In Drive to Aid Israel, Lobby May Be Shifting Out of Neutral (AIPAC GOP?)

By Dana Milbank
Sunday, October 12, 2003; Page A08


Has AIPAC gone GOP?

The powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has a long tradition of partisan neutrality. So some eyebrows were raised on Capitol Hill last week when Roll Call published an article titled "GOP Turns to Israeli Lobby to Boost Iraq Support."


"AIPAC's initiative is part of an intense public and private campaign by the White House," the newspaper reported. Among the group's targets: none other than Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), an orthodox Jew who is a Democratic presidential candidate.

The report came two weeks after AIPAC, in its newsletter, scolded another Democratic candidate, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, for his statement that the United States should "not take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This was too much for Jeremy Rabinovitz, chief of staff to Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and an AIPAC research analyst in the mid-1980s. "For years, AIPAC has distinguished itself as a strictly bipartisan advocate for strong U.S.-Israel relations," he said on Friday. "It's disheartening to see the organization become an increasingly partisan voice for the Republican agenda, and this approach will not help the pro-Israel cause in Washington."

more.........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13381-2003Oct11.html

Most Jews in the US don't identify with AIPAC...only like 33 percent of them. 51 percent of Jews identify with the other Jewish group APN -- Americans for Peace Now. It is mostly the Chrisitan Evagilistas like Tom Delay and his whole cabal that support AIPAC fully.

Although it is true Dean does have an AIPAC supporter. However, it was during a time when they were radically different then the one of today. The AIPAC of then supported the Oslo accords. The AIPAC of today would never do such a thing. The AIPAC of today has been hijacked by Zionists...seriously.

nt

As usual, it was the "Let's See How 'Pro-Israel' We Can Be" roundtable game.

Bush adminstration recommends $64.8m for the Israeli Arrow programme, Congress adds $80m. Grand total of $144.8m. The addition was greater than all arrow aid the previous fiscal year ($70m). Nice!

Bush asked for another $40m for some ridiculous laser project in the North of Israel too. Congress added another $17m. Grand total of $57m. Super!

Has there ever been an Israeli aid programme Congress didn't like? :eyes:

congress now understands what Israel has had to go thru. Democracies helping each other during times of need is a good thing.

It must be terrible to have Lebanese planes sonic-booming Tel Aviv :eyes:

Silly me, I assumed that after spending a few billion to invade Iraq and in the process making Israel the "strongest in the Middle East", the United States would figure, 'oh well, they can handle themselves', and reduce some of the aid (or at least hold it steady, not increase it).

Oh well, just call me naïve. ;-)

And who says that these will be any more effective then the worthless Patriot missiles or SDI?

Are what the programmes are probably aimed at.

but that threat's gone already, thanks to our illegitimate president's "just liberation."

Any sort of missile defense system has seemed foolish to me. Cruise missiles aren't affected by this very expensive technology, and neither are planted nuclear bombs, which are the real threat, IMO.

These programs are also rather fallible; their best "success" was against Scuds in 1991, and most of that was due to failure on the part of the Scuds.

If Israel were a democracy it would have granted full citizenship to all the people living under its jurisdiction, including the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, and a non-Jew would be Prime Minister by now!

That'll be after there's a non-anglo President. Only one Catholic has made it to date - JFK. All the rest WASPs. Not one Jew. At least Israel has had a woman PM.

Of the nine Democratic candidates:

Two are Catholic

Two are African-American

One is Jewish

Two have Jewish blood

One is a woman

Only three are WASPs.

of the candidates for the Democratic ticket are WASP. What counts is the one who wins the White House.

Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt.

Clark and Dean are the front-runners. That's fifty-fifty.

Martin Van Buren - he was of Dutch ancestry, he wasn't even anglo from a language perspective, his native tongue was Dutch, which he spoke, along with his wife, at home.

As far as the WASP(white, anglo saxon, protestant), many Presidents don't qualify. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, many beleive Abraham Lincoln was one as well. Herbert Hoover, and Eisonhower are of German ancestry. McKinley, JFK and Reagan are of Scots/Irish descent.

