begin as prime minister in the 1980s, seemed to regret his frankness and tried to backpedal on his answer, but his confirmation remained a startling moment.

Collapsing Cover Stories

In the last few years, as the official denials of the October Surprise allegations have crumbled with new revelations that key evidence was hidden from investigators of a congressional task force and that internal doubts were suppressed the troubling impression that remains is that disgruntled CIA operatives and Israel’s Likud hardliners teamed up to remove a U.S. president from office.

Indeed, it is this disturbing conclusion perhaps even more than the idea of a Republican dirty trick that may explain the determined cover-up of this political scandal. Too many powerful interests do not want the American people to accept the possibility that U.S. intelligence operatives and a longtime ally could intervene to oust a president who had impinged on what those two groups considered their vital interests.

Yet, the evidence now points in that direction, and there are key facts that are not in dispute. For instance, there is no doubt that CIA Old Boys and Likudniks had strong motives for seeking President Jimmy Carter’s defeat in 1980.

Inside the CIA, Carter and his CIA Director Stansfield Turner were blamed for firing many of the free-wheeling covert operatives from the Vietnam era, for ousting legendary spymaster Ted Shackley, and for failing to protect longtime U.S. allies (and friends of the CIA), such as Iran’s Shah and Nicaragua’s dictator Anastasio Somoza.

As for Israel, Prime Minister Begin was furious over Carter’s high-handed actions at Camp David in 1978 forcing Israel to trade the occupied Sinai to Egypt for a peace deal. Begin feared that Carter would use his second term to bully Israel into accepting a Palestinian state on West Bank lands that Likud considered part of Israel’s divinely granted territory.

In the 1991 book, The Last Option, former Mossad and Foreign Ministry official David Kimche described Begin’s attitude in noting that Israeli officials had gotten wind of “collusion” between Carter and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat “to force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Kimche continued, “This plan prepared behind Israel’s back and without her knowledge must rank as a unique attempt in United States’s diplomatic history of short-changing a friend and ally by deceit and manipulation.”

However, Begin recognized that the scheme required Carter winning a second term in 1980 when, Kimche wrote, “he would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby.”

In a 1992 memoir, Profits of War, Ari Ben-Menashe, an Israeli military intelligence officer who worked with Likud, agreed that Begin and other Likud leaders held Carter in contempt and wanted him out of office.

“Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David,” Ben-Menashe wrote. “As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel’s back.”

So, in order to buy time for Israel to “change the facts on the ground” by moving Jewish settlers into the West Bank, Begin felt Carter’s reelection had to be prevented. A different president also presumably would give Israel a freer hand to deal with problems on its northern border with Lebanon.

CIA Within the CIA

As for the CIA Old Boys, legendary CIA officer Miles Copeland told me that “the CIA within the CIA” the inner-most circle of powerful intelligence figures who felt they understood best the strategic needs of the United States believed Carter and his naive faith in American democratic ideals represented a grave threat to the nation.

“Carter really believed in all the principles that we talk about in the West,” Copeland said, shaking his mane of white hair. “As smart as Carter is, he did believe in Mom, apple pie and the corner drug store. And those things that are good in America are good everywhere else.

“Carter, I say, was not a stupid man,” Copeland said, adding that Carter had an even worse flaw: “He was a principled man.”

These attitudes of “the CIA within the CIA” and the Likudniks appeared to stem from their genuine beliefs that they needed to protect what they regarded as vital interests of their respective countries. The CIA Old Boys thought they understood the true strategic needs of the United States and Likud believed fervently in a “Greater Israel.”

However, the lingering October Surprise mystery is whether these two groups followed their strongly held feelings into a treacherous bid, in league with Republicans, to prevent Carter from gaining the release of the 52 hostages in Iran.

Carter’s inability to resolve the hostage crisis opened the door to Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in November 1980 as American voters reacted to the long-running hostage humiliation by turning to a candidate they believed would be a tougher player on the international stage.

