Israel Lobby Shill and Owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times Suggests Mossad Should Assassinate Obama

Oh, but now that there has been some minor blowback in the liberal blogosphere (certainly not the American MSM!), he certainly regrets it. Sort of.

The offending article is not available online but you can see it here (thank God for the cloud. Heh). Here’s the fun bit:

Three, 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.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

Isn’t that lovely? Oh, but he was, uh, thinking out loud! Really!

But hey, don’t use the phrase “dual loyalty” or “Israel Firster” or you’re anti-Semitic!

Don’t bother looking up the story on Google to see if it’s getting much MSM exposure- it’s five minutes of your life you will never get back. The entertainment/gossip site Gawker broke the story. So far ABC news online had a blurb discussing the apology from Adler, but as we know, the MSM cherry-picks the outrages of the week and the only reason ABC has the story is because it’s been bandied about in the blogosphere. If this were some Muslim guy talking about Israel’s influence over our foreign policy or threatening to assassinate Bibi, the story would be everywhere as proof that those Crazy Jew-Hating Muslims Are So Very Violent! To the credit of Haaretz (Israel) and the Guardian (UK), they are covering it. Perhaps if the story gains traction that rag, the NYT, will feel compelled to toss some story up, but you can bet it will only be as a last resort.

Naturally, no politicians, American or Israeli, have denounced this outrage, as Haaretz has pointed out. Where is the ADL? Where are all the people that were SO OUTRAGED that Obama harmed the Special Relationship with Israel by doing no more than any other POTUS has done by daring to articulate, out loud, US policy on settlements? And yet they have not the slightest problem with a suggestion that the POTUS be assassinated by foreign intelligence agents in the name of Israel.

Somewhere, Yitzhak Rabin is shedding a tear.

UPDATE: As usual, the Israeli bloggers over at +972 have more balls than the entire US media and blogosphere combined and have pointedly called out our tolerance for Jewish extremism:

Adler has since issued a non-apology: “I very much regret it, I wish I hadn’t made reference to it at all,” he told the JTA. It is worth noting that Adler is a Chabadnik, i.e. a member of a religious faction which has already shown an unhealthy interest in assassinations. Harry Shapiro, a Chabadnik, was convicted of planting a pipe bomb in a synagogue visited by Shimon Peres in Jacksonville back in 1997. A leading Chabad rabbi in Israel, Dov Wolfa, has flirted (Hebrew) with the supporters of Yigal Amir, Rabin’s assassin. I think it is safe to assume that an Islamic movement with this sort of record would find itself under, shall we say, intense scrutiny by the authorities.

[snip]

…However, Adler did prove a point, albeit not one he intended: He showed us that there are, in fact, American Jews who are “Israel-firsters”, that is, people who put the interests of Israel ahead of their own country. In Adler’s case, to the point of supporting the assassination of his own duly-elected president – which skirts very closely to treason.

The fact that there is a debate on this issue – that such people exist – is silly to the extreme and assumes we are people with no sense of history. To put it in one word: Pollard. In two: AIPAC espionage. But we seem to be having just such a debate.

Also see Larry Derfner’s take, here.