Patrick Schoeb

One can argue that it is a republic, but in fact it
is an oligarchy. Democracy means the people rule, not that
they get to vote in carefully controlled elections. It is
quite obvious that public opinion means squat in the USA when
it comes to formulation of government policy.

"...and this approach will not help the pro-Israel cause in Washington."

Let's hope so. Some day the policy will have to change if they really want to achieve peace. Unconditional support of people like Sharon will not do that...

the hawks at AIPAC don't just want rabid support of Israel, they want rabid support of war. And they'll get it from the GOP.

The people in AIPAC support Israel's survival, which many on this very board do not. Is it any wonder many Jews in America are questioning their party loyalty right now.

There are a few DINOs like Lieberman among the Jewish population, and of course they're doubting Lieberman. Why, I talked to one a while ago, told him was PNAC was, and he said that he supported it! :wow: And this is also someone who I've finally convinced that there are no WMD in Iraq,. He despises Dean for no reasonable reason, and supports Wesley Clark fanatically for no reasonable reason.

And, Mr. Muddle, tell me what exactly mantaining the settlements and going to war with Iraq have to do with Israel's survival?

Personally, as you no doubt recall, I was against the war in Iraq from the very beginning. I don't think it had anything to do with Israel and still doesn't. Hell, if Israel asked the U.S. to attack one nation, I don't think Iraq would have been in the top three. (Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia would have.)

The settlements are Israel using land under its control. Most of them will be bargained away if the Palestinians ever agree to a peaceful solution to this problem.

One of the reaons that I despise them. Once agaain, what did the war in Iraq, which AIPAC supported, have to do with Israel's survival?

And, what do the settlements do for Israel's survival? You really didn't answer either question.

I have no idea why they supported it unless they believed the WMD crap.

The settlements are a bargaining chip. To give up the settlements now simply encourages the Palestinians to demand something else if they ever decide to agree to peace. The settlements (or whatever part of them is agreed to) should only come down in the context of a peace agreement that attacks issues for both sides.

why do you think they are so much concerned with Israel's survival?

AIPAC is an organization of right-wing nuts. I have no respect for them whatsoever, and any candidate, like Lieberman, who has their full support I will bash.

When it comes to the settlements, you're ignoring the simple fact that the settlements contribute to the fact that there is terrorism. Once the Palestinians are shown that Isarel is taking real action towards peace, so will they.

does some very stupid stuff, but I still support it.

I don't expect any organization to be perfect. Like I said, they could easily have believed the WMD theory. Many in our party did.

As for the settlements, there will be terror with or without them. The Palestinians are the ones in desperate need to change the facts on the ground. THEY want a nation and Israel is the only way to make that happen. To accomplish that goal, they MUST go after the terrorists.

if their desperate situation is reduced.

Remove the most intrusive settlements, slowly begin to dismantle the huge ones like Ariel, and the Palestinians will crackn down on terror. Then, the rest can be removed.

They haven't EVER done it. Why now?

hat Israel wants peace? It hasn't ever made peace...

Israel HAS made peace. Peace with Egypt. Peace with Jordan. Just not peace with terror.

Oh, I forgot. They're all terrorists. Sorry.

Because they haven't even offered it to Israel.

And no, despite your hyperbole, they are not all terrorists. But a lot of Palestinians TOLERATE the use of terror and the existence of terrorists in their midst.

tolerate the terrorism of the wall, the settlements, and the occupation. Difference?

If you think those are terrorism, you ought to move to Israel to find out about the real thing that the Israelis have to suffer through.

it was nothing but a PR gimmick that coupled with their shameless exploitation of the Holocaust, has been used to justify every imperial land grab of Israel since 1948.

Israel is no more an "innocent" victim than Bush is a "compassionate" conservative.

I forgot how terrorism is only terrorism when it's done by the palestinains. Sorry.

I don't expect any organization to be perfect. Like I said, they could easily have believed the WMD theory. Many in our party did.

Particularly when the WMD claims were so easily debunked before the war started. The only people that believed in Iraq having WMD were either Republican fools, or people that were using WMD as a pretext to pursue PNAC goals.

He says he likes Israel because they are Jewish. Valid enough and no torturous moralistic whining.

