Obama Forces Israel to Release Muslim Murderer of Holocaust Survivor, Gets Holocaust Award

1399549729000-488710287

Everyone had a good time at at Obama and Steven Spielberg’s Holocaust Party.

“I called all my Jewish writers into my office and asked them for some Shoah jokes,” Conan O’Brien joked.

The president entered the ballroom around 8:10 PM accompanied by Spielberg to huge applause. Obama shook hands and greeted people in the VIP tables. He also reached out to nearby Samuel L. Jackson for a long handshake, and some words between the two men that left POTUS laughing as he walked away.

Getty_050814_ConanSpringsteen

The Shoah Foundation fundraiser kicked off with the timeless comedy of Conan O’Brien.

O’Brien got one of USC Shoah Foundation’s 20th Anniversary Gala Show night’s biggest laughs when he mentioned Spielberg’s efforts to record Holocaust survivors and other victims of genocide. O’Brien said the filmmaker “was recording evidence of intolerance long before Donald Sterling’s girlfriend.”

Obama was seen laughing at the remark.

Of course he was. Because any Obama occasion is filled with the same petty and nasty politics. But the irony is that at another time Sterling would have been sitting in the audience and laughing.

Conan+O+Brien+USC+Shoah+Foundation+20th+Anniversary+Amx7Rmgi-30l

The real joke here is as dark and grim as midnight. While Obama rattled off a phony speech about Holocaust survivors, he had recently pressured Israel into releasing the murderer of a Holocaust survivor.

isaac rotenburg

Isaac Rotenburg was born in 1927 in Boolodva, Poland. He was one of seven children, born to Nathan, a tailor. The family was sent to the Sobibor death camp during the Holocaust.

He and his brother were selected to work in the camp. He had to tie together bundles of victims’ clothes. The rest of the family perished.

With the outbreak of the revolt at Sobibor, Isaac and his brother managed to escape from the camp, but they lost each other mayhem that broke out in the revolt.

Isaac reached the shores of Israel in April 1947. A year later he joined the army and fought in the War of Independence in the north, near Kibbutz Manara.

He worked as a plasterer and when he reached the age of retirement,  decided to continue working several hours a day to keep himself busy.

In 1994, on a Tuesday, Isaac was at work repairing the floor, his knees bent, when two Arab Muslims came in and struck his head with an axe.

Among those slated to be released is Abu-Musa Salam Ali Atia, a Gaza Strip resident and member of the Fatah party who was convicted of murdering Holocaust survivor Isaac Rotenburg as part of an initiation into a Palestinian terror group.

There’s comedy here, but it’s the Kafka kind.

Obama pressures Israel into releasing the murderer of a Holocaust survivor and then shows up to get an award and deliver a speech about the importance of respecting Holocaust survivors… after a few gags.

Just in case you thought this was about the Holocaust. It’s not. It’s about using the lessons of the Holocaust to protect Muslims… especially those who like to carry out a second Holocaust. Because this is what liberalism is.

Spielberg then took the podium. “Everywhere from Syria to southern Sudan, the world has yet to learn the lessons,” he said of genocide and war during his introduction of Obama.”This program exists because we know the future can be re-written.”

Do we?

Spielberg attacked Israel for defending itself. He’s throwing a party for a politician who is helping Iran go nuclear.

The future looks suspiciously like the past. And Steven Spielberg is helping it stay that way.

People who act surprised that Spielberg would use the Shoah Foundation to promote Obama, while Obama promotes Iran’s nuclear program, have forgotten Spielberg’s history.

This latest stunt is mild compared to Spielberg’s decision to take the story of the murdered Israeli Olympic athletes and turn it over to radical leftist Tony Kushner, who had said that he wishes Israel had never existed, who turned it into an Anti-Israel flick.

Bizarrely enough, Obama’s speechwriter shoved this line into his teleprompter. “It’s up to us to speak out against rhetoric that threatens the existence of a Jewish homeland.”

Obama has not only not spoken out against the PLO, but has forced Israel to release the murderers of Jews, including the murderer of a Holocaust survivor.

He says “We can teach our children the hazards of tribalism” apparently unaware that Jewish survival depends on tribalism and that his own reign has been partisan and tribal.

I have this remarkable title right now — President of the United States — and yet every day when I wake up, and I think about young girls in Nigeria or children caught up in the conflict in Syria — when there are times in which I want to reach out and save those kids —

If Obama wanted to save them, he could. What he wants to do is seem like he does. And that’s what this is really about. Empty sentiment.

The same liberal Jews who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust because they supported FDR, turn a blind eye to Iran’s nuclear program because they support Obama.

