The worst anti-Israel charges you'll hear in wartime

It is, abruptly and again, wartime. Across the globe, the selective pacifists of the left and the recliner Rambos of the right are spoiling for their next battle, the war in Gaza.

They will fight one another in letters to Congress, in cable news sound bites, in raucous talk-radio phone-ins, in the virtual mega-heroics of the online battlefield of the talkback.

They will fight one another in the United Nations as well, unashamedly one-sided in their concern for human life.


Herewith the first in a two-part guide to the 10 most gratuitous, least productive, most resolutely ingenuous claims likely to be hurled in an effort to attack Israel.

The first five are arguments of the anti-Israel left, claims which are, curiously, as tired as they are unflagging.

more...

Looking forward to it.

I do read right-wing sites, but not very often, so I can only imagine the responses they would have.

Part One gets a C+.

I really dreaded coming on here and reading all the anti-Israel posts

I can't imagine why anyone who claims to be a progressive would support the repressive regimes like Hamas

If someone were shooting at your house, it would be obvious to most that you would have the right to defend yourself.

Is is still self-defense?

just saying.

think saddam vs. GWB

but I'm going to stick with my support for Israel against the terrorists

we (the United States) loaded them to the gills with weapons and our full support so they could fight a traditional war with Israel?

Israel is not a democracy. It is a repressive regime itself. Look it up and start reading. Does no one here read anything but CNN's website?

You can put any spin you want on the situation and type about how bad Israel is until you get finger cramps, but Hamas' indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel is unexcusable.

the terrorist supporters are much much worse

Well, actually I don't because yr post is ridiculous. You need to get a grip. Criticism of Israel doesn't make someone anti-Israel, no more than it makes people who are critical of the US anti-American. And just because people *gasp* dare to be critical of Israel does not make them supporters of Hamas or terrorist supporters or any of the other dribble I've seen you going on with in various posts today.

wiped off the face of the earth, and its citizens along with it

if that's not terrorism, I don't know what is

they've been targeting civilians from day one

hell, they take their own citizens and lock them up as political prisoners

Israel has the right to defend itself and its citizens and use every means at their disposal to do so

Don't even go there with trying to make out like you were merely saying that Hamas stinks coz you weren't.

And like every other country in the world Israel cannot just use 'every means at their disposal' to defend itself. It's obligated to abide by international law. Maybe you'd like to try to explain how launching a massive attack on Gaza that's resulted in a large number of casualties is in any way Israel protecting itself? Gosh, if they keep on bombing Gaza and the death toll rises 200 or so, will that mean Israel has defended itself even better? How does this sort of thing stop rockets?

Yeah, coz clearly in the warped world that is Dwickhams anyone who dares to criticise Israel is an evil terrorist supporter. What a sad and blind way for you to go through life...

dwickham



Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Northern California


I'm utterly disgusted with the majority of people on DU

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

who post in the I/P forum there

they've never met a terrorist they didn't like

and just love that anti-semite down in Venezuela as well who's best buddy is in Tehran

when it does things like indiscriminate bombing. Bombing each other will not solve the problem. BOTH sides are guilty of suppressing those who wish dialog and peace.

The one I thought of note is the last one.

There are equal stereotypes, I am sure, involving Gazans as well. Hamas' interest in Gaza, IMHO, was never a legitimate attempt to rule Gaza or do right by the Gazans, but to serve as a springboard in a continued campaign against 1947 Israel, so to that end, the Gazans were and remain a tool and a means to an end. However, to counter the "Gazans elected them argument", well they didn't. It was the vagaries of a corrupt system which allowed a minority vote for Hamas to become a majority of seats. However, at this point Democracy is essentially dead in Gaza, so there really is no mechanism short of revolution which will unseat Hamas.

L-

The take over of the media outlets, censorship, the politicization of state elements, the isolation and use of state machinery against other political parties and rivals.

Everything they claimed Fatah had done, they have done themselves to an even larger degree. Democracy is effectively dead and replaced by a one party system.

with the death of democracy?

Democracy died the day Israel and the US decided they didn't like the election results.

I am not even mentioning the coup attempt...

Parties of the gun, to which class both Hamas and Fatah belong, tend to take a 'one man, one vote, once' view of democracy, and when voted into power generally move by forcible means to cement their hold on office. Reactions by rivals often provide pretext for such actions, but are never truly their cause. Hamas, you will recall, came into power without a majority of the popular vote, and in strictly democratic terms, could hardly claim an indisputable mandate from the people.

Do you not remember that Hamas begged Fatah to join in a unity gov't! Fatah, stinging from their loss, would have no parts of it... leaving an ill-prepared Hamas to form a gov't on their own.

Follow the gun-men; ignore the diplomats....

reports from inside about what was going down.

Hamas was as shocked by their victory as anyone, and was in no shape to form a gov't.

Fatah really taught them a lesson, huh?

Today, for the first time since that election, the flag of Palestine rose higher than the flags of either Fatah or Hamas. It was a sight for sore eyes, and hopefully, today's unity can be the beginning of a reunification, with renewed a renewed agenda for national liberation.

It helps to have a pretty low opinion of human beings, and some practical experience of thuggery, if one means to parse the actual meanings of political events.

But that closing statement, Ma'am? Exquisite, pure excelsior, scrumptiously strugglicious, worth bottling for cold nights....

is pretty serious to me. Sorry Magistrate, it's not really a day for joking at the expense of so many dead.

You have made a statement invoking them which strikes me as farcical, and unfortunately typical of a style of expression and an attitude that is pernicious and destructive. The attitude of mind which responds to the events of yesterday with "Today, for the first time since that election, the flag of Palestine rose higher than the flags of either Fatah or Hamas. It was a sight for sore eyes...." has much in common, far too much in common, with a mind that could compose a sentence like "War is to men what water is to swans, the place of their beauty." It is a statement that would blend in seamlessly with patterns of militarist and patriotic idealism that dominated Western thought on the matter in the period before the Great War, when people said with straight faces war was a high good, reflecting and displaying the health and virility of a people, and peace a degenerate condition, destructive to a people, and sought only by weaklings. It is a style of expression, and an attitude of mind, that feeds conflict, cheers it on, and in doing so, can wreak real harm, albeit from the sidelines. Here, some mild mockery is prefereable as a style of reaction over cold rage, on encountering boiler-plate of that sort....

Palestinians split on unity plan
Friday, 22 September 2006

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has said any unity government negotiated with militant group Hamas would recognise Israel and renounce violence.

A Hamas official responded that there would be no explicit recognition but said it was prepared to agree to a 10-year truce with the Jewish state.

Mr Abbas is seeking a government which includes his Fatah movement and Hamas, which won elections in January.

snip

Mr Abbas said the unity government would also commit itself to imposing security and order, ending the phenomenon of multiple militias, indiscipline and chaos.

These commitments should lead to the resumption of withheld aid, Mr Abbas added.

But Ahmed Youssef, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, said Hamas would not join a unity government if recognising Israel was a condition.

"The national unity government does not recognise Israel in its political programme," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5369496.stm


Hamas rejects Egypt's unity plan
Sunday, April 20, 2008

A spokesman for Hamas has dismissed remarks by Ahmed Abu al-Gheit, the Egyptian foreign minister, that the Palestinian group's participation in a national unity government could thwart efforts to reach a settlement with Israel.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/04/2008614233549693236.html

You act as if that was their only option. If anything, Censorship is the reaction of people more comfortable with dictatorships and banana republics.

L-

I am talking about honest calls to form a gov't and work with their rivals to govern Palestine.

They were flatly refused. Fatah (backed the US and Israel) preferred to see them fail and take the country with them.

I know you don't like Hamas or Islamic fundamentalists. Don't you find it interesting though that enough Palestinians thought that the worst choice in the last election was NOT Islamic fundamentalism, but the ongoing corruption of Fatah? In light of that, I think Hamas should have been given a chance to clean things up.

They never had a fair shot to govern. Not for one minute.

There is no democracy in Palestine all right, thanks to the US and Israel.

Will there ever again be free and fair elections? Not in the near future, that's for sure.

Points to the limits on your understanding here....

What have they been doing for the past few years? Running a Kentucky Fried Chicken stand? Time for excuses is past - they have been in charge and have ruled in an increasingly autocratic manner and need to accept responsibility for their own actions.

They could have maintained democratic traditions, but have opted instead to destroy the fundamental building blocks of democracy through censorship, arbitrary rule of law, and lack of respect for minority viewpoints. They also are beginning to have the same issues of cronyism and corruption which plagued Fatah. Money and favoritism are now moving towards those in who Hamas' leadership smiles upon.