Voted for Iraq. So don't just single out AIPAC.

aipac.com's press page has plenty of press releases. I found none promoting the war.

Many AIPAC congressional contributees voted against the war.

Seriously.

Are they lobbying to get US aid cut for settlements? Nope. So they obviously don't mind Israel integrating the occupied territories.

Note that I am giving AIPAC the benefit of the doubt here. I'm assuming they don't support:

1. Genocide
2. Ethnic cleansing
3. Transfer
4. South African style bantustans

Try and find a way of squaring the "demographic" circle problem with those four options off the table, and settlement expansion in the WB/Gaza continuing apace.

As for your ridiculous assertation that "many on this very board" do not support Israel's "survival", I can only assume one of two things:

1. You're just talking shit.
2. You're using "Israel" in a kind of non-literal, AIPAC technical sense.

If (2), your actual definition must be that "Israel" = Israel + the occupation. Yeah, in that case, many don't support the "survival of Israel", myself included.

If (1), then: :eyes:

AIPAC supports no such thing. You just don't like them and seek to demonize them as a result.

Why should they lobby to cut settlement aid? The settlements will go away when there is a peace treaty. Not before.

The security wall makes it clear that Israel is NOT incorporating the whole of the West Bank and Gaza. So the demographic issue that so many fantasize about here is a non-issue.

No, I am NOT talking shit about Israel's survival. Several posters here have made it clear they don't consider Israel legitimate. Several have made it clear that they will only do so if Israel destroys itself and embraces a one-state solution with Jews in the minority.

And my definition of Israel is Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. Its borders are no less than the pre-1967 borders and, personally, I would include all of captured Jerusalem in those borders as well.

What posters don't consider Israel legitimate?

This has been a major discussion numerous times.

The settlements will go away when there is a peace treaty. Not before

You don't really believe this do you?

nt

Assuming a peace treaty, which settlement of over 2,000 pop would you get rid of first?

That included the Palestinians going after terror in a real way, I'd be willing to get rid of all of them except for anything that falls into Jerusalem.

I'm not a big fan of the settlements, so once an agreement was made I wouldn't single out one first. I'd handle them all at once.

One of them has to be first doesn't it?

Which one would you drive up the trucks and IDF to first?

How about Ari'el?

That'd really get the ball rolling.

Israel is a nation of 6.6 million people. They have enough trucks to handle more than one site at a time.

Physics dictates that one site will start to be dismantled "first".

My simple question is, which one?

Put even simpler, which settlement would be printed at the top of the dismantlement "TO-DO" list? You can assume the list is in random order if you like.

And would Ari'el be on that list?

All of the settlements out of the Jerusalem area PAST the Green Line would be candidates, depending on what peace treaty. And no, physics doesn't dictate one must be first. We have this cool invention called a clock and actions can be simultaneous.

;-)

You could always just say "Yeah, Ari'el. Sure."

will give slightly different times depending on their relative location to other mass and energy, so you aren't entirely correct. Not that general relativity is really important here or anything...

simultaneity from who's perspective? Arafat's? Sharon's? Barghouti's? Bush's?

First from who's perspective?

:D

n/t

personally, I would include all of captured Jerusalem in those borders as well

So, lets for arguments sake say that somebody supports keeping Jerusalem united, but having East Jerusalem as the capital of the Arab Palestinian state.

Using logic alone, and according to you, therefore they support the "destruction" of Israel?

As long as they support the continuation of Israel as homeland for the Jewish people, then we are merely disagreeing on whether or not to include East Jerusalem. As I pointed out, that would be MY choice. It doesn't have to be theirs or Israel's.

So the demographic issue that so many fantasize about here is a non-issue

I certainly don't fantasise about the so-called "demographic" problem. I fear it.

As should anybody truly concerned for the welfare of Israelis and Palestinians.

ISRAEL has 6.6 million people and a vast majority of them are Jewish. Since Israel is not keeping the whole West Bank (the wall should make that pretty darn clear) or Gaza, then there is no demographic problem for Israel.

The problem that exists is one for the Palestinians who, lacking the aid of Israel, will be unable to create a viable functioning state from Gaza and the West Bank. A fact that they will, no doubt, blame on Israel even though it is not Israel's fault that the Palestinians have destroyed the co-existence that was occuring just a few years ago.