…or to the murder of Isaac Rotenburg.

The Shoah Foundation party doesn’t embody a movement to prevent the Holocaust from happening again. It embodies the very same self-absorption and liberal pieties that caused American Jews to let it happen in the first place.

kardashian

  • Ban Liberals

    Obama’s anti-Semitism AND his ineptness exceeds that of the previous record-holder: Jimmy Carter.

    And Spielberg’s self-hatred and utter stupidity exceeds that of anyone I’ve ever seen.

    How and why ANY Jewish person supports ANYTHING Obama says or does is beyond comprehension.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Spielberg isn’t a Jew. He’s a secular liberal.

      • hiernonymous

        Those are mutually exclusive?

        • iluvisrael

          not necessarily, but liberalism becomes their ‘religion’

        • truebearing

          You can’t serve two masters.

          • hiernonymous

            What exactly does that mean?

          • truebearing

            Pray on it and the answer will come to you.

          • hiernonymous

            “Google this” and “pray on that” – you seem to rely heavily on outside assistance to help you make sense of your posts.

            You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as a secular Jew, but your post was so vague that it’s hard to be sure. Do you yourself know?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            He’s telling you that you won’t understand with your current mindset.

            And he’s being nice about it.

            Nice however is wasted on you.

          • hiernonymous

            “You wouldn’t understand” is generally better translated as “I can’t articulate what I mean” or “what I mean doesn’t withstand much scrutiny.”

            “Nice however is wasted on you.”

            Correct. “Rational” is a much better approach.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Really?

            Understanding the nature of someone else’s identity in a different ethnic and religious group has nothing to do with mindset.

            Please tell us more.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay. You made a statement that appears to be an attempt to redefine “Jewish” to exclude those whose politics you disagree with. There’s nothing new about such approaches, of course. Sayyid Qutb redefined jahiliya specifically to lay the groundwork for identifying insufficiently ardent Muslims as not being true Muslims,

            I asked you for clarification, but that was not forthcoming. True bearing then made a short comment about serving two masters. That comment is ambiguous, but there is nothing about it to suggest that a particular political or social outlook would render one incapable of following an explanation of that statement.

            It’s also probably worth remembering that it is not your own identities that you and true bearing are discussing, but Mr. Spielberg’s.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “True bearing then made a short comment about serving two masters. That comment is ambiguous”

            No it’s not.

          • hiernonymous

            Sure it is. The “two masters” are not identified. One is presumably God. What’s the other? Government? The Will of the People? Reason? Profit? Pleasure?

            So far, neither of you has been able to actually articulate what, exactly, a liberal is supposed to believe or do that is incompatible with being Jewish. Given the prevalence of liberalism in the Jewish community, this is not a topic on which a couple of dark hints suffices to establish the validity of your position.

          • truebearing

            You know, you remind me of Kant’s propensity to complicate the simplest things. Jesus taught the perfect ethical principe, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Simple. Incredibily clear. Understandable to nearly anyone. It is perfect.

            Kant decided to “better” the Golden Rule with his bloated, verbose, long-winded Categorical Imperative. It was a clumsy, grandiloquent complication of the wisdom and eloquence of the Golden Rule, and superior in no way. It was intellectual posturing at its worst. Truth is simply irreducible. Embellishment or analysis indicates a lack of depth in understanding.

          • hiernonymous

            Sorry, that won’t wash. You’ve claimed that being liberal is incompatible with being Jewish. Taking refuge in the claim that such an observation is some sort of “irreducible truth” that cannot be further examined or challenged is arrant nonsense. “You can’t be Jewish and liberal” is an argument, not a statement of obvious moral truth.

            For the two to be incompatible, there must be something that one believes or does that absolutely contradicts a teaching or requirement of the other. Why are you so eager to claim incompatibility, and so reluctant to show it?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s a statement of moral truth to an individual with moral awareness.

            To you it’s just noise.

          • hiernonymous

            “You can’t be Jewish and liberal” is an argument, not a self-evident moral truth, and for a day and many posts now, both you and truebearing have been hiding behind platitudes and portentous hints to avoid making that argument explicit.

            “If you don’t agree with me, you’re immoral” is a cheap smear, not an argument. If you’re going to make your living in the marketplace of ideas, deal with the ideas. If you see yourself as a poor man’s Rush Limbaugh, by all means, carry on as you are.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s a self-evident moral truth to anyone with moral awareness.

            This is a discussion between people who understand that moral truth.

            You decided to barge in and demand that it be explained to you even though it’s as futile as explaining color to a blind man.

