Ann Coulter: Democrats and the Jews

[abu afak]

Ann Coulter is welcome in my Orthodox synagogue anytime
by Ben Shapiro


December 3, 2003

This week, Ann Coulter caught flak from the liberal Jewish community for her latest column, "The Party of Ideas." In her column, she deconstructs the Democratic presidential candidates and exposes them for the panderers they are, especially with regard to the Jewish community.

"In addition to having a number of family deaths among them," she writes, "the Democrats' other big idea -- too nuanced for a bumper sticker -- is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There's Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised."

As Coulter points out, claiming that you have a Jew in the family or Jewish blood running in your veins doesn't mean anything when push comes to shove: "The Democrats' urge to assert a Jewish heritage is designed to disguise the fact that the Democrats would allow the state of Israel to perish as Palestinian suicide bombers slaughter Jewish women and children." Coulter rightly criticizes the Jewish community for falling for this ridiculous campaign ploy: "And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering."

Of course, an assertion like that arouses liberal Jews, who feel that they fulfill their Jewish obligations by eating bagels and lox, and only proclaim their Jewishness when they sense any hint of anti-Semitism from the political right wing.

Never mind that Coulter is clearly on target with regard to the Jewish community. In the distant past, the Democratic Party earned the respect of Jewish voters by representing religious tolerance while maintaining moral values. Today, the Democratic Party buys the Jewish vote with a few pints of Jewish blood. Democrats secure the Jewish vote by suddenly discovering a Jewish relative or appointing a Jew to a position of power.

Coulter is clearly correct to point out that Jews must be aware that just because someone has friends who are Jews does not assure pro-Jewish policies. Current Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, who claims Jewish sympathies because his wife is Jewish, refers to Hamas baby-murderers as "soldiers" in the Arab-Israeli war, says that America should not take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and states that Israel must abandon Judea and Samaria to Arab terrorists.

Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, falsely averred on "Larry King Live" that Judaism has no core convictions about abortion; rather, he lied, abortion is "a matter of personal judgment. And like everything else in Judaism, ultimately, it's up to each of us to decide what we think is right." Hillary Clinton, who attempted to establish Jewish lineage, kissed Yasser Arafat's wife after Suha Arafat claimed that Palestinian-Arab children were being poisoned by Israeli troops.

Yet liberal Jews continue to kvell whenever any Democrat discovers Jewish identity. When Hillary decided that she was Jewish-by-long-lost-relation, New York political consultant Hank Sheinkopf explained that "Jews will now feel that she's almost one of their own. It will make it easier for Jews to connect with her." When Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, announced his 2004 campaign, Jewish groups immediately rushed to support him, despite his wavering support for Israel and outright misrepresentation of authentic Jewish values.

But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism.

Why are liberal Jews susceptible to pandering? Because it validates their anti-Judaic lifestyle. Deep down, every Jew still has a spark that resonates to authentic Jewish values and attitudes, values that are clearly in line with the politically conservative position. When prominent Democrats identify themselves as Jewish, or Jewish-sympathizing, it becomes easy for liberal Jews to justify their own betrayal of authentic Judaism. "What's wrong with being liberal? Howard Dean's wife is Jewish, and he's a liberal! He can't be bad for the Jews!" "Look at Joe Lieberman! He's observant, and he's a liberal! Leftism can't be anti-Judaic if Joe champions it!"

Liberal Jews may not like what they hear, but Ann Coulter is right. The Democratic Party has played the demographic Jewish community like a gefilte fish. If liberal Jews want the right to start screaming anti-Semitism, they need to start acting in concert with authentic Jewish values first.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20031203.shtml

[RichardP]

Originally posted by abu afak
Ann Coulter is welcome in my Orthodox synagogue anytime
by Ben Shapiro


December 3, 2003

This week, Ann Coulter caught flak from the liberal Jewish community for her latest column, "The Party of Ideas." In her column, she deconstructs the Democratic presidential candidates and exposes them for the panderers they are, especially with regard to the Jewish community.

"In addition to having a number of family deaths among them," she writes, "the Democrats' other big idea -- too nuanced for a bumper sticker -- is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There's Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised."