Israel is building a wall on the Eastern side, and also continuing settlement in the Jordan Valley.

I hardly think the residents of Jericho are to blame for not being part of a viable state, do you? Israel builds a huge settlement project to their west, and also cuts them off from Jordan.

Whose fault is that? Theirs? :eyes:

Israel is building a wall beyond the 1967 border in order to protect illegally established settlements.

If that limits the aspirations of innocent Palestinians to a viable state, that is Israel's fault. They're to blame.

If they want to build a wall on the Green Line, they can knock themselves out for all I care. They can paint it orange and make it 40 feet high to boot.

Do you think the Palestinians would be able to create a viable state if Israel walls off the West Bank and Gaza and doesn't allow travel through Israel?

There are plenty of technical ways of getting around that.

The most likely and simple in my view is to have an over/underpass connector from Gaza to the West Bank, but make it sovereign Palestinian territory, with no connections to Israel.

Without travel and open borders between Israel and Palestine, viablity would be difficult, but not impossible. With the connector method, travel would be between Palestine and Palestine.

I'll clarify the previous point: if Israel is going to build a wall anyway, I would not mind it being on the Green Line.

I still mind the fact they're building a wall. I don't think it is needed, and think it will harm Israeli citizens in the long-term.

So what you are saying is that, no, the Palestinian state is not viable without Israel.

Or a tunnel! The ground still belongs to Israel.

You own air rights as well. So again, it seems that all of you expect Israel to allow either a bridge or a tunnel to connect two ends of a non-viable Palestinian state.

Why should Israel do something that other nations would not?

Other nations do not occupy foreign land for 30 years and build illegal settlements without no end, thats why! You have to bear responsibility for such actions and if that means tunnels or bridges for Palestinians so be it...

If there is a peace treaty, then the Palestinians get a homeland. That does not give them access to Israel in perpetuity. After all, we know how some of them use that access right now.

aren't nations which refuse to accept any considerable non-Jewish immigration - even from refugees who were there beforehand.

Excellent point Darranar! :toast:

Israel has set its own. When the Palestinians agree to peace and have their own nation, they will have the same right.

I never knew that nations have a right to racism.

I cannot even imagine what would happen if my country declared that it is a Christian only country or only those of a certain nationality can be granted citizenship and all the rights...

And CHOOSE where to accept immigrants from. Since there are Jewish people around the globe, Israel embraces immigrants from around the world.

do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, explain why.

Big surprise.

It isn't racist. Israel was founded because wherever Jews end up in the world, people have a lovely tendency of killing them.

it's racism. Face it.

It's just not racist.

How do you correct for 2,000 years of racism?

Well, you give the people in question a nation because it is the one place where they can be safe from day-to-day abuse.

justified or not.

Do you admit that?

It's not racist.

because it's an inversion of a wrong to make a right...

when the conditions of the wrong are mitigated, and the wrong has been made right, then, and only then, does the inversion of the wrong become no longer necessary, and if continued, will start to become a wrong in reverse...

but until the conditions are mitigated, it remains a right, and not a wrong...:P

that doesn't make either wrong.

I think we're disagreeing on definition alone here.

I support both affirmitave action and Israel's imigration policy - for the same reasons you do.

Takes into account 2,000 years of oppression. Tell me, how is that racist? No one has an inherent right to immigrate to Israel unless Israel says they do. It has and it allows and encourages Jews to do so from around the world.

that's why it is racist. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's racist.

You just want it to be because you disagree with it.

I AGREE with it, but I think it's racist.

So do the English and probably the Spanish. Why don't you call that "racist". Race is not the basis of Judaism. So how can the Jewish Law of Return be racist?

That's if these 'laws of return' actually exist. There's a difference between accepting the offspring of citizens and racist laws that discriminate against people based on what their religion or ethnicity is...

Violet...

Fine, then is it based mostly on Israeli nationality. After all, Israel was a nation prior to the Diaspora. Then her children were scattered to the four winds.

and there will be a Diaspora long after Israel disappears into the pages of history as all nations, including our own, are destined to become.

Israel only became a nation in 1948. That's when Israeli nationality became a reality, not a moment before. It really concerns me that you don't even know what nations are or what a nation is defined as when it comes to immigration policy...

Violet...

that existed mostly under the protection and control of several empires until the rebellion of 70 CE.

The Diaspora predates the existence of the Kingdom of Israel, for example, not all of the children of Israel left on the Exodus.

The fact that modern Israel became a nation in 1948, thanks to the United Nations I might add, does not negate the reality that there has been a Jewish "nation" going back 5,000 years.

There's a difference between accepting the offspring of citizens and racist laws that discriminate against people based on what their religion or ethnicity is...

Your idealism is touching, I must say. Look at the Laws of Australia and the USA for immigration since WWII. Not much different than Israel. How's it stand today in Australia? Open immigration for all?

A claim that the immigration laws of the US and Australia are not much different than Israel is NOT factual. I'm not as familiar with US immigration policy as I am with Australia's, but if you want to argue that the immigration laws hadn't slowly and steadily changed after WWII, knock yrself out trying. It'll be fun watching :)

I didn't say anything about open immigration for all, so I don't know why you've tossed that in. What I said repeatedly was that most nations base their migrant intake on the skills a potential immigrant can offer, not on what race, religion or ethnicity they are...

Violet...

You can speak for Israel but not for the rest. Most others don't have a policy of choosing who can immigrate and live in the particular country because it would be a racist kind of law which is against many international conventions and laws. Most of them also have a constitution that prohibits discrimination and applying certain rules for foreigner of a certain religion or nationality. There is no such thing in democratic countries that respect international law. Actually even many countries that don't claim to be democratic still don't have any laws or practice that would say who can immigrate and who not..

It sets quotas by nation and, in effect, by ethnic group. Is that also racist?

Australia used to CHOOSE where to accept immigrants from. Not only where, but their acceptance was based on things they couldn't control, like their race and ethnicity. Thankfully that policy started to die a slow death soon after WWII when people saw where a belief in superiority based on race and religion could lead, and due to international criticism. Nations that don't want to be seen as holding bigoted and discriminatory immigration policies should accept people based not on race and ethnicity, but on what level of immigration the nation can sustain and what skills the immigrant can offer to the nation, not on things the potential immigrants can't control like race and ethnicity....

Violet...

Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. As such, it accepts Jews from around the world, no matter what their nationality or race. In fact, it went out of its way to rescue Ethiopian (black) Jews.

How is that not exactly the same sort of immigration policy I was just talking about? Giving preference to people based on whether or not they're Jewish or any race, religion or ethnicity is bigoted. People should be accepted on what skills they can offer, not on factors beyond their control like race, religion, or ethnicity is...

Violet...

It is a correction for 2,000 years of abuse. It is also an acknowledgement that the world has and continues to abuse the Jewish people. They are not safe without their own homeland.

Israel should have been created in Germany at the end of the war!

What a piss poor excuse to create an undemocratic theocracy, not unlike Saudi Arabia. Israel is just another of those shitty countries in the Middle East, and the American taxpayer should no be burdened with giving money to any of them!

US out of the Middle East!

"Israel is just another of those shitty countries in the Middle East".

really??.....thats why you said 6 months ago (du-1) that you could see yourself moving there.

let me know when youre going, i'll arrange a welcoming
committee.

"Israel is just another of those shitty countries in the Middle East".

Now here I must agree with Drdon326. This is a racist comment that is insulting both for Israelis and all other countries in the Middle East that are supposed to be "shitty". It is not only generalizing it is degrading. Indiana, I thought you could do better then that, agreeing with many other things you have said. Too bad...

There isn't any country in the Middle East that is worth a drop of American blood, or a single dollar of American taxpayers.

US should get out of the Middle East and stop enabling the undemocratic theocracies there, which include Saudi Arabia as well as Israel.

Why don't you replace the picture of the guy you use in your post with another more appropriate one -- Pat Robertson. He's all for isolationism.

I am sure Dr. King would have approved of the way Israel treats the Palestinians. Why was Israel a staunch supporter of the apartheid South African regime?