            Truebearing was nice enough to try.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s a self-evident moral truth to anyone with moral awareness.”

            Presumably, you understand how empty the construction “I’m right, as anyone who is intelligent / moral / whatever can see” is. Not sure why you’d waste your time or mine with such silliness.

            “This is a discussion between people who understand that moral truth.”

            Understand through what? Intuition? ESP? Because you sure haven’t articulated it in any meaningful way.

            “You decided to barge in and demand that it be explained to you…”

            Well, let’s see. You’ve just stated, in a public forum, that liberalism is incompatible with being Jewish. That’s an extremely provocative statement, and one that on its own demands explanation.

            Rather than articulate your reasoning, you continue to hide behind platitudes and a farcical claim that your position is “self-evident.” It’s quite obviously not self-evident to the many, many Jewish people who are also liberal.

            As I’ve noted previously, there’s no shortage of fanatics and zealots who have tried to define those they disagree with out of the community. To date, you’ve not shown that your attempt is any better rooted in rationality than the others.

            “Truebearing was nice enough to try.”

            Ah – is that what he was doing? It wasn’t a very competent try, then.

            So, one more time: having claimed that liberalism is incompatible with being Jewish – after claiming that if one is liberal, one isn’t really a Jew – can either of you explain what, exactly, about being liberal prevents one from being Jewish?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It would be empty if were debating the topic with you.

            You just barged into a discussion that you’re incapable of understanding and you’ve been told that you’re incapable of understanding it.

            A debate between two theoretical physicists can’t be settled with “You’re not smart enough.”

            However if Bozo the Clown wanders in off the street and demands that the discussion be explained to him in terms he can understand, they are well within their rights to tell him that.

            This is not a debate between us.

            This is a discussion between people who understand a topic. You are incapable of understanding it.

            We are not obligated to try and break down a discussion that all the parties understand to a level at which you would be able to grasp. Truebearing has been nice enough to make the effort with predictably futile results.

          • hiernonymous

            “You just barged into a discussion that you’re incapable of understanding and you’ve been told that you’re incapable of understanding it.”

            No, on every account. First, you’re offering controversial statements in an open, public forum. When you receive comments or criticisms on such, you are not being “barged in on.” Second, you’ve yet to offer a comment that can’t be understood. You’ve offered comments that haven’t been supported, and you are trying to obscure that lake of support by asserting that your assertions are “irreducible truths.” This contention alone demonstrates that you either don’t understand the terms you are using, or that you are using them in bad faith. “Liberals can’t be Jewish” is not an irreducible truth.

            “A debate between two theoretical physicists can’t be settled with “You’re not smart enough.””

            And, again, you manage to pack multiple inanities into one sentence. “Spielberg isn’t Jewish, because he’s liberal” isn’t theoretical physics. It’s not even really metaphysics. It’s political demagoguery. If we were to dignify it as a philosophical discussion, then your contention would cast you and true bearing as trained philosophers. Just out of curiosity, are you? (One wonders, because true bearing, for example, repeatedly resorts to the formulation “moral clarity,” which is a political, not philosophical, term.). Your comment further fails because I, at any rate, have not tried to “settle” anything with “you’re not smart enough.” I’ve asked you to lay out the specific reasoning behind your contention that a liberal can’t be Jewish. You’ve completely ducked, relying on the sort of posturing evident in this last post of yours. Truebearing started to make an attempt, asserting first a vague contention that liberals were “cultural Marxists,” then shifting to liberals are “humanists,” but he seems to gave lost his taste for either after seeing the logic laid out explicitly.

            “However if Bozo the Clown wanders in off the street and demands that the discussion be explained to him in terms he can understand, they are well within their rights to tell him that.”

            But when Bozo stands up in public and cries “liberals can’t be Jewish,” he doesn’t get to silence criticism and questioning by asserting that the critics “just don’t understand.”

            Again, instead of laying out your logic and showing why it’s defensible, you are simply asserting that “the topic us too deep for you, and it’s none of your business!” The topic is not deep at all. Trying to exclude members of a community because if their politics is an old, simple, and transparent maneuver, and it’s that very transparency you are trying to cloak with your “irreducible truth” nonsense. As for the “barging in” bit, pull on your big boy pants, Daniel. If you want to influence public perceptions by making public statements, be grown up enough to expect public reaction.

            “We are not obligated to try and break down a discussion that all the parties understand to a level at which you would be able to grasp.”