As Coulter points out, claiming that you have a Jew in the family or Jewish blood running in your veins doesn't mean anything when push comes to shove: "The Democrats' urge to assert a Jewish heritage is designed to disguise the fact that the Democrats would allow the state of Israel to perish as Palestinian suicide bombers slaughter Jewish women and children." Coulter rightly criticizes the Jewish community for falling for this ridiculous campaign ploy: "And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering."

Of course, an assertion like that arouses liberal Jews, who feel that they fulfill their Jewish obligations by eating bagels and lox, and only proclaim their Jewishness when they sense any hint of anti-Semitism from the political right wing.

Never mind that Coulter is clearly on target with regard to the Jewish community. In the distant past, the Democratic Party earned the respect of Jewish voters by representing religious tolerance while maintaining moral values. Today, the Democratic Party buys the Jewish vote with a few pints of Jewish blood. Democrats secure the Jewish vote by suddenly discovering a Jewish relative or appointing a Jew to a position of power.

Coulter is clearly correct to point out that Jews must be aware that just because someone has friends who are Jews does not assure pro-Jewish policies. Current Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, who claims Jewish sympathies because his wife is Jewish, refers to Hamas baby-murderers as "soldiers" in the Arab-Israeli war, says that America should not take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and states that Israel must abandon Judea and Samaria to Arab terrorists.

Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, falsely averred on "Larry King Live" that Judaism has no core convictions about abortion; rather, he lied, abortion is "a matter of personal judgment. And like everything else in Judaism, ultimately, it's up to each of us to decide what we think is right." Hillary Clinton, who attempted to establish Jewish lineage, kissed Yasser Arafat's wife after Suha Arafat claimed that Palestinian-Arab children were being poisoned by Israeli troops.

Yet liberal Jews continue to kvell whenever any Democrat discovers Jewish identity. When Hillary decided that she was Jewish-by-long-lost-relation, New York political consultant Hank Sheinkopf explained that "Jews will now feel that she's almost one of their own. It will make it easier for Jews to connect with her." When Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, announced his 2004 campaign, Jewish groups immediately rushed to support him, despite his wavering support for Israel and outright misrepresentation of authentic Jewish values.

But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism.

Why are liberal Jews susceptible to pandering? Because it validates their anti-Judaic lifestyle. Deep down, every Jew still has a spark that resonates to authentic Jewish values and attitudes, values that are clearly in line with the politically conservative position. When prominent Democrats identify themselves as Jewish, or Jewish-sympathizing, it becomes easy for liberal Jews to justify their own betrayal of authentic Judaism. "What's wrong with being liberal? Howard Dean's wife is Jewish, and he's a liberal! He can't be bad for the Jews!" "Look at Joe Lieberman! He's observant, and he's a liberal! Leftism can't be anti-Judaic if Joe champions it!"

Liberal Jews may not like what they hear, but Ann Coulter is right. The Democratic Party has played the demographic Jewish community like a gefilte fish. If liberal Jews want the right to start screaming anti-Semitism, they need to start acting in concert with authentic Jewish values first.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20031203.shtml

I find it ironic there has been no comment on this thread. Ann Coulter, love her or hate her, has made valid points regarding the Demo’s pandering of the liberal-Jewish vote. Haven’t folks ever questioned how or why, when they need our vote, candidates come out of the closet, exposing their “Jewish” connection?
Bush has made more than a few faux pas during his term as President. However, one doesn’t have to have psychic powers to predetermine the future for Israel, the US or the other western-democracies: if, G-d forbid, a Democrat was to win the Presidential election.

[Mediocrates]

I would prefer to leave off the specifics of Mr. Shapiro's critique because I think there are some flaws in it and it appears to be a thinly veiled slam at non Orthodox Jews. Ok so everyone is entitled to their own identity Mr. Shapiro, let he who is w/o sin...and so on.


But I think the wider political question is this. For decades the Democratic party has automatically assumed "The Jews are with us.." and taken us for granted. In truth the Democratic party has for a long time dropped any concern or action on Jewish or Jewish-American issues in the US and focused on issues that appeal to Jewish-American's self perception and perceived values:

Labor unions, women's rights, immigration, egalitarianism, senior care, public education reform, etc. Yet for most of those issues with the exception of women's rights and reproductive rights, few really touch directly on our lives. They are to be sure, national issues but we don't live in the inner city, aren't in the group of people with no medical care or can't afford college, aren't a force in unions (anymore). The few million of us in the US are for the most part middle class dual income urban/suburbanites. And while we might feel an affinity for all those other issues for their own sake and see a need to address them 'liberally' we are for better or worse victims of our own success.

The Democratic party was happy to go into the Jewish community and prompt cooperation with the Freedom Ride movement. We were happy to do that. After all it wasn't so long ago that Jews couldn't vote, own real estate or hold public office (in my own state, NC Jews were given that right in 1868 fully 3 years AFTER passing the 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments).

But what did we get out of the bargain? A faint promise to 'support Israel'? That's been pretty uneven and very hard fought. What about the values we want now? What about public support of Hillel schools? What about Jewish museums? What about hate crime legislation, what about Koby's Law?

(2001)
http://www.jlaw.com/LawPolicy/kobymandellact.html
(2003)
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.684&congress=108

See instead of taking us for granted and telling us to go find new allies we might have to hold our noses over, they should be addressing our issues. Unlike the Democrats who want to tell us to do nothing as long as our hearts are pure and our hands are clean, we have to deal with the Republicans who are at least willing to trade. And if they will address our national and international interests, for whatever reason then I for one am willing to, as we used to say on Wall St. to "not look too hard up that rhino's ass."

That is the lesson the Democrats have to learn. Today either they are indifferent to Jewish interests and not just Israel but solid middle class domestic issues or they simply take us for granted. I think it's something of both. I think they have been comandeered by their own extremists as much as have been some of the Republicans. Because when Al Sharpton starts making sense, you know you're in deep. And it's also true that they're playing the Jew-Liberal card too heavily. They believe they will always support them even if it means losing out ourselves because we all just want to be 'nice'. The time for 'nice' is over. I and many of the people and fellow Jews are not 'nice'. We're not waiting around for someone to tell us how grateful they are. Not anymore. Not when Democrats rub shoulders with CAIR and AMC and flat out deny the need for vouchers sometimes and deny all the good work that religious organizations do every day.

And it's not just them. We are as guilty. American Jews will always tell you about how interesting some other culture is but theirs. They will always support some far off place or some group here in the US who wants to preserve their history and identity as long as no one reminds them where they came from. They will always tell you how Jewish they are as long as you never bring it up yourself. They will always want to listen and appreciate everyone else's POV when it comes to Palestinians murdering people. They will always warn you of the dangers of 'extremist fundamentalism' w/o once understanding how important cultural and religious education is for their very survival as a people. They will always tell you they hate religion while regaling you of their latest trip to the their new Buddhist temple or Quaker Hall or Unitarian Fellowship. This is the group the Democrats count on. People always willing to subsume their interests beneath those of people who are quite open with how indifferent, sometimes openly hostile to those Jews.

Is it striving? Low self esteem? Shame? I don't know. What I do know is that every time I hear a candidate claim some pittying long lost connection to his/her Jewish roots I am ashamed to be associated with public statements of Judaism and Jewishness which are no different from brand names and shoe logos.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I would prefer to leave off the specifics of Mr. Shapiro's critique because I think there are some flaws in it and it appears to be a thinly veiled slam at non Orthodox Jews. Ok so everyone is entitled to their own identity Mr. Shapiro, let he who is w/o sin...and so on.


But I think the wider political question is this. For decades the Democratic party has automatically assumed "The Jews are with us.." and taken us for granted. In truth the Democratic party has for a long time dropped any concern or action on Jewish or Jewish-American issues in the US and focused on issues that appeal to Jewish-American's self perception and perceived values:

Labor unions, women's rights, immigration, egalitarianism, senior care, public education reform, etc. Yet for most of those issues with the exception of women's rights and reproductive rights, few really touch directly on our lives. They are to be sure, national issues but we don't live in the inner city, aren't in the group of people with no medical care or can't afford college, aren't a force in unions (anymore). The few million of us in the US are for the most part middle class dual income urban/suburbanites. And while we might feel an affinity for all those other issues for their own sake and see a need to address them 'liberally' we are for better or worse victims of our own success.