:eyes:

Why did the U.S. ally with the Soviet Union during WWII? When you are fighting for your very survival, you can't make perfect choices. Israel allied itself with the only other obviously pro-Western nation in Africa. As you may recall, the Arab nations were all Soviet client states during the Cold War.

I doubt Dr. King would have been very fond of suicide bombers blowing up little children either. He would have wanted peace.

Too bad the Palestinians never truly offer it.

Apartheid means "pro-Western"? You mean "pro-White only"...

Apartheid was horrible, but like it or not South Africa was allied to the West and not the Soviet Union. Israel wasn't like to be able to trade with folks on the other side.

Wait a minute, you mean that even though S. Africa had apartheid the fact that they were allied to the West (yeah infact there are members of the current Bush administration that openly supported the Apartheid regime) makes it less horrible? I don't care who they were allied with, what matters is what racist kind of system they were based on. And if someone accepts happily the support and make friends with such nations I can only pity them. And I love the part about the "other side" As though anything related to the Soviet Union was automatically "evil" and "bad" and anything related to the West was "good". We saw how good the S. African regime was and what many other "western countries" (including the US) did around the world...

South Africa was horrible. Do I need to repeat that? It was horrible no matter who it was allied to, but it was allied to the West. The East had its own horrible stuff.

In the case of Israel, it did NOT matter what nation South Africa was. Israel doesn't get to pick and choose who it can deal with since so many nations treat it poorly.

Actually, pretty much anything related to the Soviet Union was bad. Being on the western side did not necessarily make things good for South Africa (understatement of the day), just better than the Soviet bloc.

We are who we associate with...

Mandela wasn't in charge.

His crime was to oppose the racial policies of the European minority in what had been his ancestral land. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

There is no correlation between the South African situation and Israel except in your own mind.

that you used here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=20535#20899

I think there is more than just a passing resemblance between apartheid in South Africa and the way Israel treats Palestinians. But that's another topic!

Back on point, the topic of this thread is about Dana Milbank's piece in the Washington Post about AIPAC's enthusiastic endorsement of Bush's PNAC agenda.

Not five sources dear boy, five people who HAVE switched parties. Many have not as yet.

And back on point, you had nothing to say.

Why did the U.S. ally with the Soviet Union during WWII? When you are fighting for your very survival, you can't make perfect choices.

There was no point during WWII that the US was fighting for it's survival. There were never German or Japanese plans to invade the US like there was for other nations. Hitler had in fact admired the US and made a faulty assumption that the American people would relate to his desire for a Europe dominated by Germany. He didn't want the US involved in the war and any post-war reality with an Axis victory would have seen a world order dominated by Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia and the Pacific, but with the US still surviving...

The reasons for an alliance with the Soviet Union was out of necessity, more than anything. Neither Britain nor the US was prepared to sacrifice the lives of the troops needed to fight the Germans and the Red Army provided the fodder needed to put the brakes on the Germans. And after deciding that Fascism wasn't as bad as Communism, the US reassessed things and decided it really worked the other way round :)

Violet...

If you agree that it's bigoted to do what Australia did with it's immigration policy prior to WWII, which I hope you do, then there's no way you can make exceptions and say that in other cases it's okay to have an immigration policy that places preference on race, religion or ethnicity over the skills of potential immigrants. What you are actually arguing is that in some cases it's okay to have such a discriminatory immigration policy because you believe that two wrongs do make a right and previous persecution is corrected by supporting a discriminatory policy...

Women have been abused just for being women for as long as women have existed. I take it that if ever women decided to create their own state with a discriminatory immigration policy that gave preference to women, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

Violet...

The world is imperfect. Israel exists because the world is not a safe place for the Jewish people and 2,000 years of history prove it.

The Jewish people are a cultural and religious identity.

Do women fall into that category?

Check yr history books, Muddle, and then come back and try arguing that the world has ever been a safe place for women. It never has been and they've been abused and persecuted even up to now...

So what if the Jewish people are a cultural and religious identity. If you believe people deserve a state where they can have discriminatory immigration laws as a *correction* for past persecution, then if you start pulling weak exceptions out of the air and claiming that persecution based on things like gender doesn't need *correction*, then it appears to me that you only want to selectively apply yr support of discriminatory policies in order to *correct* persecution to only one group of people and no others...

