Jewish support for Hussein Obama is of the same stock as Zionist complacency in the face of the Holocaust; there is no comparison between Obama and the Germans.

Mainstream Zionist leadership benefited from the Holocaust in several ways. The catastrophe proved their wisdom: since Herzl, Zionists had spoken of the threat to European Jews and urged them to move to Palestine, to no avail. German and Polish Jews refused to emigrate when they could, and now history was proving the Zionists right. Obama’s election is a similar boon to American Jewish leftists: for decades, they have been saying that Jews cannot continue in opposition to the gentile world and must assimilate. They warned Israel not to rely on the goodwill of US presidents, and here comes the one with the least goodwill.

There is a measure of sadism which Zionist leftists in the early 1940s and Jewish liberals now feel toward their fellow Jews. Both the liberals and the Zionists detest the traditional Jewish masses, whose existence humiliatingly reminds them of their own roots. Zionists wanted a new Palestinian or Israeli nation rather than Old Europe’s Jewry. The liberals, an assimilated bunch, take the existence of unassimilated religious or patriotic Jews as a personal affront. It’s so sadistically pleasant to crush other people’s lives, especially when one is not responsible for them. Hussein Obama is a good bet against Israel.

Sadism’s other side is masochism. Jewish newspapers of 1939-45 show the wringed souls of Zionists: they wrote of the Holocaust (as early as 1939) in apocalyptic terms, often invoking heart-rending biblical prophecies, but did nothing to stop the carnage or alleviate the suffering. Zionist documents of the period leave an unmistakable impression of masochistic enjoyment, especially at the expense of other Jews. The same forces of masochism are behind the liberals’ support for Hussein Obama: they torment themselves for being Jewish, for aligning with Israel, for oppressing the poor Arab terrorists. How can a self-respecting Jew voluntarily put a Hussein above himself?

From the shame and inconvenience of being unlike others—of being Jewish—rises cosmopolitanism. It’s not really cosmopolitanism, a complete freedom for self-respecting individuals, but a flight from Judaism into the cold world. Jewish self-hatred need not be explicit; many such Jews visit Reform temples once or twice a year and donate a few bucks to Jewish charities. They sense the destruction of Judaism and Jewish nationalism which emanates from the temples, but in the last breath of Jewishness their tormented souls lean towaard some nominal Jewishness; thus Jewish charities.

Cosmopolitanism leads to masochistic alignment with anti-Jewish forces. Zionists refused to spoil relations with the American and British governments, which refused to ransom a million Jews from the Germans in the Europa and Hungarian affairs. The Allied governments replied haughtily that they wouldn’t submit to German extortion; it was easy for them to uphold their “moral” principles at the expense of Jews. Zionist leaders neither protested publicly nor tried to collect ransom money from Jewish moguls and then humiliate the Allies by bringing a million ransomed Jews to the border (thus ensuring that the Allied powers would be unable to refuse them admittance). Mainstream Zionists didn’t want to upset the British occupiers by fighting them for an increase in immigration to Palestine from burning Europe. On that background, the American Jewish democrats’ behavior is recognizable: they side with anti-Jewish forces to prove that they are not some narrow-minded Jews who refuse to vote for a Hussein.

Both left-wing Zionists and Jewish liberals exonerate themselves for their inaction by blaming the victim. Zionists blamed the European Jews who didn’t rise up to die with dignity. Many of the Jewish Obama supporters blame Israel for over-extending her hand in US lobbying and blame religious Jews for American conservative policies, the backlash against which resulted in Obama.

Israeli Zionists despised the allegedly degraded European Jews, and American Jewish liberals are contemptuous of Israelis: they failed to obtain American visas, live among Arabs in poverty, fight instead of conducting academic discussions, and fit the American Jews’ cognitive profile of boorish losers.

Both the left-wing Zionists and the liberals try to escape their Jewishness. To that end, they attempt to put Jewishness hopelessly behind themselves. A notorious feature of Zionist discourse on the Holocaust was its past tense: during the war, Zionist leaders and newspapers described the catastrophe as something which already had happened rather than as an ongoing process which could be at least mitigated through ransom. They decided to establish the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum not after the war, but while the catastrophe was at its peak. Likewise, Obama’s election puts an end to the hopes of stopping Iran. In a sense, nuclear Iran does away with the Jewish liberals’ problem of Israeli identity: with such an adversary, Israel cannot afford an identity, but has to become submissive.

The US president who humbled Israel most, who beat her pride into dust, was an idealist Jimmy Carter; ostensibly weak and simple-minded, he pushed Israel to accept his own ideals and abandon Sinai to the enemy who lost five wars against us. Obama is a similar personality. After his recent book on Israel, Carter is universally considered an anti-Semite; Obama’s reputation is not as clear yet, though his friends are deeply anti-Semitic.

There is a hope for Obama: his treacherousness. He’s a carbon copy of the American Jews: a perplexed, rootless Muslim, willing to align himself with any strong leader, including an anti-Semitic pastor, but also willing to renounce them for a stronger one—and so he speaks before the AIPAC conference. A Muslim by birth, he would lead an infidel army against his co-religionists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like the Jews, he might reject his religious heritage and support a strong Israel more than any other president. Just as Jewish politicians of the Diaspora make some of the worst anti-Semites, Obama might well side with Jews against Muslims. Such an outcome cannot be predicted, but is possible.

Obama is a Muslim apostate just like the liberals are Jewish apostates. Muslims worldwide like Obama, just as Jews liked the apostate Kissinger, who did not give a damn about Israel.

Obama’s popularity is of Michael Jackson’s kind: he is an ethnic star. Fans scream just to see him, and no wise words are expected in return.

Obama won the primaries because somehow the voters didn’t take them seriously enough. In national elections, his chances are slim; Clinton had a stronger chance of rallying the opponents of McCain. Now the voters are very polarized: a seasoned conservative politician of excellent character versus an inexperienced black fellow of radical religious affiliation. Obama’s foreign origin would not necessarily bring him the votes of tens of millions of recent immigrants: most of them want to be Americans and distance themselves from their foreign past—of which Obama’s example reminds them. Obama’s absence of a political platform is not a factor: America is a mature society, and there can be no flash-type political ideas. Almost entirely, the policies consist of inconspicuous micro-moves and daily management of the country—which is clearly not the Hussein’s domain.