The Democratic party was happy to go into the Jewish community and prompt cooperation with the Freedom Ride movement. We were happy to do that. After all it wasn't so long ago that Jews couldn't vote, own real estate or hold public office (in my own state, NC Jews were given that right in 1868 fully 3 years AFTER passing the 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments).

But what did we get out of the bargain? A faint promise to 'support Israel'? That's been pretty uneven and very hard fought. What about the values we want now? What about public support of Hillel schools? What about Jewish museums? What about hate crime legislation, what about Koby's Law?

(2001)
http://www.jlaw.com/LawPolicy/kobymandellact.html
(2003)
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.684&congress=108

See instead of taking us for granted and telling us to go find new allies we might have to hold our noses over, they should be addressing our issues. Unlike the Democrats who want to tell us to do nothing as long as our hearts are pure and our hands are clean, we have to deal with the Republicans who are at least willing to trade. And if they will address our national and international interests, for whatever reason then I for one am willing to, as we used to say on Wall St. to "not look too hard up that rhino's ass."

That is the lesson the Democrats have to learn. Today either they are indifferent to Jewish interests and not just Israel but solid middle class domestic issues or they simply take us for granted. I think it's something of both. I think they have been comandeered by their own extremists as much as have been some of the Republicans. Because when Al Sharpton starts making sense, you know you're in deep. And it's also true that they're playing the Jew-Liberal card too heavily. They believe they will always support them even if it means losing out ourselves because we all just want to be 'nice'. The time for 'nice' is over. I and many of the people and fellow Jews are not 'nice'. We're not waiting around for someone to tell us how grateful they are. Not anymore. Not when Democrats rub shoulders with CAIR and AMC and flat out deny the need for vouchers sometimes and deny all the good work that religious organizations do every day.

And it's not just them. We are as guilty. American Jews will always tell you about how interesting some other culture is but theirs. They will always support some far off place or some group here in the US who wants to preserve their history and identity as long as no one reminds them where they came from. They will always tell you how Jewish they are as long as you never bring it up yourself. They will always want to listen and appreciate everyone else's POV when it comes to Palestinians murdering people. They will always warn you of the dangers of 'extremist fundamentalism' w/o once understanding how important cultural and religious education is for their very survival as a people. They will always tell you they hate religion while regaling you of their latest trip to the their new Buddhist temple or Quaker Hall or Unitarian Fellowship. This is the group the Democrats count on. People always willing to subsume their interests beneath those of people who are quite open with how indifferent, sometimes openly hostile to those Jews.

Is it striving? Low self esteem? Shame? I don't know. What I do know is that every time I hear a candidate claim some pittying long lost connection to his/her Jewish roots I am ashamed to be associated with public statements of Judaism and Jewishness which are no different from brand names and shoe logos.

Well articulated, Mediocrates; much food for thought! Thanks!

[varian]

*******************************
"But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism."

"Why are liberal Jews susceptible to pandering? Because it validates their anti-Judaic lifestyle. Deep down, every Jew still has a spark that resonates to authentic Jewish values and attitudes, values that are clearly in line with the politically conservative position. When prominent Democrats identify themselves as Jewish, or Jewish-sympathizing, it becomes easy for liberal Jews to justify their own betrayal of authentic Judaism. "What's wrong with being liberal?"
*******************************

When Elijah returns will he have to ask American Jews?:
"How long will you hobble between two opinions? If the L-rd is G-d follow Him;"... but if American secularism is your god, follow it. Your choice!!

[Alfred]

This November a very large proportion of American Jews will be faced with a moral quandry.

If they vote Democrat as they usually do, there is a good possibility that Israel will no longer be the center of our foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East. This may be the end of Israel as we know it. On the other hand, if they vote Republican, they will be voting against their main philosophy- Liberalism, but they will be voting for continued support of Israel.

So it may boil down to voting for Israel or voting for Liberalism. (Depending of course, on who the final Democratic candidate is....but it doesn't look good for Israel in the current line-up -Lieberman excepted).

I suspect however, that at least 80% will choose political/religious philosophy (Liberalism) over Israel.

Which leads to the quote from Ann Coulter:

"But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism."