Most of the centrist votes who voted for Hamas did so as a counter vote against Fatah. None voted for Hamas' view of Islamism and many actually thought Hamas would never win the number of seats that they did.

Hamas' control is only justified so long as the war with Israel remains "hot" and Israel remains an enemy. Tensions always seem to coincidentally heat up whenever Hamas needs a distraction. It is increasingly becoming obvious that the tempo of events in Gaza is controlled not by Israel, but by Hamas who are increasingly acting not as a legitimate party, but as a rogue element.

I hope you'll post a link to the second part when it comes out.

And if either ever was...its over. This decade its time for this to end. Since other countries have managed a peace successfully there is no reason to suppose that these two powers cannot.

My sympathies lie only with the children and families of those who have been wounded or died.

You express my feelings exactly!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Over 80 rockets and mortar shells struck areas throughout the western Negev. In Netivot, 58-year-old Beber Vaknin was killed, one person was seriously wounded, and four others sustained light to moderate injuries when their house was hit by a rocket."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111717505&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

However, most of the 'rockets' fall in fields and cause 'shock' to the civilian population. At least that's all I've read in the past years.

are destructive as concerns actual dialogue. The Israeli response today was, imo, disproportionate, but it didn't happen in a vacume. The Israel=evil and Palestine=innocent victims, or visa versa scenario, is not one rooted in facts.

And I have to say I find your claim that The U.S. pursues peace to be, well, rather startling. And Palestinian rockets have killed 2 children and one adult over the past week. Hardly of the same magnitude of today's the Israeli attack on Gaza today, but not ZERO.

I find posts like yours, from either side, contemptible examples of hate.

I'm having trouble with people being resolutely naive.

the notion that these are "surgical strikes" that Israel "is forced to do" that "aren't aimed at civilians" and that they really "feel bad about but have to do anyway..."

Hamas' rocket strikes were of course not "forced", "aren't aimed at civilians" and that they really "feel bad but have to do anyway..."

Do you think Israel is forced to continue the occupation and siege because Palestinians refuse to surrender?

I know most of the zionists who post here believe that the conflict is really the result of bad behavior on the part of Palestinians. Your posts clearly indicate that is your belief also. Do you concur with that?

Thanks for replying to my post though. God forbid someone should point out the Israeli myths without being corrected.

Of a cessation of violence directed against Israeli civilians by militant bodies in Arab Palestine.

Why no peace then?

There really has not been much in the way of a break since the Partition, and there has certainly never been a period in which the political leadership of Arab Palestine unequivocally foreswore violence as a tool. It would be nice if there had been, but there has not. The enchantment of struggliciousness has been something Arab Palestinian political leadership has never been able to break away from, and it will prove the final undoing of themselves and the unfortunate people they lead.

minimal violence.

To answer that properly would require a several thousand word essay, and neither time nor energy available to me permt the effort just now....

...that's how the situation has been described by many Middle Eastern scholars I've read, all of whom I hold in much higher regard than the Magistrate when it comes to a history of the conflict...

lower in those years, it could hardly have been said to be nonexistent, and as TM points out, the Palestinian leadership was still endorsing violence throughout that period.

And I should point out there's been violence over the years from both sides, something which seems to get ignored at times here at DU...

"PM didn't say it was non-existant," Yeah, she didn't use those exact words she used these: "How then do you account for the (vast majority) of years without violence directed toward Israel?

Yr right.

I think she was more on the money when she said those years could be characterised as quiet with minimal violence coz that's the way it's always been described in books I've read on the conflict...

when Israel was under fire from the OTs.

The point is that there were decades without rockets. Yet there was no peace.

What is the core of the conflict? Is it ongoing colonization and oppression or is it resistance?

The period you are referencing, as you must know, encompassed two major wars involving Israel, and a world-wide campaign of violence against Israeli and Jewish targets undertaken by various leading Arab Palestinian militant bodies, with some assistance from radical left groups at some distance from the Levant, and support from the Soviet Union. During that period, the political leaders of Arab Palestine made clear their desired Palestinian state was to supplant the present state of Israel, rather than exist alongside it. Militant Arab Palestinian bodies expended a good deal of violence to terrorize 'collaborators' among their people, killing leading Arab Palestinians who were willing to co-operate politically with Israel, and even Arab Palestinian people willing to work in Israel to feed their families. To attempt to present that period as one of peace simply cannot succeed.

