Is there a Democrat, anywhere, that doesn't

support Israel, the daily/weekly/monthly funds the US gives them, and the support?

percent and wants to protect them against Iran

:beer:

most of it has to be spent on material in the US.

You may not like the military and military spending, but Israel has been purchasing military equipment, thus aiding this industry.

In addition, Israel often has been the testing field for match between American made military equipment and the Soviet's - in the 60s and 70s, and now against Iranian made.

As long as there is the military the special relations with Israel, including aid, will be supported by every politician who does not want to commit political suicide - DU opinions notwithstanding.

Support for Israel is the majority position, and by a wide margin, among the people of our country, and among members of the Democratic Party, so this should come as no surprise.

if "support" means invading Iran to protect Israel. Do I support Israel? Sure, I "support" them like I support Germany, or Britain, or France, or Australia.

Unless you are proposing in all seriousness that you do not care what meaning people take from reading your comments.

It is quite true the majority of the people here do not favor further military action in the Middle East. The idea that U.S. hostility to Iran, which is fairly deep-seated among the people for the last three decades and more, owes to any desire to "protect Israel" is mere moonshine. The present regime here has plenty of reasons all its own for looking with befuddled lust on an adventure in that direction.

Iran is an overblown and mostly potential threat. There are many ways to ameliorate the situation without a resort to war.

(Not calling you insane at other times, just appreciating this stance.)

Either you're pro-war or you're an Islamofascist.

Either you agree with Jimmy Carter or you're a PNAC tool.

And so on and so on and scooby dooby do....

I/P threads in particular reach the shouting stage before they even start.

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

when filtered through the corpomedia.

The leading reasons are the inertia of the Cold War alliance, a degree of cultural identification with the country as a Western one, as opposed to its enemies, and the understanding that the most dedicated opponenets of Israel are also hostile to the United States.

figured out what you said!, I agree. But it doesn't have to be that way forever, I trust. Perhaps if the western cultural i.d. went both ways, I'd be more agreeable. :)

Is in service of my hope this stays on track, and in this forum.

It is important to remember most deep-seated political tendencies turn of emotional feelings of identity, rather than rational weighings of the details of a matter. Arguments from rationality aimed at an emotional attachment generally are a waste of effort.

one-sided. I'm just trying to understand where the US passion is coming from, whether it's deep-rooted because it is based on history, or is there something else driving this boat?

People here by and large think Israelis are more like us than their opponents, to put it at its bluntest.

the beginning of our history in the late 1700s, way before there ever was an Israel. This is due largely to religious reasons. Nowadays, Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East and is more like us than the Arab world. I support Israel but just like America wish it wasn't so skewed to the Right, politically. The Right always shoots first and asks questions later, often leaving the country weaker. Lebanon for Israel and Iraq for America are examples of making war that has left our countries weaker.

n/t

that to bring peace to the region we must once again become honest brokers (or as close as we possibly can be) and stay away from being one sided cheerleaders.

The problem with most politicians however is that they don't want to take a "stand" and do anything remotely courageous. They'd rather say it in speeches instead.

...who "support" neither Israel nor any of the other parties to the dispute in the mideast. Unfortunately, our government does not have that option.

Even if we become utterly independent of mideast oil (and what are the odds of that in anyone's lifetime?) the eastern Mediterranean has such geostrategic importance that it would be impossible for a state with the far-flung economic and military interests of the US to ignore it.

But if it were up to me, I'd put the whole bloody lot of them on a time out for, oh... about a century or so.

regretfully,
Bright

What I do see is a white man western stile neo-conservative government hiding behind a theology, playing Cowboys and Indians with the Palestinian people. I also see to much influence in American politics and the suppression of free speech…

Since they have a "Council of Experts" who have to vet candidates to make sure that they don't stray too far from the ideology of the Islamic republic. Not to mention religious police enforcing the regime's dress codes in public.

A lady named Arundhati Roy said, and I can’t say it any better than her. “No Mr. Bush, I don’t have to choose between a mad mullah or a benevolent Mickey Mouse.” There will be peace in the region when there is justice.