Which leads to Alfred begging the question:

The world of nations took away much of Palestine from the Arabs in 1948 to restore a homeland for the Jews of the world. A place where, hopefully, there would never again be a holocaust, a diaspora or a pogram. To create this new land, which admittedly was a restoration of a long lost people to their original homeland; the UN (Europe and the USA) dislocated quite a few Arabs in the process. These Arabs had for the most part lived on that land for the past 2,000 odd years.

The question I am begging: If the Jews of Europe, the USA and much of the rest of the non-Israeli world 1) continue to vote for governments who do not support Israel; 2) if these non-Israeli Jews no longer feel threatened in their adopted countries, and 3) if most of the Jews of the world have no desire to move back to a "homeland;" should not the UN reconsider its original formation of Israel? And should not the UN revoke its charter?

Has not the original purpose for the re-creation of Israel lost its charm? Do not most of the world's Jews live in other countries and support (by their votes) anti-Israeli philosophies?

Something to consider in light of the Ann Coulter article. You may see the UN bringing this subject up in the coming years. As the years go by, Europe will certainly want the UN to reconsider. Demographics alone will force the issue. I post this as a thought inspiring question, not as a provocative statement

[Kev]

Good one Mediocrates! :)





Has not the original purpose for the re-creation of Israel lost its charm? Do not most of the world's Jews live in other countries and support (by their votes) anti-Israeli philosophies?

Something to consider in light of the Ann Coulter article. You may see the UN bringing this subject up in the coming years. As the years go by, Europe will certainly want the UN to reconsider. Demographics alone will force the issue. I post this as a thought inspiring question, not as a provocative statement


Im not Jewish, so I am not going to partake in this convo, but I would be interested in hearing what others seem to think about this question as well.

For I too have been suprised at the lack of interest shown Israel by many secular Jews that I know. :(

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Kev
For I too have been suprised at the lack of interest shown Israel by many secular Jews that I know. :(
That would also be true of secular Israelis.

It's sort of simple. If you're really secular, you're just another biological being. So what rationale is there to supporting a Jewish state?

That's putting it in a nutshell.

Anyway, anyone else see the latest Howard Dean fashion show (http://www.honestreporting.com/images/deankefiah.jpg)?

Source: Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040120/480/pcs11201200446)

[Donna]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Anyway, anyone else see the latest Howard Dean fashion show (http://www.honestreporting.com/images/deankefiah.jpg)?

Source: Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040120/480/pcs11201200446) [/B]


He's such fashion maven.

[Mediocrates]

Has not the original purpose for the re-creation of Israel lost its charm? Do not most of the world's Jews live in other countries and support (by their votes) anti-Israeli philosophies?

Something to consider in light of the Ann Coulter article. You may see the UN bringing this subject up in the coming years. As the years go by, Europe will certainly want the UN to reconsider. Demographics alone will force the issue. I post this as a thought inspiring question, not as a provocative statement


Countries don't 'go out of vogue', do they? I can't imagine there is still a reason to defend the Puritans from the outrages of the Dutch and the English and so therefore preserve the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is there? Nationhood is nothing like affirmative action.

But that's hardly the point. Countries don't have to defend or explain their existance. We no more demand a recertification of Israel any more than we demand the recertification of France. That's why we have Sovereignty. Israel wasn't created simply because the world needed a veal pen into which to pour some Jews and get that pesky problem off their blotters. Israel was created because it was time for them to have a country of their own, it was the right thing to do, a rational response to create a homeland for a diaspora people.

Diaspora Jews in the west enjoy success and safety and to some degree assimilation - some would say too much. But that is not a factor in some other place - in some other country. It does not imply that Israel is a temporary place, a refugee camp open only until the fate of world Jewry is stable. For that was the case before. In 1945 American Jews enjoyed similar freedoms as they do now - the differences from now were under the covers. So that in an of itself is not a reason to assume that somehow Israel enjoys less 'legitimacy'.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Countries don't 'go out of vogue', do they? I can't imagine there is still a reason to defend the Puritans from the outrages of the Dutch and the English and so therefore preserve the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is there? Nationhood is nothing like affirmative action.

Excellent response Mediocrates.........however.

Now, I am mostly pro-Israel but I want to correct a few misconceptions many make. In doing so, I will argue that Mediocrates has it backwards.

My argument is that the creation of Israel WAS an act of affirmative action....affirmative action on a grand scale; and that there is NO comparison between the re-creation of Israel and the creation of the USA.