None of this is to say that Israeli policy regarding the territories over-run in '67 during that period was wise: it was not. It is quite true that the errors made then in this regard by the Israeli government feed into the present state of the conflict.

But it remains true at present that there is no hope for a peaceable resolution, giving any satisfaction to the legitimate aspirations of the people of Arab Palestine, unless that people and its political leadership ceases to employ violence against Israeli civilians, and stands down the militant bodies which carry out such violence, and does so convincingly, without caveat or wiggle room.

Particularly one is right and the other is wrong. This is, IMHO, one of the greatest errors and myths of the I/P situation. Peace will only happen when both sides stop believing in their various fictions. It is wrong to say that if the Palestinians had done this or that peace would have been the result. It is equally wrong to say that had Israel unilaterally withdrawn peace would have happened as well.

The missing piece is that BOTH sides are not only responsible for the situation, BOTH sides are going to have to step up.

A lot of the incentive for continuing the occupation is fear of being attacked. Hamas' massive rocket barrages from Gaza reinforces this fear, especially when you realize that instead of small population centers within range, you will have very large and urban centers including Jerusalem and even Tel Aviv's suburbs within range of the West Bank. This means you have a chicken and the egg effect - who gives up what first? Given the current environment, if Israel withdraws, then Hamas will fill the void and the death rate will increase when larger population centers come under daily fire. If, the situation remains as is, then the settlers will be given extra incentive to push the boundaries farther and farther back. Sharon knew withdrawal from Gaza would likely entable the West Bank even more, which I believe was his intent.

Neither Hamas nor the settlers are true representatives of their people. Hamas only won a minority of the actual vote, but due to vagaries of a split Fatah and a rather undemocratic seat assignment, this translated into them winning a majority of seats. They have since divorced themselves even from this fiction of democracy then set themselves up as a defacto theocratic dictatorship. On the other side, the settler's main influence comes with their alliances with the RW ultranationalist and religious parties in the Knesset where their votes help provide majorities in the otherwise split chamber.

Both Hamas and the Settlers play these cards each and every day and ratchet up the tensions when it suits their political needs.

L-

And it well would behoove those who argue either side of this matter to acknowledge the errors and imperfections of the side they support. If this were done, it might well prove the case that there is a good deal more common ground here than many suppose.

If so, can you identify what those targets were?

If the intent of the Israeli forces were simply to kill civilians, it would be simplicity itself to just re-create the mass city bombings engaged in during the early days of air power by just about every country at war with an air force of decent scale.

I haven't been able to keep up or even bother with half the threads that have been shoved into this forum today, so my apologies if you've already said whether you are opposed to or support what was done, but do you condemn the massive attack carried out by Israel?

I don't think that these attacks will do anything to advance the cause of peace and I lament the deaths of any innocent civilians who were killed in the attack (or who will be killed in future attacks and/or reprisals).

I must confess, however, that I was at a loss as to how Israel ought to have dealt with the Hamas rocket barrages.

Sadly, however, it does not look like we will be moving into a period of peaceful coexistence anytime in the near future.

Before I get onto that, I can honestly say that even if the attack did something to advance the cause of peace, so many dead is too high a price to pay for it. Also, it's a pretty safe bet based on what's happened in the past that things will escalate and result in more and more deaths....

Like you, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how Israel can deal with the rockets, but I do know with certainty that this way isn't the way. There was a thread here a day or so ago about Meretz and how they supported a two-pronged approach, which is targetted military action (and because it's Meretz I think they mean limited with little to no civilian casualties) and action to get a ceasefire in place. I agree with them and think that's the closest I've seen to something that would work....

I cannot find any such statement; if you know of one, please share.

Sorry if I wasn't clear when I said the thread was from the other day, not today...

I condemn all of the violence committed both by Israelis and Palestinians against one another.

You must be exhausted from the amount of work it takes to minimize this massacre.

Examples would be hospitals, schools, community centers, etc.

If so, what were those targets?

And I assume you admit there were civilians there. "Civilian" is not some sort of architectural style. You can't just equate "military" with "Hamas supporters were somewhere nearby" unless you are willing to apply the same standard to attacks going in the other direction.

In photos released by the IDF many of the targets can be seen clearly, and they include a weapons warehouse and a Hamas training facility. Another target hit by the jets was a Hamas security office, which also held a weapons cache. The building had been previously used by snipers and mortar-launching cells.

