16 thoughts on “Israeli Generals Endorse Obama – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. It’s a great story … but there’s a problem.
    The generals in the video did not know they were endorsing Obama. They gave an interview on the issues which would be faced by the next US president.
    This according to the Jerusalem Post.


    It’s unfortunate that JCER chose to use deception to fight Republican propaganda. Quite stupid too, since it takes all of 5 minutes to find someone phone number in Israel and call to verify the story. FFS, read Al Franken’s books about Republican lies and get a clue.

  2. Who said: “What does the Israeli government think of one of its citizens attempting to insert himself into the U.S. presidential politics on behalf of one party’s candidate? If I were Tzipi Livni this would cause me some concern as the nation’s foreign minister. In fact, if I worked for the Obama campaign I think I might make a discrete phone call to the Israeli embassy to ask them a question or two about Shore’s activities and whether they have the approval of the Israeli government.” just a few posts ago?

    Uzi Dayan is a member of the Likud and an active politician. If a member of the Likud came out and publicly supported McCain you’d be howling until you lost your voice.

  3. “Former head of the Mossad Ephraim Halevy and former IDF deputy chief of staff Maj.-Gen. Uzi Dayan accused the group of taking their words out of context, saying that when filmed they had been told that the issue at hand was the challenges facing the next man in the White House, and not that the film was aimed at endorsing Obama for president.”


    This does not surprise me at all, and I suspected so much when I saw the clip. Looks like Obama’s supporters have adopted the tactics of Sasha Baron Cohen. Will Obama have anything to say about this deceitful campaign trying to hoodwink the American Jewish voters.

  4. You know Richard it’s funny how different your reactions are to Third Jihad and this one. In the former case are numerous Islamists explicitly calling for the overthrow of the United States and the creation of a Muslim Empire, yet you reject the reality of this Islamic movement as spin and propaganda from “right-wing Jewish republicans”, despite it being based on actual statements of radical Muslims which are certainly not taken out of context. Yet on the other hand you accepted this video at face value, where their statements have indeed been taken out of context as part of spin and propaganda from left-wing Jewish democrats.

  5. “This does not surprise me at all, and I suspected so much when I saw the clip”

    Amir me too. When I saw this clip I knoew something must be awry, especially with Uzi Dayan, quite a hawk. Indeed, he has said that his views are precisely the opposite of those promulgated in this pro-obama propaganda video. Funny how Richard swallows it whole, but slamms Third Jihad and Obsession.

  6. @Yossi Preminger:

    but there’s a problem.

    Only in yr mind.

    The generals in the video did not know they were endorsing Obama

    That’s not quite true. The generals who expressed an explicit preference for Obama certainly knew what they were doing & saying. My understanding is that one or two claim flat out that they did NOT endorse Obama in their interviews. They have a legitimate gripe.

    But what you really mean to say is that the interviewees claim they didn’t know that their interviews might be used for partisan political purposes. And that complaint I can understand if it’s true.

    Unfortunately, it is all too common for some documentary filmmakers not to be candid or explicit enough about the use they will make of an interviewees footage. I think it’s incumbent on the interviewee too to do due diligence and ask as many questions on this subject as possible. Rather than listening to their hurt pride, I’d ask what questions they asked the producers before they agreed to be interviewed.

    The idea that there are any lies involved in this project is preposterous. A lack of candor is not the same as lying.

  7. @Yoni: One of yr fellow right wing militants has been here ahead of you. Funny how you’re both linking to the Jerusalem Post. Neither they not you would have an axe to grind in this story now would they?

    What I think is much more interesting is how 4-5 right-wing pro-Israel “defenders” have gone on the offensive against this video. Why? Because it hits home. Israel’s security is where the right wingers live. If progressive Zionists can show that Israeli security is actually harmed by hawks like McCain then it cuts the legs out from under the ZOA/Aipac argument. That’s why there is such a need to discredit the video.

    The problem is that the words of the generals are there for all to see and hear. And the audience can judge for itself about the meaning of those words. One thing the filmmaker could do to assuage a small amt. of the criticism is to release the transcript of all the interviews. This would allow critics to poke around and attempt to prove something was twisted or taken out of context. My guess is they’ll find very little “ammunition.”