Let's examine affirmative action. Isn't affirmative action an act (by parties in power) who have a sense of guilt to correct some historical wrong originally done on a people who are currently in favor? Affirmative action in this country was developed by guilt-feeling Liberals to correct the historical wrong of slavery. It was also an attempt to help a lower class to become mainstream by creating (by force) preferential treatment.

Sounds like the creation of Israel to me.

You have guilty-feeling Europeans and Americans (primarily) who felt that they owed the Jewish world something after the Holocaust. The UN then, through affirmative action, codified the partition of Palestine which soon after became the State of Israel. By moving the Jews from the Diaspora to the newly created homeland the guilty-feeling nations of the world would 1) cancel out a historical wrong (the Diaspora), 2) create for modern Jews a homeland, and 3) give the Jews a State so that they would no longer be a lower class within host nations, but could be equals in the world of nations.

Now, was the UN actually correcting a "historical wrong?" Mediocrates argues that "Israel was created because it was time for them to have a country of their own, it was the right thing to do, a rational response to create a homeland for a diaspora people".

Surely the Arabs would argue that the diaspora was NOT a historical wrong. And frankly, the diaspora was no more of a historical wrong than was any other migration or conquest throughout history. The Gauls, Franks and others migrated to Italy. The Franks migrated to France. The Celts then Anglo-Saxons then Normans migrated to England. The Spanish conquered and occupied South America. The English migrated to the future USA. The English occupied Canada, Australia and South Africa. The Americans moved West and put the Indians into reservations. The Greeks, Romans and the Arabs conquered Palestine, and the Hebrews conquered Palestine previous to that. In each of these migrations or conquests there were "holocausts" to some degree.

Exactly why do the Jews demand that their "historical wrong" take presidence over other historical wrongs, other disasters, other holocausts and other mistreatments? The answer is affirmative action; affirmative action on a grand scale.

(there is actually a religious argument to be made in this saga, but we don't want to cloud this secular discussion with biased fantasy and tired old fables).


You see, to my knowledge, there has never been a nation formed in the way that Modern Israel was re-formed. It was not a nation created in the manner every other nation was formed...by conquest or mass migration. It was created by government fiat...by affirmative action.....as a gift to a politically connected people who had been wronged.

Originally posted by Mediocrates
But that's hardly the point. Countries don't have to defend or explain their existance. We no more demand a recertification of Israel any more than we demand the recertification of France.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what is going to happen. As pointed out above, there is no comparison between the formation of France and the re-formation of Israel. It WAS and act of charity by the nations of the world, and it WILL be thought of in the future as being "conditional."

Originally posted by Mediocrates
That's why we have Sovereignty. Israel wasn't created simply because the world needed a veal pen into which to pour some Jews and get that pesky problem off their blotters. Israel was created because it was time for them to have a country of their own, it was the right thing to do, a rational response to create a homeland for a diaspora people. ]



No, Israel WAS created "because the world needed a veal pen into which to pour some Jews..." Either because of guilt feelings or for more anti-semitic motivations, the UN decided to give the Jews much of their long-lost homeland.

Originally posted by Mediocrates
[B]Diaspora Jews in the west enjoy success and safety and to some degree assimilation - some would say too much. But that is not a factor in some other place - in some other country. It does not imply that Israel is a temporary place, a refugee camp open only until the fate of world Jewry is stable. For that was the case before. In 1945 American Jews enjoyed similar freedoms as they do now - the differences from now were under the covers. So that in an of itself is not a reason to assume that somehow Israel enjoys less 'legitimacy'.

In the future, the enemies of Israel will use the fact that Israel is a "UN creation" to try to de-certify the State of Israel within the UN. One of their arguments will be that the Israel was re-formed (on the backs of the poor Palestinians) for the express purpose of being the new homeland for the persecuted Jews of the world.

They will then argue that a majority of Jews in the world have no desire to live in Israel....so why was it so necesary to create it? Israel will have become an "undue burden" in the region, causing "undue hardship and turmoil," and is not even fullfilling its original purpose for being. Their arguments will be supported by the fact that the political parties of the countries who will make this argument will in large part be supported by local Jews who theoretically should be enjoying life in the UN-created State of Israel, instead of within the enemies of Israel.