The central outpost for Hamas' aid forces was also bombed, as well as the former office of the deceased Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat.

The IAF also attacked a weapons warehouse that held armored cars, two of which were used by Hamas to carry out the terror attack at Kerem Shalom crossing in 2008, in which several soldiers were killed.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3645272,00.html

Do you think there is a difference between a civilian and military target?

If you do think there is a difference, how would you classify the targets chosen in this attack?

"The central outpost for Hamas' aid forces was also bombed, as well as the former office of the deceased Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat."

Are we worried that Yassir might rise from the dead?

Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

A lot of those killed were policemen. These people weren't ones who were firing rockets at Israel...

btw, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall you arguing a fair while back when an Israeli troop was killed by militants that it was terrorism etc. So why do you have a different view when it comes to uniformed Palestinians?

He is the writer listed on the AP report that cites a distinction being made between Hamas security forces and civilians. The Associated Press is the one presenting the claim about how many civilians were killed.

That's what you asked about.

Y'know, it makes sense. If he'd still been alive, he probably wouldn't have done enough to stop the rockets, so the only way to punish him for that is to bomb his former office...

It's not possible here though.

I saw the headlines and then watched hours of coverage on Al Jazeera. I saw dead bodies of kids, teens, women, young men. I saw communities with giant holes in them. I saw schoolkids crying in the streets.

Then I opened up the mainstream news and saw that only Hamas compounds were hit. Really? I saw that these were surgical strikes. Really? I saw that only Hamas operatives were hit. Really?

What you are selling doesn't jibe with what happened.

Isreal NEVER intends harm, or so you say. The result is the same either way.

I have been personally observing (at times living in the midst of -- both in Gaza and Ramallah) a violent, murderous, land-stealing, child-jailing, community-destroying occupation since 1985. Today is just one more piece of the pie.

Violent colonization, with its attendant bloodshed is EXACTLY what Israel intends. Israel has spent 40+ years perfecting the art of stealing land, mudering indigenous people, and then crying victim all the while.

Spare me.

You say that you saw "bodies of kids, teens, women, young men"

I ask the question: how many children were killed? how many women were killed?

I have not received an answer to that question, or even an attempt to ascertain an answer.

You tell me that you dispute what the mainstream news is reporting. Well, if the mainstream news is not reporting the truth, then direct me to sources where I can find out the truth. If there the Associated Press and others are lying then show me where I can get correct information.

Are there even western reporters IN gaza?

He was listed on the byline of the AP report I cited.

Have the satellite TV stations that you've been watching given an approximate number of how many women and children have been killed so far?

If so, could you please share that information?

The most recent AP report mentions that a 15 year old boy from southern Gaza has died in the attacks.

Using that logic, one could argue that any Jewish Israeli is a legitimate target, since they all end up in the IDF.

Haven't turned on the TV yet, though I am heading there soon.

I have seen claims made here that Israel is slaughtering women, children, and babies, or other similarly hyperbolic statement.

I would like to know how many women, children, and babies have been killed.

The saddest tragedy of all, in my view, is when small children are killed in these military conflicts.

Have any babies or small children been killed in these attacks as far as you know?

Your desperate quest for exact numbers of "innocents" does indeed suggest, unspokenly, that anyone who is not a woman or child was a legitiate kill.

Al Jazeera is not reporting "civilians" vs. "military target" deaths.

It's reporting the number of shaheed. 284.

From our POV, no one who was massacred deserved it.

To me, what your asking is akin to my asking if anyone killed in a bus bombing was IDF. Would it make a difference?

Look at the widescale destruction Israel has wrought. That you seek to minimize that amazes me.

Virtually every human rights organization gives special attention to the number of children killed in this (and other) conflicts.

A Palestinian attack on Israel that resulted a high number of small children and babies killed would be especially horrific (As would any such attack by anyone in any conflict).

Especially in light of the claims that Israel is massacring/slaughtering children and babies, I think it is reasonable to ask how many children and babies have actually been killed in these attacks.

This situation is horrible enough (as you point out) without any misinformation being presented about it.

This is a question with many different answers.

What's yours?

