ROMNEY VS. OBAMA -- ASSERTION VS. EQUIVOCATION
By Schmoel Yitzhak
It’s questionable -- at best -- what effect the “Jewish vote” will have on the American election.
So much of media coverage in the United States is produced by left-leaning liberal television stations and newspapers that it’s impossible for Republicans to obtain anything close to a fair shake.
Ditto for the State of Israel in terms of favorable coverage.
The New York Times and its posse of ultra-liberals have become so blatant in the agenda-writing that even the newspaper’s ombudsman recently admitted as much; in print no less.
Not that the confession will result in any changes in policy or anti-Israel editorializing. That negative beat -- with the notable exception of The Wall Street Journal and New York Post -- will go on because veiled Jew-hating has become pervasive.
That explains why Romney most likely will fail to gain enough of the “Jewish vote” to win the election. American Jews simply will not receive enough clear coverage of the GOP’s candidate in relation to his incumbent.
In the plainest of English, when it comes to supporting Israel, Romney’s assertion is 20-20 viewable and understandable. Mitt asserts it by word -- his nomination speech --and actions such as his recent visit to Jerusalem.
By stark contrast, the best one can say about Barack Obama’s stance toward The Jewish State is that over four years of presidency he has become the master of equivocation.
On the one hand he will tell an AIPAC meeting that he “has Israel’s back” yet when it comes to backing those words with action, it turns out that the White House is blowing so much smoke it’s surprising that Washington isn’t permanently enshrouded in smog.
For starters, there’s the unmistakable fact that Uncle Sam’s leader has not paid a single visit to Israel since his election.
His humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, D.C. never will be forgiven or forgotten.
Not surprisingly, with his election in doubt, Obama suddenly became aware of the “Jewish vote.”
However, his actions have re-defined equivocation with special emphasis on the Iranian threat.
Even since taking office, the president has matched Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policies toward Adolf Hitler by allowing the ayatollahs to build a formidable and region-threatening nuclear program.
Virtually every month by the month either Hillary Clinton or one of the other White House flunkeys will wax enthusiastic about how effective sanctions “soon” will be.
While the Iranian nuclear capacity grows, Obama continues to stall; while preventing Israel the ability to carry out the necessary strike.
Romney is right-on when he declares that Obama has “thrown Israel under the bus.”
Likewise, the president’s endless equivocation about the Jewish State says it all about how little he really cares about Israel’s survival.
My hope is that -- by now -- enough American Jews understand that situation and, unequivocally back Israel's true friend, Mitt Romney.