Discussing the Obama's Administrations deceitful, deceptive, dishonest, double- dealing duplicitous betrayal of Israel with my Jewish friends has become increasingly hazardous to our friendships.  After we dogfight over the "real significance" of Obama's "'67 lines" speech, and the geographic minutia of the defensible borders, I drop the bombshell question, "Why do think Obama hates Jews and the state of Israel." 

Their response almost always elicits an eye popping, jaw dropping, red- faced righteous indignation, followed by some combination of shouted words and spittle that include,  "But...uh..he's the President, Israel is our .. ah ...one democratic ally... in the Middle East, AND I VOTED FOR HIM, and I could never have voted for someone like that!" 

Then, like popping a balloon, I ask, "So, David, why then did you get so angry and upset?  If Obama really doesn't hate Jews or Israel, you should have just tossed aside the question, laughed at its premise, and or simply said you're crazy? None of those things happened. What caused such an outburst? I think it's because you see the forceful actions this Administration, and thus the United States, is taking on behalf of Israel's blood enemies and you're unable to fit that into the framework of your thinking."

An essential "must read" this weekend is Jennifer Rubin's blog in the Washington Post. Here are a couple of short excerpts of this insightful article. 

Since the president's Arab Spring speech, friends of Israel have been nervous about at least two issues: the promise Israel would not have to sit down with those who seek its destruction and the negotiations based on the "1967 borders with land swaps." This weekend it became apparent that there is much to worry about and that the Obama administration has been playing a game usually practiced by the Palestinians, namely telling its domestic audience one thing and the negotiating parties something different.

 

Now what about the 1967 borders? Democratic defenders of the president have insisted that "1967 borders with land swaps" is nothing new. But it appears it certainly is. As the insider noted, "Yes, they are pressing for '67 with swaps, not exactly '67. But that's not really the point - they've already adopted what was a Palestinian 'goal' as U.S. policy."

And it is actually worse than that. On Saturday I asked a State Department official authorized only to speak on background: Does "1967 borders with land swaps" mean "1967 and then we discuss swaps" or does it mean "1967 borders plus the swaps that the parties previously agreed to in negotiations including the Jerusalem suburbs"? The latter, I pointed out is consistent with the 2004 Bush-Sharon letters, but the former is not. In fact, if it is 1967 and then they discuss land swaps, that is the same as starting with the 1967 borders. Period. And [s]ure enough the State Department official tole [sic] me, "It means swaps that the parties will agree on in the course of direct negotiations."

American Jews have found themselves a wolf in sheep's clothing, inside the hen house, happily gorging on chicken soup and matzo balls.  The question then becomes will there be any chickens left in the hen house before the deceitful wolf turns his attention to the farmer's cottage and the American Jews who think they're safe inside.