It will be very tough to defeat this argument, and ideology will probably always be more important than a State of Israel in the mind of most secular Jews. For that ideology is a religion in itself, and religion will always triumph over non-essential little "complications". The religion of Liberalism has the goal of world-wide socialism (a world without borders) which will become more important than the tiny little "embarassment" of Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Taken through a microscope I suppose it's possible to make that argument. But it's simply not accurate.

At the end of WW2 the world looked radically different than it did 10 years earlier. At the end of WW2 almost 750 million people living under the Union Jack. There were movements to 'form nations' out the rubble of colonialism all over the world. The Indians, the Indonesians, the Pakistanis, the Jordanians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Tanzanians, the Nigerians, the Ghanians, the Malay, the Vietnamese........and the Jews living in Palestine too. In fact the only thing that is uniquely Israeli vis a vis the post colonial experience is that there were significant numbers of Jews living elsewhere. We were an identifiable diaspora culture as opposed to all those others which had no diaspora history or large relative numbers of them living elsewhere.

I think what is unique is NOT that the UN got involved. What was unique was that the British had at least some of the foresight to understand that dissolving their mandate on their own would result in the extermination of Israel or at the least a civil war. Which it did anyway......

The British coopted the UN to lend its voice and force to this new thing called "post colonialism". In that sense the creation of Israel was not really a guilty act in response to the Shoah but merely the one of the first of many UN experiments in precisely HOW to form countries. By 1949 the UN essentially gave up on it's grand experiment and left the entirety of post colonial nationalism up to the colonial powers, the terrorists, civil warriors and others themselves.

[Alfred]

Some good points there, but since when is the UN concerned about accuracy? My point still stands.

[CZ_2004]

Neo Conservatives and Christian Conservatives are among the biggest supporters of Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. They provide political and financial aid for Israel. They have been seen as replacing Liberals and Democrats as the main support for Israel. The attacks on September 11th and the War on Terror have brought the right and Jews closer together than ever in the past. Is there any reason to question whether the goals are the same when it comes to Israel?

A study by Professor Kenneth D. Wald of the University of Florida and University of Texas Professor Elizabeth A. Oldmixon, presented their findings at a conference on The Religious Dimension in World Politics, organized by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Israel's Bar-Ilan University.

The study analyzed voting in the House of Representatives from 1997 to 2002. It found that "in a very short period of time, support for Israel became more partisan, more ideological, and more religiously driven."

It noted widespread support for Israel in both houses. Now, "support for Israel was overwhelming, with many more Democrats and African-Americans supporting than not supporting Israel," the researchers wrote.

Jewish senators and legislators in the United States with large Jewish constituencies have been among Israel's strongest supporters.

In the 105th Congress, from 1997 to 1998, liberals were Israel's strongest supporters, "perhaps ... because they viewed Israel as the more vulnerable group." However by the 107th Congress, between 2001 and 2002, "It is not Jews, Democrats and liberals who are carrying Israel's banner in the House. Rather, it is Jews, evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, Republicans and ideological conservatives," the researchers wrote.

"We might expect evangelicals to be relatively less supportive of Israel because ... they hold negative opinions about Jews," the report said referring to several studies published since 1966.

Nevertheless, "The unwavering support for Israel of born-again Christian politicians such as (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and President Bush is explained by reference to their 'devout religious beliefs,'" they wrote.

Oldmixon told the conference she suspects the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington made congressmen "more sensitive to domestic terror threats faced by Israel. For the neo-cons it's more an admission, 'We need to go get them.' For the religious conservatives this was ... not really strategically motivated. It was more from the standpoint, 'Look at these godless terrorists,'" she said.

The changing attitude towards Israel could divide the Democratic Party, since Jews, blacks, and liberals have been at its heart for decades, the researchers wrote.

They cautioned the Jews against relying on the evangelicals as "an unwavering source of support for Israel."

"What would happen to this support if Israel decided to withdraw from part or all the West Bank?" they asked.

They quoted Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, as having said the battle in the West Bank is not political but "A contest over whether or not the word of God is true."

"Does this mean that by going against the word of God in this or other ways, Israel would give up her right to American support?" the researchers asked.

"Secular (American) Jews and other secular Americans who care deeply about Israel must be cautious about relying too heavily on evangelical support," they concluded.