I mean, if police are security forces and portrayed as not being civilians, what about the humble parking inspector? They wear uniforms and are employed by the govt and clearly it seems Israel may need to bomb their headquarters to defend itself from the ever present danger employed by parking inspectors. And don't get me started on tax collectors, especially if they're wearing uniforms! ;)

These are people ,
even if they are wearing uniform traffic or not,
a lot of them are there because they are forced to whether or not they truly believe in what they are fighting for.
This is part of the absurd grouping that leads to people on both sides to be forced into
an unwanted combat also The Israelis solders 18-21 year old teenagers who are forced to fight.
and same on the Palestinian side.
ANY casualties are terrible.
any one saying anything different is just plain ignorant of the situation.

Just curious...

"Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead"

That is what the AP is reporting.

This is a great website I found the other day and considering the nature of some of pro-Israeli post that are appearing on DU I though I would post it. Considering some of the Pro-Israel post I have read it appears a fair number of people may already be familiar with it.

1. Frivolous Accusations of Anti-Semitism
Accusations of anti-Semitism, of course, flow from the extremist hawks like water. Whenever Israel becomes the subject of any criticism, for any reason, in any context or discussion, from any quarter, someone will allege anti-Semitism. The thinking, I guess, is that Israel is the home of the Jews, and so criticizing Israel means you're "really" criticizing Jews, and criticizing Jews must be anti-Semitism. In America accusations of anti-Semitism are a panacea for whatever ails those who consider themselves the pro-Israel hardline; it has become their impenetrable shield. Accusations of bigotry are the nuclear bomb of American discourse. They don't merely defeat the opposition but remove them from the conversation entirely. This is a pretty neat trick, in political debate. All that principled opponents of Israeli behavior can do is point out again that Israel is a political, governmental entity, and that it must therefore be subject to criticism when appropriate. We can assert our continued support for the safety and prosperity of the Israeli people. And we can say-- all we can do is say-- that, in fact, we harbor no anti-Jewish animus.

As time has gone on, the accusations of anti-Semitism have grown more sophisticated, more sly. So people are less often simply told they must hate Jews because they criticize Israel, and more often told that they "give aid and comfort" to anti-Semites with their opinions. We are told we are "anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent". Rhetorical questions and asides abound-- "who but an anti-Semite!" There is one purpose and one effect, to silence those who would criticize Israel, with the one charge that is more powerful than any other criticism in American life: that you are a hateful bigot.

The rest of the article containing other common tactics can be found here:

http://lhote.blogspot.com/2008/12/illegitimate-pro-israel-arguments.html

This is a snip from his endorsement of Obama in the general election:

snip

"I quarrel with the oft-heard assumption that "George W. Bush is good for Israel." He gleaned many Jewish votes on that slogan, but I take a contrarian's position. Israel is further from peace than it was at the end of the Clinton administration. The smoldering hatred between Iraq's Sunni and Shi'a has burst into flames as a result of the American occupation. An emboldened Iran, with its Shi'a majority, has strengthened and armed Israel's enemies Hamas and Hezbollah. But Israel's most immediate danger comes from a nuclear Iran. Under the Bush administration, conversations with the Iranians began only at the end of May 2007 and have been badly mishandled. The result of the Bush doctrine in the Middle East has been an America and an Israel that are regarded with hatred and fear.

The region requires an honest broker that will push both sides towards a workable solution and a two state outcome. I remember the scene at the White House when President Clinton helped Prime Minister Rabin to shake Arafat's hand. Whether an American president is prepared to preside over another handshake--one that could build lasting peace--should not be measured by his professed love for one side or the other, but by his judgment."

snip

"Voters who care about Israel's welfare should ask which candidate will help sustain the ties between Israel and American Jews. Those of us who were alive at the creation of Israel have a love for Israel that is tied to the Holocaust, to the displaced persons camps and to the early struggles for a Jewish homeland. We were all as generous as we could be in support of Israel, as donors and as advocates. Now there is a generation growing up that is more distant from Israel than I should like. Young Jews do not automatically support Israel, and many are rightly troubled by what they learn about the ill treatment of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. No longer motivated by fear of anti-Semitism, they seek to understand what Israel stands for, not to say "my Israel, right or wrong." Without strong support among the younger generation of American Jews, Israel may lose its vital relationship with the US government."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edgar-m-bronfman/israels-best-interest-is_b_139405.html

Edgar M. Bronfman is the former president of the World Jewish Congress. He is the author, with Beth Zasloff, of Hope, Not Fear: A Path to Jewish Renaissance (St. Martin's Press, 2008).