  8. @Yoni:

    their statements have indeed been taken out of context as part of spin and propaganda from left-wing Jewish democrats

    Well, no that’s not quite right. First, these are Israeli generals, not crackpot Muslim radicals. I tend to believe the word of some Israeli generals more than I would a ranting Muslim supremacist. Second, only one interviewee claims his words were twisted or taken out of context. The rest, fr. my understanding, are unhappy that their words were used in a partisan context. That’s far diff. than what you’re claiming. But then again you’ve always been a propagandist & not terribly interested in precision or exactitude.

  9. @amir: Gimme a break. I sympathize with anyone who felt they were not adequately informed about the ultimate purpose of their interview. But the way the Post has written this thing (gee, it goes to show the Hasbara crowd is one their toes when they all quote the same JPost story) is ridiculous. Neither Halevy nor Dayan’s words were “taken out of context.” Their words are their words. What they object to yet again, is that their interview is being used to counteract Republican attacks on Obama’s pro-Israel credentials.

    And if anyone should complain about a “deceitful campaign” it’s Obama. The lies spread about him by the Republican Jewish Coalition are 1,000 times worse than any potential issue that might diminish this film. When the commenters here who take this tack get into high dudgeon about any of the horrific shenanigans in which the RJC is engaged–& which I’ve covered extensively here–then their hurt feelings will be treated with a tad more respect.

  10. @Yoni: Don’t tell me what Uzi Dayan CLAIMS he said. Ask Dayan to either produce a transcript or the filmmakers to produce one. If the latter refuse, then I’ll happily criticize them. Till then, I wouldn’t trust Dayan’s claim worth a damn.

  11. This is a bit worse than lack of candor. The people in question probably tried to keep their statements balanced only to find that their statements were edited according to criteria decided BEFORE they were interviewed. This is not a documentary. If this were a documentary, you’d say it’s the type of documentary Fox news might produce. I highly recommend reading Al Franken’s book about right wing propaganda, you’ll see they use these tactics regularly and you’ll be rightfully outraged.
    Remember the picture of Obama wearing a turban ? Fair game, or dishonestly used out of context ?
    Creationists use these tactics quite often too. You’ll find them cherry picking scientific articles for statements which, when “properly” presented, seem to imply that the scientist in question expresses doubt about evolution.

  12. The problem isn’t with the content of the film. Everybody has a right to support Obama and to be in favor of a dialogue with Iran. Those are legitimate positions.
    The problem is with the Obama supporters who sought the involvement of foreigners in the election (generals no less – imagine if someone made a movie of Pakistni generals telling us who they support in the election) and the deceitful way in which they got at least some of them to participate. If those same people donated 100 dollars to Obama’s campaign, Obama would, by law, have to decline the donation. But this video is worth a lot more than 100 dollars. So where is Obamas voice in this whole sorry affair.
    But you especially should denounce this film after what you said in the prior post.

    The other point is that you have written a lot about the JRC anti-Obama add. But your argument is not convincing. Being Anti-Israel or Pro-Palestinian is an opinion. You call just about anyone an Islamophobe, but to qualify as anti-Israel you want proof that that person literally called for the destruction of Israel and the killing of all its Jewish inhabitants before earning that title. Most of the people the adds refer to were close to Obama at one point, but Obama distanced himself from them only because they hurt his campaign. When Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright do you really think its because he learned something about him that he didn’t know over the previous 20 years? Give me a break. The voting public has a right to know what the real Obama thinks, and not the one trying to win an election. One way of finding this out is through the people he has associated with in the past. Having said that, I still like Obama. I won’t vote for him, probably, but I like him.

  13. @Yossi Preminger:

    their statements were edited according to criteria decided BEFORE they were interviewed

    Aw c’mon. That happens all the time in filmmaking. The filmmakers had a concept of what they wanted their film to be and say beforehand. Big deal.

    Now, if you could prove that the film makes the interviewees appear to say or believe things that they didn’t say or don’t believe, then you’d have a legitimate complaint. If you could show fr. the full transcript of interviews that the editing did violence to the interviewees actual real, full statements, again you’d have a case. Until you can do so, you’re tilting at windmills.

    No one claims this is a documentary. It is a campaign video produced by an independent campaign group. Again, what are you “on” about?

  14. Thanks for reminding me that the left, just like the right, has special clauses which allow for lower ethical standards during election times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *