Sheldon Adelson Understands that Obama is a Threat to Israel's Security

The most recent Jewish scapegoat for the anti-Israel progressive culture is Sheldon Adelson. While perhaps best known as the billionaire chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, Adelson is actually one of the world's most philanthropic individuals. "He is the world's leading private donor to Jewish education, the Birthright Israel program, and Jerusalem's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial" and owns Israel Hayom, the largest-circulation daily newspaper in Israel.

Adelson's pro-Israel credentials are well known to any individual who opens a newspaper. And not just conservative publications. The Israel-bashing New York Times has published several hit pieces on Adelson, not only reveling in the Obama administration's Justice Department investigations into his business ventures, but also lambasting Mitt Romney for meeting with Adelson in...Israel of all dreaded places! The smearing of a presidential candidate is one thing -- the condemnation of one of the most benevolent men of our day is a disgrace.

The maligning of Adelson coincidentally began as his financial support for Republicans became public. But Adelson's backing of Romney is, at least in part, due to his fear of an unleashed Barack Obama in a second term and the impact on Israel's future. Unlike a majority of his fellow American Jews, Adelson's key voting issue appears to be ensuring Israel's survival.

And unlike Adelson's Las Vegas colleague, Steve Wynn, who has been vociferously outspoken about Obama's disastrous economic policies, Adelson has, until recently, remained in the background, quietly providing Romney/Ryan campaign and SuperPAC donations without drawing attention to his personal views. But this past week, Adelson wrote an opinion piece entitled, "Don't Risk Israel's Security on Obama's Words" and in doing so has drawn the ire of some on the far left.

Just as Obama's protectorate denounces Republicans for "politicizing" the Libya attacks, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and other Democrats cry foul when individuals concerned about the country's national security raise Israel as an issue deserving serious discussion. But these individuals either fear what an honest discussion will bring to bear or they simply do not understand the strategic significance of maintaining a strong relationship with our most important, and only true, ally in the Middle East. In either case, Israel should and must be a voting issue for every American walking into the voting booth in November.

It is therefore a breath of fresh air to read Adelson's honest and heartfelt opinion piece that cogently articulates the urgent need for Americans to void risking Israel's security on Obama's empty promises and campaign rhetoric, when very survival of the Jewish nation may depend on who becomes the next president.

In the course of enunciating specific examples of Obama's indifference at best, and malice in my estimation, toward Israel, Adelson raises important questions for Americans to consider:

  • If Obama has been caught off-mike voicing his disdain for Israel's Prime Minister and promising flexibility on matters such as missile defense to one of America's and Israel's enemies, "What else hasn't he told us?"
  • Has he made anti-Israel promises to some of his virulently anti-Semitic friends and mentors?
  • "Is Obama's campaign rhetoric in support of Israel only creating 'space' till after the election?"
  • And most importantly, "What are his second term plans when he no longer needs the Jewish vote?"

Not surprisingly, anti-Israel and Obama-touting Peter Beinart, came out with a nonsensical nonresponse to Adelson's serious questions. Beinart argues that Adelson's "attack" is baseless because "Obama has helped direct more money and military support [to Israel] than any of his predecessors."

Alas, this is the one and only talking point that Democrats can tout as the proof that Obama is the best friend that Israel has ever had. Even Joe Biden repeated the mantra in his buffoonish debate with Paul Ryan. And just as Ryan shot the argument down, Adelson addressed this point directly when he stated that,

...the aid was committed in programs that began decades before his presidency under previous administrations. He cannot rightly take credit for this aid in the sense of initiating it, just as he cannot take credit for merely signing pro-Israel legislation that had bipartisan congressional support.

Moreover, Obama's campaign never mentions that in the past few years his budgets have proposed significant cuts in US-Israel missile defense funds -- from $121.7mil to $99.8mil, a substantial slash. And just ask Egypt's Hosni Mubarak or Poland's Lech Walesa about Obama's reliability because of past military aid.

Beinart ignores this and disingenuously rebukes Adelson for not proposing policies that Israel and America should pursue. First of all, Adelson is not running for office, he is fighting for Israel's survival. Furthermore, Beinart should have addressed Adelson's articulated concerns -- the existential threats facing Israel due to Obama's failed policies in the region.

The issues that Adelson raises should be of paramount concern to every American: a nuclear Iran, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, tens of thousands of missiles in the hands of Hezb'allah in Lebanon, the dissension with Turkey, anti-Israel indoctrination funded with petro-dollars, the Islamists' rise to power through the "Arab Spring," and Hamas' continued reign of terror in Gaza.  Adelson recognizes that the U.N., to which the Obama administration continually turns for the leadership it has no interest in pursuing, is certainly no friend of Israel. He points out that the BDS campaign is taking hold across Western countries, the Democratic National Convention elucidated the rising anti-Israel positions here at home, and the administration has a dangerous pattern of whitewashing Jerusalem from any claims that it is the capital of Israel.

Beinart's true agenda is revealed in his closing paragraph as he admonishes the entire American Jewish community.  Beinart, like Obama before the Palestinians slapped him around, is obsessed with a two-state solution. He concludes his piece stating that "what whether [Obama] - and we - believe that Israel is better off trying to create a viable Palestinian state or not."  But this was not Adelson's point and it is not the concern of Americans -- Jewish or otherwise.

Adelson's sole -- and critical -- point is that "in these times of unrest and violence, it is necessary to elect a commander-in-chief whose words we can trust." Obama has proven, through broken promises and failed policies, that we cannot trust his words. But if we can, we have a big problem because his promises of flexibility to Putin would only be the beginning of four years of dangerous and potentially disastrous foreign policy shifts that the country, Israel, and the world cannot afford.

Four years ago, Obama had a record that Americans ignored. This time around, his record as leader of the free world and commander-in-chief cannot be hidden from public gaze. Words matter but so do deeds. American Jews who continue to trust the words without analyzing the deeds do so at their own peril. But it will be Israelis who  pay the highest price.