But 'no Justice, no Peace' is one of the most foolish statements ever made. There is conflict precisely because there is no agreement on what would constitute justice in the question. People who emply the slogan generally mean by justice victory for the side they support.

that would allow me too come and take possession of you property, and keep in mind, you have to loose but I have to win?

Some times the side one support is based on beliefs. Sometimes the side one supports is based on physical borders such as, this is my land. The agreement the western world would like to make with the Arab world and all third world countries is, you own the land we own the resources, of which our corporations will freely come and fleece. And if you are not the right ethnic group, color, religion or class, we reserve the right to choose what you own, who lives and who dies. If that country doesn’t agree to the terms we want, what do we do? Create and finance a coup d'états that will overthrow democratically elected governments if needed. And then we put in place a dictator that will agree to the terms of Shell and Exxon Mobil. Then you end up with revolutions like in (Not only) Iran ware psycho religious leaders can rise to power and defend what ever it needs to get the backing of its population… Maybe its not leaders of rouge countries we should worry about, maybe it’s the masses and the suffering people that stand behind them, and put them in power because of our actions…

There is a forum here dedicated to the purpose, and that is where you should do so.

But that does NOT mean the majority supports the fascist policies of the Likud party. And our elected officials certainly should NOT be forced to support that shit. But anyone who openly criticizes the Likud lobby is targeted for extinction. Just ask Cynthia McKinney about that.

I don't support the fascist policies of Bush/PNAC or their partners in Likud. There's no difference in their policies, as they were written by the exact same people.

"Inquiring minds want to know."

These guys first plotted out something called "A Clean Break
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" with Netanyahoo's Likud fascist regime in the mid 90's. This document, like the PNAC document which followed a few years later, openly called for the "regime changes" of Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Whether or not any of these nations actually presented a threat was irrelevant.

What signifigance do you attach to them?

How's that for significance?

And no. I'm not exaggerating. They - at the very least- deliberately compromised the security of the United States by leading us into a war based on lies. At the most, they were actively or passively involved in the event which their own manifesto describes as the "new Pearl Harbor" which would be required to manipulate the American people into rallying behind their cause.

Has their direct involvement been proven yet? No. But you must admit it's a Hell of a coincidence that, at least up through the invasion of Iraq, their agenda went off just as they planned it, including the timing of that "new Pearl Harbor" on 9-11-2001.

so it seems that it is more civilized than you.

The Likud Party, of course, does not rule Israel, not since last year's election.

And if you hold on that Israel conspired the 9/11 attack, that "the Jews did not come to work at the WTC," you need to air these anti-semitic views at different forums.

You may want to brush a bit on your history before you pour your bile here.

Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml

RESOLUTION

Adopted by the Green Party of the United States, November 21, 2005

1. The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) publicly calls for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized.

And a thumping one percent of the national vote lines up behind their ballot slot....

Perhaps those who share the Green Party's position on Israel and not the Democratic Party's position on Israel should consider with which party they wish to be affiliated.

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

:applause:

Can we stop with the "AIPAC controlls Congress" BS?

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

Pro-Israel Lobby groups donated just under $3,000,000 total to all candidates in 2006. That's over a million dollars less than the casino/gambling lobby and less than 1/3rd of what the Oil and Gas lobby groups donated or what the Defense Industry lobby groups donated.

John Kerry received no money from any pro-Israel lobby group in 2004 or 2006.

Barack Obama received no money from any pro-Israel lobby group in 2006.

John Edwards has never received any money from any pro-Israel lobby group.

Hillary Clinton received $35,618 from pro-Israel lobby groups in 2006.
She received $72,200 from Defense industry lobby groups.
She received $163,445 from Lawyer/Law Firm lobby groups.

The money would be better spent in Africa fighting AIDS, or in poverty-stricken countries that are starving, or medical care for children in 3rd world countries. Israel can survive without us.

I dunno, maybe I'm too idealistic?