Reagan’s macho image was reinforced when the Iranians released the hostages immediately after he was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 1981, ending the 444-day standoff. The coincidence of timing, which Reagan’s supporters cited as proof that foreign enemies feared the new president, gave momentum to Reagan’s larger agenda, including sweeping tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, reduced government regulation of corporations, and renewed reliance on fossil fuels. (Carter’s solar panels were pointedly dismantled from the White House roof.)

Reagan’s victory also was great news for CIA cold-warriors who were rewarded with the choice of World War II spymaster (and dedicated cold-warrior) William Casey to be CIA director. Casey then purged CIA analysts who were detecting a declining Soviet Union that desired détente and replaced them with people like the young and ambitious Robert Gates, who agreed that the Soviets were on the march and that the United States needed a massive military expansion to counter them.

Casey again embraced old-time CIA swashbuckling in Third World countries and took pleasure in stonewalling members of Congress when they insisted on the CIA oversight that had been forced on President Gerald Ford and had been accepted by President Carter. To Casey, CIA oversight became a game of hide-and-seek.

Less Demanding  

As for Israel, Begin was pleased to find the Reagan administration far less demanding about peace deals with the Arabs, giving Israel time to expand its West Bank settlements. Reagan and his team also acquiesced to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, a drive north that expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization but also led to the slaughters at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

And, behind the scenes, Reagan gave a green light to Israeli weapons shipments to Iran (which was fighting a war with Israel’s then-greater enemy, Iraq). The weapons sales also helped Israel rebuild its contacts inside Iran and to turn large profits, which were used to help finance West Bank settlements.

In another important move, Reagan credentialed a new generation of pro-Israeli American ideologues known as the neoconservatives, a move that would pay big dividends for Israel in the future as these bright and articulate operatives fought for Israeli interests both inside the U.S. government and through their opinion-leading roles in the major American news media.

In other words, if the disgruntled CIA Old Boys and the determined Likudniks did participate in an October Surprise scheme to unseat Jimmy Carter, they surely got much of what they were after.

Yet, while motive is an important element in solving a mystery, it does not constitute proof by itself. What must be examined is whether there is evidence that the motive was acted upon, whether Menachem Begin’s government and disgruntled CIA officers covertly assisted the Reagan campaign in contacting Iranian officials to thwart Carter’s hostage negotiations.

On that point the evidence is strong though perhaps not ironclad. Still, a well-supported narrative does exist describing how the October Surprise scheme may have played out with the help of CIA personnel, Begin’s government, right-wing intelligence figures in Europe, and a handful of other powerbrokers in the United States. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege or’s “The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter.”]

Today, as the United States enters a new presidential election year and as some extremist supporters of Israel dream of President Obama’s elimination the current Israeli government might prove its true friendship with the United States by releasing whatever documents it has related to Begin’s apparent sabotage of Carter’s reelection in 1980.

It is way past time to tell the full truth about those historic events.

[For more on related topics, see Robert Parry’s Lost History, Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep, now available in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29. For details, click here.]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.

36 comments for “Getting Rid of ‘Anti-Israel’ Presidents

  1. January 23, 2012 at 23:16

    I see a pattern in these dots:

    Ike and JFK both tell Ben-Gurion that they will not allow Israel to get nuclear capability. In July 63, eager to get a strategic arms limitation treaty with the USSR after the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK tells Ben-Gurion’s brand new successor – Levi Eshkol – that no way will he allow Israel to get the nuclear capability. Suddenly JFK is gone. LBJ (suitably chastened?) allows Israel to get hundreds of pounds of nuclear material from NUMEC in Pennsylvania (in a District that will be represented in Congress by a Warren Commission staffer who proposed the ‘magic bullet’ theory) and initiates a cover-up that is merely dented by a 1978 Congressional investigation.

    Although it has always refused to sign a defense Treaty with us, Israel suddenly becomes on LBJ’s watch our bestest friend and (not really true) ‘ally’.

    In light of this article, I can’t help but continue to wonder.