Violet...

Then maybe there was a time.

As for starting a nation just for women, feel free. I won't oppose the idea. Where do you want to locate it?

Well...only if I were the only guy let in!

:P

But that wasn't your question.

I can only second what tinnypriv said regarding Israel's survival.
If you consider illegal occupation and illegal settlements (not to even mention other things the Palestinians have to go through thanks to the IDF) as "survival", then you have serious problems with understanding the very meaning of the word.

This is the way that people like Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic understood "survival" in Bosnia when they were driving out (ethnical cleansing) Bosnian Muslims and other non-Serbs and killing many of them claiming it's for the Serbs to "survive". Which was BS. As is in this case.

Is it any wonder many Jews in America are questioning their party loyalty right now.

I'm only guessing based on what I've read at DU that when you say 'their party' yr referring to the Democrats? Is this just another of yr opinions, or is it something you can back up with evidence? What is it about the Democrats stance on the I/P issue that would cause many Jews in America to question their party loyalty?

The people in AIPAC support Israel's survival, which many on this very board do not.

Many?? That's clearly not true at all. Not unless you think supporting Israel's survival means following the AIPAC lead and believing that any criticism of anything Israel does in the Occupied Territories is a support of destruction of Israel...

Violet...

Is my friends in the Jewish communities of Baltimore and Washington. My own count is five Jews that I know personally who have bothered to change party membership since 2000. They and other friends I have tell me this is a big discussion in both communities and that they are just a sample.

As for Israel's survival and DU, you are wrong. Several posters have made it clear that they don't accept Israel or its right to exist as a homeland for Jews. Those who oppose Israel's survival also include ALL who advocate a one-state solution, which would be the death of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and probably a death of many of those Jewish people as well.

What a wonderful revelation! Guess what, Muddle, anecdotes are not data!

Five people who are anecdotal stories doesn't translate to *many Jews in America*. You didn't answer my question and I'm a bit confused as to why people would switch to the Republicans (is that what yr five friends aka many Jews in America switched to?), so why did they switch?

Nope. You didn't say that several people don't support Israel's survival. You said MANY. Also, people who oppose Israel's survival are those who advocate some fundamentalist Islamic state in it's place, people who support a DEMOCRATIC, one-state solution where everyone is afforded the same rights, protection and respect aren't advocating Israel's destruction. I support a two-state solution, but in the longer-term see a one-state democracy occuring naturally over several generations. Does that make me and others who feel the same way advocates of the destruction of Israel as well?

Violet...

somewhat.

Quite a few Jews have turned into right-wing hawks on foreign policy, and on that issue alone they might switch. Those people, like Leiberman, for instance, have some nice domestic policies but otherise are just fools.

But neither are Jews the only ones. There are plenty of Democrats who are hawks when it comes to foreign policy.

I don't see much difference between the foreign policy of the Democrats and Republicans, especially when it comes to the I/P conflict. That's why I don't understand why these five friends aka Many American Jews would switch parties over the I/P conflict....

If some Democrats posting at DU are anything to go by, I'd say they're not just hawks, but hawks who advocate a neo-con view of what the world should be like. Dumb question possibly, but in US politics is it possible for a conservative to be a Democrat and a liberal to be a Republican?

Violet...

That's the problem when a progressive party moves to the right. A shift back to the left would be badly needed. That's why I would prefer people like Kucinich to be elected ;-)

Sorry they are so confusing to you. But many (there's that word you have issue with) American Jews are one-issue voters and Israel is that one issue. (Other people use abortion as their one issue, so it's not unusual to be a one-issue voter.) Again, Washington and Baltimore are two of the biggest Jewish communities in America. This is a hot topic in both places. Sorry if that bothers you.

Anecdotes are not data!

Hmm I am not sure if American Jews unanimously support Sharon and his policy. Actually I could bet that many of them don't.

AIPAC is as "non-partisan" as the NRA! As in the NRA, no matter how many members are opposed to the partisan stewardship of Wayne LaPierre, a majority always endorses the GOP candidates.

Reality check at http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm