We don't live there

A Chicago Jewish woman asked Slate magazine last month, "What am I supposed to do in November? Bush has been so good for Israel, and that's so important to me, I'm a lifelong Democrat. How can I vote for Bush?"

The answer is simple: Don't.

This Chicagoan, a resident citizen of the United States, "disagrees with just about every plank" of Bush's platform. His policies impact her immensely more than those of Ariel Sharon. Nevertheless, she's torn on whether to vote for Bush, and for no other reason than he's considered cozy with Israel.

Forgive the harshness, but this woman is crazy -- as in preoccupied or infatuated to a foolish or impractical degree. Sadly, she's not alone. It seems ever growing numbers of American Jews are willing to drop everything for the Jewish state.

cut

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El1095&enZone=Opinions&enVersion=0&

While I take issue with the author, he raises a valid point. Jewish Americans have traditionally backed Democrats, largely because of their progressive social stands. However, a failure to be strongly pro-Israel would endanger this loyalty. A fine illustration of why Kerry must stay in line.

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

is moral and beneficial. Further, it is crucial to many Jewish Americans who cannot support a candidate with a misguided notion of even-handedness.

gives moral equivalency. Israel is a democratic state, defending herself from a terrorist neighbor. To treat these as the same lacks moral clarity.

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

I support Israel's right to bring justice to militants, yet find collateral damage unfortunate.

i think due process is an integral part of justice. apparently you do not think due process should be included in imposing justice. and since you approve of random assassinations, without due process, let us apply that universally.

that "collateral damage" you speak of, is in reality innocent victims of illegal military aggression. by your logic, due process has been taken out of the picture, the friends and family of the "collateral damage," should have every right to assassinate at will, and pay lip service to "collateral damage."

and the cycle will continue, we need more people to work on peaceful solutions, not advocate tribal violence. please try to be more even handed in the future

:-) :thumbsup:

Israel can't exactly send in the police and arrest Hamas. To do so would start a full-scale battle. So, instead, it kills those involved in terror and limits both its own casualties and those Palestnians who would be killed in a major battle.

and they are civilians (abombs) according to you but i doubt to most folks.

it is interesting that you don't see this as a problem better handled by the police since experiance has shown that when dealing with small gurilla type resistance over reaction by the military typically turns out to be our achilles heel.

my vote is for police action.

peace

*** i think due process is an integral part of justice ***

Brown people are not entitled to due process. Especially if they are muslim.

Do not question this truth. Dissent is antisemitic, pro-terrorist and unpatriotic. Even on DU.

<end neocon impersonation>

Is a tired red-herring.

Killing innocents is killing innocents. Either through negligence or intent.

No one group in this situation has a monopoly on morality or victimhood.

To argue otherwise is to weaken one's case.

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

Oh, my.

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

were strong Israel backers except for Eisenhower and maybe the first Bush. It's an American policy - not a "Fascist" or rightwing one necessarily.

the Republican Presidents since 1948

Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Bush I
Bush II

You eliminate 40% in your own statement.

Since you have studied the subject so long and hard, please enlighten us on US military aid to Israel? When did it start? Who started it? Why?

Most of its military aid originally came from France up until the Six Day War. Then Johnson helped out. But by far the most pro-Israeli president, as far as policy goes, was Richard Nixon. He saved Israel during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. You just can't deny that.

most aid came from England until the Yom Kippur war.

Why would I deny Nixon helped Israel? Weird...

First off, you forgot Ford.

Next, not all presidencies are equal. Eisenhower and Reagan were in office for eight years. Nixon for five, Bush four, Ford three.

So the math isn't so easy.

then I'll line up right behind you.

Which is why I find it hard to support an ethnofacist, sepratist, Arab state in Palestine, like you do.

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

A deterioration in Jewish support would be critical in a close election.

Jews comprise only two percent of the US population. A very large protion of those Jews will no matter what vote Democratic or Republican. The remainder is certainly less than one percent, and when one removes those in that category who don't care about Israel, or don't approve of unconditional support for Israel, and takes into account the number of Muslims who may vote Democratic in the case of a pro-Palestinian Democratic candidate, the "detoriation" wouldn't be critical at all.

I hope the Democrats realize that

Strong supporters of a candidate donate money. Jewish-Americans are mostly reasonably affluent. Therefore Jewish support is at least as critical as the support of less affluent but more massive black community.

Kerry shouldn't pander to the Palestinian supporting crowd. It'll get him nowhere.

:thumbsup:

I put "assuming we are only speaking of the "Jewish vote"" in my subject line.

The "Jewish vote" is different from "Jewish money".

Pandering to the "Palestinian supporting crowd" and actually being evenhanded for once are different things.

x

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

I haven't seen make any kooky statements. I haven't seen any mainstream pols say anything original about the situation.

Kerry is not a bad vote. I don't get the hub bub. Bush hasn't done anything for Israel anyway, has he?

on some topics. He is a firm supporter of Israel in her fight on terror. However, his efforts to resolve the Palestinian problem have been unsuccessful. I do sense Kerry is a supporter of Israel, yet will watch closely. For example, he implied the peace fence was an obstacle to resolution. This is concerning.

knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than I do. I don't have that same confidence in the little one.

alledgedly even terrorist, but one of the major concerns is the fact that it goobles up the palistinians main source of water and 'some of the best West Bank land'

more...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2930785.stm

This is concerning.

peace

the American population, by and large, recognizes Israel's moral high ground and right to defend herself.

Higher moral ground my ass :crazy:

but more and more he has lost the moral highground

Yet most Americans are more pragmatic.

Most of my friends are simply pragmatic and know the history.

but if they did they would probably conclude that he is a thug of a simular stripe as the neoCONs maybe even worse.

peace

i would say americans recognize everyones right to defend themselves and are critical of BOTH when civilians are brutalized and murdered.

peace

Thanks for posting.

have been pro-Israeli, the Democratic Party and Israel are more strongly linked in that both are for progressive values. So I also agree.

But I'm concerned if he wavers on support for Israel. That is something that can't and shouldn't be tolerated from a democratic candidate.

I guess it depends, also, on who is running mate will be.

I think he should pick Lieberman. Bring in the strong Jewish vote!

I'll support Kerry no matter what he does, pro-Israel or not.

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

Kerry looks like he's going to listen to Israel unlike Bush who only does what the Saudis let him do.

I was not very interested in his stance with Israel.

Israel is oof the table. Unless its Ralph Nader, US policy will not change significantly with the next President (unless it has to do with knowing where it is on a map).

This is a Republican attempt at yet another tiny little wedge issue to drive down the Democratic vote.

The US is more important than Israel, unless you live in Israel. So both sides need to get a grip, keep throwing rhetorical molotovs but know that neither candidate is going to suddenly move to the extreme of either side (although it is more likely that bush would support some nut job than Kerry who seems to have read whole books without pictures)

the policy would actually change with people like Kucinich. The unconditional support has added to the whole mess in the ME.

the unconditional support of the richest nations in the world for Arafat and his thugs?

Surely you don't support that behavior...

of Israeli policy, even with RW extremists like Sharon and the Likud that never stop at stealing and occupying land, killing more innocent people and building walls on territory that is not even Israeli! That kind of unconditional support! The US never did support Arafat or the Palestinians for that matter as they did Israel. Once it will have to change. Then peace may be closer. But I don't expect you and some others pro-Israeli folks to see that...

and why do you consider yourself anti Israel?

I support the anti-war left, Uri Avnery, Amira Hass, those hundred of thousand of Israelis that demonstrated against Sharon. I am simply against Sharon and his likud RW policy. I am a liberal. That's as simple as I can put it...

Since you seemed to be willing to label me as "Pro Israel" it seemed to follow that you were "Anti Israel".

Unless, of course, peoples opinions on the matter could be considered more complicated than "Pro Israel" or "Anti Israel"...

So you didn't address our petro dollars going to support the thuggery of Arafat and his embezzling wife...

"although it is more likely that bush would support some nut job than Kerry"

would that qualify?

:hi:

peace

then why not say it?

I would assume that Kerry would support the legally elected Chief Executive whether he agreed with him or not.

Like how you support Arafat even though (I assume) you don't support his filling a child's backpack with explosives.

doesn't that qualify?

"I would assume that Kerry would support the legally elected Chief Executive whether he agreed with him or not. "

why would you assume that?

many leaders didn't support us in our agression in the me though they are still our allies, no?

we don't support many world leaders policies though we may still recognize them as the official head of state.

so... if kerry supports sharon's failed policies and increasingly aggressive and illegal tactics would that qualify as 'supporting some nut job'?

imo, yes. it would be the same as supporting the neoCONs failed policy of force and unilateralism.

:hi:

peace

now correct me if Im wrong, none of our European allies began recognizing a different government of the United States. When they wish to speak with the Chief Executive of the USA they call the White House...so they can be transferred to the Vice President's office.

So, yeah, our allies still support the US even though they disagree with many of our policies.

In general, a nation's right of existence is not queastioned because of its moral terpitude. I can only think of one nation where you reserve the righ to do that. As a matter of fact you have vehemently defended Slobodon Milosivic, who was, afterall, a kind, gentle and progressive man.

Although that may have been a big practical joke on your part...

but i think we all know the answer to that one.

btw: were you against the war with iraq?
does that mean you supported or defended saddam?

didn't think so.

peace

if Iraq was not a sovereign nation and I could choose who would be the first PM of Iraq...I would not choose Sadaam Hussein. That wouldn't be progressive and I doubt I could convince anyone that it was.

If Iraq were a democracy with an independant judiciary and they elected Sadaam then I would expect my President to deal with the guy and continue any alliances. If he took over in a coup or stole an election or eliminated the opposition or embezzled money then I would expect my President to use sanctions against the guy. If he organized and exported terror to his neighbors, especially if it were racially motivated then I would expect my government to take serious action.

I am a little shocked that you don't feel the same way.

and i will take that as a noncommital.

pretty unusual down here.

i think sharon is as bad as our own neoCONs and should be encourage to change his behaviour or face serious consequences, like a funding cut, and public rebukes, etc.

most would agree sharon has earned it :hi:

peace

especially now.

ABB

peace

-