    • Abir's cousin
      January 24, 2012 at 00:17

      thanks PUBLION….only one add on…remember the USS Liberty which LBJ basically would have allowed to be sunk to the bottom….and enabled a total coverup despite 34 deaths and more than 170 wounded….after the sustained 2 hour attack in broad daylight in international water off the Sinai coast….It was covered up. The survivors suffered the weight of mandated silence for decades. Only in the last few years have these Navy Vets gotten their story out…but the majority of Americans still have no idea that “our ally” did it, intentionally with a joint military attack with Israeli air force napalming the decks, machine gunning the decks and the life rafts and later the Israeli navy attacking the ship to sink it with Torpedos. It has grown more and more VICIOUS over the decades leaving observers to wonder what it is they know to keep the US on its best behavior and keeping the spigot flowing.
      THANK YOU to the Parry Family for your excellent work exposing the crimes of the Reagan Bush regimes/ and for opening this critical discussion on the “TRAIN WRECK” that MUST BE averted —-but it appears there’s no one at the controls. !!?

      • January 24, 2012 at 11:34

        Apologies for that omission and sincere thanks for the reminder.

        I wonder when it will become a public question as to when LNJ’s behavior in the USS Liberty matter rose to “treachery” to use the Framers’ phrase.

        For that matter, since Israel is not an ally in any formal and legal sense, then at what point do the activities of US officials – elected or appointed – technically qualify for classification as treason?

        This is an Elephant in the middle of the national political room. The avoidance of which has contributed to the profound derangement of American politics and political discourse and – clearly – has profoundly deranged the integrity of so very much of the sitting political class and the Beltway elites of all types.

        A house this deranged cannot stand, as Lincoln – quoting Christian scripture – rather sagely observed.

        Strange and truly perverse how the Holocaust (upon whose victims be peace) has somehow led to this.

        • January 24, 2012 at 14:50

          Of course, that’s “LBJ” in my immediately prior comment.

  2. Thomas Chacko
    January 23, 2012 at 13:39

    A question for Mr Martin – our resident fantasist and Limbaugh parrot: If Ronald Reagan inspired such fear among hostage-takers, how come several Americans were imprisoned (Terry Anderson, for example) or murdered during his administration? His idea of “toughness” was to send Oliver North to the Ayatollah with a Bible and a birthday cake! And anyone who believed Mr Reagan’s spin on Iran-Contra – “We did not exchange arms for hostages” – must have invested heavily with Bernie Madoff.

    Yes, terrorists in the Middle East were so scared of Reagan, that they decided to take out 250 Marines in Lebanon with one suicide attack! He let a press spokesman make the announcement, and then quietly pulled out all remaining troops! (The Grenada “rescue operation” was designed to divert attention from that.) Such courageous leadership which, as Robert Parry points out, also allowed Israel to expand its settlements and led to the slaughter of innocent refugees in Lebanon.

    President Carter’s memoirs, “Keeping Faith”, indicate just how much of a double-talker Menachem Begin was, during and after the Camp David negotiations. But the memoirs of Carter’s closest advisers, Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell, also indicate the lengths to which some pro-Israel lobbyists (AIPAC, for example) are willing to go to undermine anyone perceived as an enemy. Both men were victims of lies (reported in the media without question), such as accusations of making anti-Semitic remarks and pressuring Carter to come down hard on Israel in a second term.

    Consortium News is the one source of consistent, thorough reporting on the “October Surprise” case (and so many others). Thank you to the Parry family.

  3. hopeful cynic
    January 22, 2012 at 21:56

    Aaron, ou are right on. Israel has many potentially solid friends in the region if it will be a good neighbor and is serious about resolving fundamental problems that have festered for so many years. While the mechanics may be complicated, it is not hard to do if the committment is there. The goal is a lasting peace with justice and the opportunity for prosperity for all.

    • Ma
      January 23, 2012 at 10:27

      ‘That’s not worth my nuisance value, simple and plain’.

  4. Aaron
    January 22, 2012 at 16:13

    According to the supporters of Israeli occupation, Obama’s rhetoric appears to be “anti-Israel”, but US foreign policy towards it hasn’t changed at all when comes to arms transfer and diplomatic silence over Israel’s ongoing settlement construction in the West Bank.

    With all the massive political shifts in the Mid East that may not overall respond to US strategic interests in the future, Israel finding itself increasingly isolated, and for the sake of its own survival has to concretely agree to the Two State Solution regarding borders, Palestinian refugees, and the sharing of Jerusalem (not physically with walls and barbed wires, but politically)

    If that happens, there is no way that Israel’s enemies will have any reason to criticize it, or worst call for its destruction.

    Israel belongs to the Mid East, and so it has to act like a good neighbour. And who knows, with its strength primarily in innovative know-how, it could be a significant contributor to the development of other states in that region if needed. Why can’t this be positive ?

  5. Morton Kurzweil
    January 22, 2012 at 15:06

    The common denominator in all fanatical beliefs is nostalgia, marching backward into the future. Historic myths, romantic glories and honors repeated by generations have kept national and religions politics leading humanity in circles. The South revels in the lost cause, Islam keeps continents in thrall with calls of vengeance for the martyrdom of the grandson of their prophet. Christianity has made genocide a moral crusade. Empires are built on the superiority of races, cultures, and divine authority.
    There is no truth to claims of Aryan or Tartar superiority, or the Nazi myth or the Kim Il Anyone. Every myth will attract the insecure, the unstable and the illiterate who need someone to tell them what to do, who will set standards and values, rituals, habits and behavior that substitutes for personal responsibility and leads to group authority.
    When will the people reject the bloodshed of orthodoxy and denounce the righteous ignorance of belief?

  6. Ma
    January 22, 2012 at 12:03

    I think this man should have been arrested immediately and tried in a court of law. If not then stop calling the American President ‘ the most powerful man on earth’. Imagin if this was uttered by a Muslim!!!

  7. Hossein
    January 22, 2012 at 11:38

    All options of this zionist hood is Murder, murder, and more murder. Typical zionist. No wonder they are the allies of USA.

  8. Kenny Fowler
    January 22, 2012 at 11:36

    The Israeli’s and the CIA along with the Reagan Republicans will never come clean on the hostage deal. Proof will have to come from Iran. At this point I would think Iran would be almost ready to turn on their co-conspirators. Not much different than a dispute between mobsters who once did business together. The Israeli’s and their gang have decided they need to eliminate their old business partners. Maybe the Iranian’s have another October surprise in store for their old business partners.

  9. Hossein
    January 22, 2012 at 11:34

    And this is what you call an allied country who is advocating the murder of a democraticly elected leader of America. And Iran is the terrorist??

  10. hopeful cynic
    January 22, 2012 at 10:15

    Messrs Martin and Kuhn, you are good examples of how ignorant so many are of the history of the region.
    If you want to learn about Iran and the rest of the Middle East, read the books and articles of William Polk who served under President Kennedy and is widely recognized as one of the most astute and experts in the field. His website is: Also take a look at the Pulitzer prize winning “Legacy of Ashes – A History of the CIA” by Tim Weiner, one of the best books on the subject. While it omits much about the Middle East, it does give some good background about Iran.

    Those who disagree with you want to see a prosperous and stable world, including a secure Israel, but also value human rights and the rule of law. The neocons who have been responsible for so much destruction obviously don’t, even if they parrot the words.

    If you are really serious, then reexamine your values, and study the history, so that you will know what you are talking about.

  11. Arakiba
    January 22, 2012 at 10:00

    Sounds like treason to me.

    Oh, and if Israel tries to murder any US president — no matter what party — it can kiss its billions of dollars in American aid goodbye. We won’t stand for foreigners going on a killing spree in our country.

  12. ahmed
    January 22, 2012 at 04:13

    10% لقد وجدنا المحفظة التى لا تقدر بثمن

  13. January 22, 2012 at 02:57

    > Carter was the worst president ..
    > He undermined the Sha of Iran ..
    > This is why we have an Iran problem today.

    If CIA “Operation Ajax” overthrew secular Iranian President Muhammad
    Mossadeq in 1953, would that have anything to do with Iran today?

  14. Randy Martin
    January 22, 2012 at 01:53

    Carter was the worst president the US has had in modern times. Obama equals him. He undermined the Sha of Iran and said “the Ayatola” was a “man of god”. This is why we have an Iran problem today. The Sha was replaced with the most brutal regime there is, killing and terrorizing its own people and sponsoring terrorism world wide. The Iranians support all kinds of groups that kill Americans. The piece about how operatives trashed Carter’s re-election is trash. He was defeated because a wide majority of americans saw him for the loser he is. The Iranians new they had free hand with him. They didn’t want to tangle with Reagan or end up like the air traffic controllers did. The US requires strong presidents, not a closet Muslim like Obama who bows to the Saudi King. I hope in 2012 we hand Obama the same gift, we handed Carter in 1980—a resounding rejection.

    • rosemerry
      January 22, 2012 at 04:46

      I hope this ignorant and offensive rant is not typical of Mercans. The language and sentiments show the very worst side of the USA-complete lack of understanding of any historical background, outright lies (eg the “Sha” who was imposed when the US/UK overthrew the elected PM.)
      As for the Saudi king, the Bush family were/are close allies of the House of Saud in their oil dealings.
      “we have an Iran problem today.” is pure hubris (I suppose Randy would not know this word).
      “The Iranians support all kinds of groups that kill Americans.” No evidence, but why should Israel and the USA be the only nations allowed to kill others?

      One good point is that Randy by reading posts here may actually learn something if he opens his mind a little.

    • Robert1014
      January 22, 2012 at 10:57

      Randy, I’d suggest you read up on recent world history before you opine on things of which you reveal you know absolutely nothing. (Or perhaps your 10th Grade history class hasn’t got to this topic yet. If not, when you get to the 11th Grade, maybe they’ll cover it then.)

    • January 22, 2012 at 20:05



  15. hopeful cynic
    January 22, 2012 at 00:51

    A good article by Max Blumenthal dated 1/12/12, about Netahayu and his father Benzion Netanyahu’s relationship to Japotinsky, as well as Netanyahu’s current SuperPac efforts to neutralize Ron Paul on the Republican side and bring down President Obama in the general election can be found at:

  16. hopeful cynic
    January 22, 2012 at 00:38

    Nor should it be forgotten that the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated by a right wing extremist, or that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s family through his father’s ties him to Jabotinsky, the extremist inspiration for the violent Zionism of Menahem Begin’s Irgun and Itzhak Shamir’s Stern Gang, both of whom were on Britain’s terrorist list.

    Also, one should give little credence to the professed sincerity of Abe Foxman’s condemnation, given his advocacy and unrelenting lobbying in support of the Likud’s repressive policies, as well as his accusations of anti-semitism against anyone critical of Netanyahu or the Likud. That includes his shameful condemnation of President Carter, who of all of our nation’s presidents has done by far the most to advance peace in the Middle East, even though he didn’t earn a Nobel Peace prize for it. That man has been a gift from God for our nation, and it is a shame that delusive jingoists like Gingrich and Santorum, panderers like Romney, and politically weak-kneed operatives like Clinton and Obama continue to get the attention, while President Carter’s decency and humanity, and his many accomplishments on behalf of Americans and the peoples throughout the rest of the world are still ignored by so many of our citizens.

    It is time for our country and its President, whoever it is, to get our priorities straight and push seriously for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and one that recognizes all of the rights of all of its peoples. There are enough resources for everyone in the region to prosper, and it is time now to get the right job done.

    • Jym Allyn
      January 22, 2012 at 12:29


      Israel, because of the domination of the “Orthodox Jews,” is its own worst enemy.

  17. ilse
    January 21, 2012 at 23:39

    “After Internet attention focused on this Jan. 13 piece, Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, apologized for what he had written, which listed as one of several options for Netanyahu: to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.””

    An apology is pointless. They have planted the seed, deliberately.
    What a disgusting thing to do by the Atlanta Jewish Times. No wonder everyone in the world is beginning to despise the Jewish State.

  18. Aldebaran
    January 21, 2012 at 23:38

    I too am frustrated with President Obama’s Mideast policy, but there is really no need to shoot the President of the United States, simply vote him out of office in November.

    • rosemerry
      January 22, 2012 at 04:34

      Do you think he is too pro-Israel??? you cannot seriously think he is not supporting the Israeli rightwingers and willing to ruin Iran’s economy and social society for their perceived interest. If any of the Repug extremists should win (Ron Paul is a different matter) the USA would, as Uri Avnery points out, have no foreign policy, only an Israeli domestic policy.

      • Hollywood Jeff
        January 22, 2012 at 16:52

        Avnery may be forgiven for being forgetful, given his age, but he’s said this before.

        Over the years, Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr. had publicly cautioned Israel against further expansion and/or offered what were euphemistically described as “peace plans.”

        Other than Camp David, in which Israel ended up the big winner, all have met the same result. “What happened to all those nice plans?” asked Avnery in Ha’aretz., March 6, 1991:

        “Israel’s governments have mobilized the collective power of U.S. Jewry-which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree-against memo Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the Presidents, great and small, football players and movie stars folded one after another.”

        That was more than 20 years ago and their grip over our nation’s government has only tightened.

  19. Coleen Rowley
    January 21, 2012 at 22:47

    In New Campaign Video, President Obama Shows His Love for Israel: “The 7-minute long video, titled “America and Israel: An Unbreakable Bond,” features President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, Israel’s Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren, and former head of the Mossad Efraim Halev praising President Obama.” The new video should relieve the concerns of this Jewish editor and others in the Jewish Lobby.

  20. mms55
    January 21, 2012 at 21:16

    he not only owes my president an apology he owes the american people an apology.i’am so tired of hateful people,stop with your hateful rhetoric.

    • ilse
      January 21, 2012 at 23:41

      Yes. I agree totally.

    • Jym Allyn
      January 22, 2012 at 12:27

      The stupidity of people like Adler not only exemplifies why Israel is its own worst enemy, he makes me embarrassed to be Jewish.

      • F. G. Sanford
        January 22, 2012 at 15:48

        Wow! Consider the hypocrisy here. Bradley Manning is in jail, but this guy Adler gets a free pass. Let’s not forget the pandering to conventional stereotypes: the reference to Biden proceeding to implement Israel’s prerogatives would seem to confirm the widely held supposition that American politicians are in AIPAC’s back pocket. Then there’s that insider wink-wink-nod-nod idea that, “It’s not terrorism if Israel does it”. Can anybody say, “Double standard”? And just consider the ‘grist’ for the conspiracy theory ‘mills’: If it happened, could anybody really prove it was the first time? After all, who really was George deMohrenschildt, the family friend of the Bouvier family who bounced young Jackie on his knee, Who wrote at least one personal letter to George H.W. Busch at the CIA, and who befriended Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes, we have truly been treated to a new aphorism for “chutzpah”. I wonder if Adler realizes he has helped to polish the stereotype of Israel’s Mossad as the arm of a criminal regime? The only thing that could top this would be some of the “usual suspects” jumping up to defend Adler, claiming that curbing his “free speech” amounts to “antisemitism”. Yes, this is truly a “Casablanca moment” for AIPAC and American Zionists. Maybe they don’t think like Adler, but Adler certainly thinks they do, and even if they don’t, he’s guilded the stereotypical lily. “I’m shocked, SHOCKED to think that Israel would subvert American politics”!

    • Hammersmith
      January 24, 2012 at 10:23

      Israel should not have to go to such extremes. There should be someway they could simply veto any act unfavorable to the jewish state by an American president.

Comments are closed.