            You finally got something right. You’re not “obligated” to do a blessed thing. I’ve pointed out a flaw in your comment. I will continue to point out that flaw. Whether you choose to address it is entirely up to you. I’m more than happy for you to decline, and to leave your comment exposed for the cheap slur that it is.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You can comment or criticize all you like a topic that you’re incapable of understanding. That doesn’t mean you’re participating in a debate. It just means that you’re annoying more knowledgeable people.

            This was a discussion between people who understood the subject. Writing 10 page letters demanding that we “prove” our assertions to you is ignorant and entitled.

            It’s also mildly amusing.

          • hiernonymous

            You can comment or criticize all you like a topic that you’re incapable
            of understanding. That doesn’t mean you’re participating in a debate. It
            just means that you’re annoying more knowledgeable people.

            Sorry, won’t wash. Your contention wasn’t esoteric; it didn’t invoke specialized or professional knowledge inaccessible to the unwashed masses. It was simple and direct: you claimed that Mr. Spielberg could not be Jewish because he was liberal.

            This was a discussion between people who understood the subject. Writing
            10 page letters demanding that we “prove” our assertions to you is
            ignorant and entitled.

            I’m not demanding that you prove your assertions to me. I’m calling you out on your assertions in public. I’m inviting you to support a claim that is absurd prima facie, given the large number of Jewish liberals. This was not a “discussion between people who understood the subject.” This was a discussion between people whose shared political biases led them to agree on a logically flawed and baseless attempt to redefine an identity to exclude those with whom you disagree.

            You are now trying to find anything – a personal attack, a posture, a diversion – to free you from the obligation of supporting your statement. “Ignorant?” Show it to be so. Ignorant of what? “Entitled?” There’s nothing entitled about pointing out the flaws in an outrageous statement. You seem unclear on the concept of public discourse. When you say something silly, others are free to point it out.

            “It’s also mildly amusing.”

            Have you ever noticed how frequently the term “amused” seems to be used to substitute for emotions of an entirely different nature? If it is important to you that I believe you to be amused, okay, Daniel, I believe that you are amused.

            Now how about explaining just what it is that a liberal believes that prevents him from being (or remaining) Jewish?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re calling me out on a topic you don’t understand and are incapable of understanding.

            Surprisingly it’s not working out so well for you.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re calling me out on a topic you don’t understand and are incapable of understanding.”

            You appear to find that a comforting mantra, but it’s transparent posturing. As I’ve noted, there’s nothing esoteric about the topic, the vocabulary, or the concepts.

            Quite plainly, the majority of the Jewish population finds no insuperable barrier between liberalism and being Jewish. You contend that there is such a barrier.

            Plainly, you have a burden to show that your attempt to revise what it means to be Jewish has merit. Hiding behind “you wouldn’t understand” or “it’s too deep for you” is transparently an attempt to avoid making the transition from outrageous public statement to reasoned argument.

            “Surprisingly it’s not working out so well for you.”

            As I’ve mentioned before, if you have to tell the other fellow he’s getting the worst of it, chances are that he isn’t.

            My goal, of course, is to either have you explain precisely what insuperable obstacle to being Jewish is presented by liberalism, or to highlight your failure to do so. Either is a satisfactory outcome. So far, I see no indication that it’s not being achieved.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The topic is esoteric because you lack the mindset to understand its basic premises. Your exchange with Truebearing established that.

            Claiming that I have an obligation or a burden to explain it to you is delusional entitlement.

            You’re confusing me with Kipling.

          • hiernonymous

            Still dodging. Sound reasoning does not require a particular mindset to understand.

            I’ve yet to claim that you have an obligation to explain anything to me. . Your assertion is dangling out there unsupported, and I am drawing attention to that fact. Whether you choose to try to make your reasoning explicit, or you choose to leave it as another bit of internet windbaggery, is entirely your decision.

          • truebearing

            I articulated exactly what I wanted to say. I also knew you would have trouble with it because it isn’t conducive to your nihilistic game of logic. The mere mention of prayer as a way to apprehend truth left you confused and frustrated. I have to admit, it worked as intended and I’m quite amused.

            You are careful not to offer your own beliefs, but delight in attempting to shred those of others…unless they are Muslim.

            Here is a hint. The tenets of Judaism and those of the liberals are not the same. One can’t live simultaneously by both. The same is true for people who call themselves Chritians but don’t follow Christ’s teachings. It’s remarkably simple, actually.

          • hiernonymous

            “The mere mention of prayer as a way to apprehend truth left you confused
            and frustrated. I have to admit, it worked as intended and I’m quite
            amused.”

            Interesting. So the purpose of your post, and of reference to prayer, was to confuse and frustrate. I’m passably familiar with Christ’s teachings, but I confess I’m not sure which of them you were following there.

            “You are careful not to offer your own beliefs…”

            So far, so good.

            “…but delight in attempting to shred those of others…”

            And not so good; if you believe that, you’re not reading closely enough. I dislike the use of one’s beliefs to justify the marginalization or mistreatment of others, but I never mock anyone, or try to “shred” their beliefs, simply for their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

            “The tenets of Judaism and those of the liberals are not the same. One can’t live in accordance with both simultaneously.”

            Which tenets, specifically, do you see as so incompatible that one cannot remain a member of the Jewish community if he accepts said tenets?

            “It’s remarkably simple, actually.”

            Then it should be remarkably simple to move from hints to explicit reasoning.

          • truebearing

            There is nothing morally wrong with encouraging someone to think outside of their little box.

            The purpose of my post was to make a very, very simple point. What was intended was to make a comment that was truthful and irreducible. I’m amused that you got so flummoxed over the simple truth and wisdom of that phrase. I expected you to respond as you did, but not with such vehemence.

          • hiernonymous

            I note that you’ve assiduously avoided answering the question. What tenet of liberalism do you see as incompatible with being Jewish?

            “I’m amused that you got so flummoxed over the simple truth and wisdom of that phrase.”

            Yes, so you’ve said. Sadly, the simple truth and wisdom has yet to extend to explaining just what a liberal believes that is incompatible with being Jewish. I’m afraid that doesn’t fall under “irreducible.”

          • truebearing

            Since you insist on being obtuse, or too lazy to figure it out on your own, start with the Ten Commandments and look at the immense conflict with the ways liberals think and act. That should give you a good start.

          • hiernonymous

            “…start with the Ten Commandments and look at the immensr conflict with the wqays liberals think and act.”

            You’re still dodging and squirming. I have no idea how you imagine “liberals think and act.” What, exactly, makes being a liberal incompatible with being a Jew?

          • truebearing

            Read the comment I just posted above.

            Are you just sitting and waiting all day for my responses? I’m flattered, but it really isn’t necessary. Go outside and enjoy the blooming spring…or something.

          • hiernonymous

            I did read the comment you posted above. It still didn’t identify a belief or tenet that is inherent in liberalism and is also incompatible with being Jewish.

            “Are you just sitting and waiting all day for my responses? I’m
            flattered, but it really isn’t necessary. Go outside and enjoy the
            blooming spring…or something.”

            It would be pointlessly cruel to translate that.

          • truebearing

            There is no need to specify one belief or tenet of liberalism. You know what Cultural Marxism means. I leave it to you to discover on your own how foolish it is to debate this point.

            You never answered my question about your immediate response to two of my replies. Since this thread is 2 days old, it seems unlikely that you just happened to be checking for a reply.
            During this entire exchange, you have been insistent that I answer the way you wanted me to, yet you don’t feel bound by your own rules. It seems a bit hypocritical.

          • hiernonymous

            “There is no need to specify one belief or tenet of liberalism. You know
            what Cultural Marxism means. I leave it to you to discover on your own
            how foolish it is to debate this point.”

            Sorry, no. It’s your argument (and Daniel’s); you don’t get to “leave it to” anyone else to make it.

            Is this the argument you’re trying to make?:

            A. Cultural Marxism is incompatible with being a Jew. (You’d still need to show why, but let’s go with that for now.)

            B. All liberals are actually Cultural Marxists.

            C. Therefore, being liberal is incompatible with being Jewish.

            Does that sum up your case?

            “You never answered my question about your immediate response to two of my replies.”

            That’s right. How is it topical?

            “Since this thread is 2 days old, it seems unlikely that you just happened to be checking for a reply.”

            Your previous post was at about 0200-0300; I responded at about 0630-0700. Today. Implying that there was a 2-day gap in communication is dishonest. Why the timing of the responses matters to you is beyond me, but if you’re going to present facts, integrity demands that you present all of the relevant facts and make as honest and complete a picture as possible. You failed to do that.

            “During this entire exchange, you have been insistent that I answer the
            way you wanted me to, yet you don’t feel bound by your own rules. It
            seems a bit hypocritical.”

            It might, if you have an inferiority complex and view the exchange as a dominance ritual. My “rules,” as you put it, have nothing to do with enforcing compliance with desires, and everything to do with the basic principles of logic. You’ve made an argument; that argument requires support. The timing of my responses has exactly nothing to do with why liberals can’t be Jewish, so going down that path can do nothing to advance that discussion. If you’d like to start a new thread concerning the timing of my posts, knock yourself out. I may or may not participate, depending on how interesting you can make it.

            Now, back to the topic.

          • truebearing

            Is it beyond your capacity to differentiate between Cultural Marxism and Judaism, or are you so lacking in an understanding of Judaism that you need it explained?

            Research, man. Dig in and learn the differences yourself. That way you won’t forget them.

            Here is another hint: one believes in monotheism; one believes in humanism. You figure out which is which, but I think it is fair to say they are mutually exclusive beliefs.

            I gave you the Ten Commandments as a key to understanding the irreconcilable differences, but you failed to take advantage of that clue.

          • hiernonymous

            “Is it beyond your capacity to differentiate between Cultural Marxism and Judaism…”

            You’re shifting the goalposts. The original claim was that one could not be liberal and Jewish; now you’re talking about Cultural Marxism. I asked if you were arguing that “Cultural Marxism” was inherent to liberalism, but you’ve yet to respond.

            “Research, man. Dig in and learn the differences yourself. That way you won’t forget them.”

            Not sure why you insist on this sort of posturing. It’s silly.

            “Here is another hint: one believes in monotheism; one believes in humanism.”

            Ah, so now you’re arguing that liberals are humanists, and that humanism is incompatible with being Jewish. Perhaps we’re getting somewhere.

            So let’s see if we can articulate your revised argument:

            1. Humanism is incompatible with monotheism.
            2. Being Jewish requires a belief in a monotheistic God.
            3. Being liberal necessarily entails embracing humanism.
            4. Therefore, being liberal is incompatible with being Jewish.

            If you disagree with that formulation of your argument, feel free to correct it.

            Now, exactly none of those statements is self-evident.

            First, humanism comes in many forms, and there have been religious and secular humanists. Modern humanism’s roots lie in the Enlightenment, and many of the Founders were humanists (Thomas Paine springs immediately to mind). This suggests that you see a fundamental conflict between the ideals of the Declaration and of the Constitution and Christianity. A moment’s reflection will reveal that the entire concept of democracy, rooted in the idea that governments exercise their authority with the consent of the governed, and that the legitimacy of laws derives from the people, is – by your formulation – utterly incompatible with Christianity. If Spielberg cannot be Jewish on account of his alleged humanism, Mssrs Washington, Jefferson, et al, must be similarly excluded from what seems to be becoming a vanishingly small circle of True Believers.

            It’s not at all clear that one need hold any particular belief at all to be Jewish, which is as much about ethnicity and identity as it is about belief. Even among the religious Jews, there is an impressive variety of belief. At various points in the history of ancient Israel, the Jews turned away from God. He punished them, but they never stopped being Jews. You and Daniel appear to be taking it upon yourselves to decide for God who his chosen people are; what is your basis for doing so?
            You seem to run into your greatest problem when you ascribe to “liberals” a particular set of beliefs. You’ve variously imputed “cultural Marxism” and “humanism” to the liberal ideology. It’s not sufficient for the purpose of your argument to claim (or even establish) that many liberals subscribe to these viewpoints; you must establish that they are integral to liberalism, that one is not and cannot be liberal absent these characteristics. Otherwise, you haven’t established that liberalism, per se, is incompatible with anything. So the key question is – just what do you understand a liberal to be and to believe, and on what do you base your understanding?

            “I gave you the Ten Commandments as a key to understanding the
            irreconcilable differences, but you failed to take advantage of that
            clue.”

            I’m not sure how you came to conceive of argument as a guessing game, but if you’re going to establish that a liberal cannot be Jewish, you’re not going to do it by offering “clues.” The method of discourse you’re employing is generally a smokescreen attempting to conceal that there is no coherent framework to the argument, and you’re hoping that by being cryptic, the other individual will either make the argument you could not, or conclude that you understand that which you do not.

            I suppose I’ve given up to your game, to the extent that in my post above, I’ve now laid out the argument that you plainly could not. If your goal was to play Tom Sawyer with the picket fence of your incoherent argument, congratulations. Now let’s see if, having been unable to make your case to begin with, you can take the framework you’ve been handed and defend it, improve upon it, or otherwise construct something resembling a rational argument from it.

          • hiernonymous

            And it appears that neither gentleman is able or willing to be specific in why, in the end, a liberal cannot be Jewish. C’est la vie.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Blind man still can’t see color. Leaves in a huff.

          • hiernonymous

            Who left?

            You’ve yet to identify a tenet or belief of all liberals that is incompatible with being Jewish. Falling back on platitudes and assurances that you’re really sure that you’re right is no substitute.

          • truebearing

            “Sorry, no. It’s your argument (and Daniel’s); you don’t get to “leave it to” anyone else to make it.”

            I’m still trying to figure out why you don’t understand it.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m still trying to figure out why you don’t understand it.”

            I can’t understand an argument you haven’t yet made.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “you have been insistent that I answer the way you wanted me to, yet you don’t feel bound by your own rules. It seems a bit hypocritical.”

            Alinsky Rule 4.

          • truebearing

            ” I’m afraid that doesn’t fall under “irreducible.”‘

            Yes it does, in the context living according to the laws of Judaism as opposed to the Cultural Marxism that is endemic to liberals. It is impossible to serve one without renouncing the other.

          • hiernonymous

            Nonsense. It’s not “irreducible,” in that there is at least one more layer of complexity that you must reveal. You must have some specific belief or behavior in mind that is inherent to being a liberal – a sine qua non, absent which one simply is not “liberal,” that is utterly incompatible with being Jewish. What is that tenet or behavior?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            And Islam and the Koran aren’t Liberal.

            They are Right Wing, conservative, deadly homophobic and misogynistic – odd allies for self described “progressives” and “people of the book” types.

      • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

        But had Spielberg been a European during the 1930s and 40s, he would have been rounded up with the rest of the Jews because of the regnant racism. His political views would have been irrelevant: he would have had bad blood and been seen as deracinated, unlike members of the volkisch states established by the Nazis.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          If he’s in the wrong place at the wrong time, he can still be blown away by Muslim terrorists.

          They won’t care that he’s the director of Munich.

      • BS77

        He’s an idiot. …..Michael Savage said it well..”.Liberalism is a mental disorder”……..Speilberg should be ashamed but he doesn’t get it…he cannot grasp why thousands of people are shocked and extremely upset by his actions.

      • NYgal

        You are wrong, Daniel. Spielberg is a Jew and so is Sterling, regardless how much they would like not to be. They might be bad Jews, treasonous Jews, callow, selfish and self- serving Jews, but they are Jews. Just ask any non-Jew.
        And the same, unfortunately applies to Soros and his J Street little helpers.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I have little knowledge of Sterling and don’t care much. Spielberg is a secular lefty married to an actress. The odds of any of his grandchildren identifying as Jews are statistically poor. He’s written himself out of the Jewish people.

          As for Soros, there isn’t even anything to talk about there.

    • Jerseychris

      Because non- Orthodox Jews all seem to have the useful idiot gene.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        You forget the neteuri karta.

        • Chavi Beck

          The NK are entirely forgettable.

    • Chavi Beck

      Most people today have never had the chance to comprehend the impossible scale of the Shoah. At best they’ve spoken to maybe one survivor. They make light of the Shoah the way people make light of anything that is tiresomely heavy. But Spielberg has enough information to know better. He’s sat with many, many survivors and heard their own words. For him to behave this way shows a complete lack of humanity that is positively scary.

  • Libslayer

    Obama will take money from rich progressive Jews, but he has no use for Jews otherwise.

  • PDK

    Jews who become liberals are no longer Jews, but are liberals with Jewish names. They have committed apostasy to the God of Abraham and embraced the new faith of liberalism.
    -
    Liberalism is the faith of the immature and the insane. Further, the new faith of liberalism is overthrowing or attempting to overthrow the old religion of Judo-Christianity.
    -
    It is sad to watch liberals turn their back on Israel, and frightening to watch them embrace the insanity of Islam.
    -
    Non-liberal, non-apostate whites might just want to take a good long look at where white liberals and their ideology are leading us.
    -
    Clearly the time is coming and the need is rising for two separate states for white people. One for liberals, the other for non-liberals.
    -
    From the Sanctuary, @ http://the-pdk.blogspot.com
    I’m PDK: Thank you.

    • Susan Kamelgarn

      Not all Jews are liberal and not all have turned their backs on Israel. There are still many who still stand behind Israel and always will. Obama is a muslim has been and always will be and the rest of the Jewish people need to finally recognize this.

    • hiernonymous

      “non-apostate whites ”

      They would be the ones who remained faithful to Woden and Donner?

  • Davros11

    The only hope we have is that these murderers attend a bomb making class and have another idiot as the instructor and “BOOM” another dead islamist

  • Veracious_one

    Obama’s actions continue to lift the veil as to whether or not he’s a Muslim..

    • truebearing

      He is a Muslim.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Half black, half white.
        Half christian, half muslim.
        Half slave, half slave owner.

        • Chavi Beck

          Whose slave?

  • Douglas J. Bender

    Kim Kardashian sure has nice, curvy hips in that picture. Wait…what was this article about? (Joking about liberal distractions from truth. [Not to imply that is what the picture was meant to do, or what Daniel Greenfield does. I'm just easily distracted sometimes.])

  • Camilla Brieste

    The cultural chaos, the crimes against Christians, the lawlessness, the abandonment and lack of respect for Israel, it profoundly saddens me. Daily I view information on the net, and discover that there are many savvy internet researchers who have compiled summaries and details, the truth that is behind “all of it” and illuminate that this administration’s actions were all inevitable. Does anyone question that unless the general public is informed that this will turn out well for those of us who don’t want to be part of a Collectivist nation? Conservatives, Republicans, the average hard-working US Joe, Media on the right, all have to get their hair on fire and let people know WHO is really running the country, so they know how to vote in 2016 to SAVE THE USA from turning into a totalitarian nightmare.

  • antioli

    Perhaps every one at Spielberg’s party should Phone Home and then go there.

  • dougjmiller

    Daniel Greenfield, thank you very much for pointing out the extremely dangerous realities of today’s world. Hopefully the voices of the good people, like yourself, will drown out the calls for genocide by today’s virulent anti-Semites. The difference between now and 1938 is that now we face a lot of Hitlers.

  • truebearing

    This is nauseating… Obama warning about the hazards of tribalism? He and Eric Holder endorse tribalism every day, whether in the American black community, or wherever Muslims can be found. Obama is as tribal as it gets.

    Spielberg is a fool. Smart, yes. Talented, yes, but a fool all the more so. He has no excuse, unless he thinks narcissism is a good defense.

    “Holocaust” was a very powerful and necessarily disturbing movie. Clearly the most significant work by Spielberg. Why would he profane his most important work, and dishonor the victims of the holocaust, by giving an award to someone who is friends with Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, and a host of virulently anti-Jewish Muslims? Obama has evinced an intense dislike of Israel, as well.

    What greater irony is there than a film maker — a man working in the visual arts, whose films success being based largely on his ability to portray a compelling character arc — being morally blind?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      He already profaned it by making Munich

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Right about that.

        Munich, written by tony kushner, a homosexual and a jew, would be killed by Muslims who would despise him for two traits.

  • cacslewisfan

    Thank you for writing this article. It is sickening that Obama would pressure Israel to release the murderers of a Holocaust survivor, but it isn’t a surprise. I am absolutely disgusted, however, that Stephen Spielberg would be partnered with Obama. I don’t know why the Shoah foundation had Obama there. For political reasons? I can’t fathom their motives. I am in shock that so many people would be lighthearted and that they would simultaneously shill for Islam, the weakening of Israel, and “anti-tribalism” while remembering the Holocaust. What a bunch of horrible fools. I pray for the continued strength and safety of Israel.

    • lyndaaquarius

      Is Spielberg paying protection $$$ and hoping the crocodile eats him last?He once said that the greatest 8 hours of his life were spent with Castro,which indicates that he agrees with Castro.Why,then does he have a small army of accountants to protect his money? Which policies of Castro does he most admire? And why? How is he so comfortable with such brutal political oppression?. It’s all a huge mystery to me.

      • cacslewisfan

        How awful. I had no idea Spielberg said that. He is in full ESL (End Stage Liberalism).

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Spielberg is a liberal. He hooked up with Tony Kushner who is just as bad as Obama to make an Israel bashing movie.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Spielberg is so far to the left that he actually think positive thinking and “envisioning a better future” is the essence of “progress.” He lives in a delusional leftist bubble that never requires him to leave or look outside.

  • Morrie Itzkowitz

    Liberalism is a disease that has been in this country for a long time it attacks everyone that it touches. I was at one time very pleased with Steven Spielberg until he became sick with this disease and the sicker he gets the worse he becomes. Anyone that thinks like him and does the things that he is doing now is and will get worse because that is how this illness is. The best thing we can do is to so him and other what its doing to society and change the mind set. Right now we may have a remedy for this and it is called elections we can start to cut out the cancer that is Liberalism starting in November but it is up to us, it has always been up to us, we need to stop ignoring this illness and work to eradicate this once and for all.

    • David

      The disease has metastasized. Liberalism has destroyed more lives than cancer, heart disease and murder combined.

  • Chavi Beck

    Who’s that woman in the last picture?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      K. Kardashian

      • Chavi Beck

        Thanks.
        But as Sherlock Holmes said, now that I have learned a perfectly useless-to-me piece of information, better do all I can to forget it…

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Good idea. There’s a lot that I would forget if I could