With all the help from the Neo Cons and the Christian Conservatives, are the best interests of Jews being protected? Is support for Israel the same thing as support for Jews?

The problem between pro-Israel Jews and pro-Israel Christian Conservatives is that the Christians believe that, come Judgment Day, Jews will have to convert to the true faith or be doomed for all eternity. The is the future for Jews in the Christian Conservative world. The long term survival of Jews is only an issue in bringing about the return of Christ. Jews are players in the Christian play who disappear in the 3rd act. It seems that Christian Conservatives only need Jews now to bring an end of Jews in the future. The Christian Conservative may try to hasten events in the belief that they are bring about the return of Christ and cause the death of million of Jews in the process. Jews must be on guard and not allow themselves to be pawns in someone else's idea's of their fate.

Jerry Fawell has stated

Millions of Jews will be slaughtered at this time but a remnant will escape and God will supernaturally hide them for Himself for the last three and a half years of the Tribulation, some feel in the rose-red city of Petra. I don't know how, but God will keep them because the Jews and the Chosen People of God." (December 2, 1984 sermon)

For Fawell, the Jews -- while they are very nice people that Christians support -- are the martyrs and the cannon fodder of Armageddon, enacting war, suffrage, and destruction only to have their remaining few souls converted to Christianity. Jerry Fawell also claims the Anti-Christ is a Jew.

Pat Robertson is another who has no use for Jews except either to get them converted or else slaughtered in the final cataclysm. Go read "The End of the Age" Pat Robertsons vision of the apocalypse. According to Pat, "The Jews will cry out to the one they have so long rejected, and He will come in heavenly power to give them deliverance.

The evangelicals like Fawell and Robertson and their followers believe Christians will be raptured to heaven before all the fighting between Jews and Muslims starts. Everyone left will face mass death and destruction. They are definitive and absolute about the future, and their theology does entail the destruction of millions of Jews in the battle of Armageddon

At the end of the day Jews only have other Jews to rely on. That's how it's always been for Jews. It is important to acknowledge the help Jews have gotten from Christians and the right but Jews must also be prepared for the day when Jews are forced to take sides in their own survival.

[abu afak]

x.. error see next page

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Alfred
Some good points there, but since when is the UN concerned about accuracy? My point still stands.

No Alfred, your point doesn't "Still Stand".

You talk about the "Giant Dislocation" being an Injustice, but it was not a Giant Dislocation in the scale of things of the time, as Mediocrates pointed out.
More than 10 Million were Displaced by the Pakistan-India Partition, many streaming hundreds of miles..some, a thousand... to their respective new state. Similar Dislocation and Border adjustments were in order for Karelian Finns and Sudeten Germans and many others in post-war period. The New Chinese Three Rivers Dam has moved almost as many people a further distance than than the 1948 Partition.
(not to mention the 100,000 for the Aswan Dam, or the 400,000 Palestinians Kicked out of Kuwait in 1991).

Why is it all these other LARGER 1945-1948 era Immigrant problems have all been long ago resolved?
Could it be that these Arabs, and they are just Arabs, there was no separate Palestinian Language/culture etc, who now call themselves 'Palestinians' (since the 1960's anyway), were kept in Refugee camps by their neighboring Arab brothers to be used as pawns against Israel (and for those who would argue as you do).
Is this dislocation of only a few miles really that big a deal in the Historical scheme of things?
Most 'refugees' live within 20 minutes drive, (or 5 mins for that matter) of where their Grandparents, the few thousand original (true refugees) displaced that are still alive.

Hasn't therefore, the 66 Year Old "refugee Problem" "Outlived it's Usefullness"?
2/3 of Israel's Jews were born there. (app 3.5 million)
How many of the now 3.6 Million Palestinian 'Refugees', a six fold increase in population for the desecendants of the 600,000 who left, were born in Israel 66 or more years ago who are still alive and want to go back who haven't? 2000? 5000? 10,000... Tops
Shall we dissolve Israel for these few?

Has Israel "outlived it's usefullness" for the equal number of Jewish Immigrants (app 600,000) who had to leave every Arab country from Morocco to Iraq?
Shall they all go back?
(Or the airlifted Ethiopean Jews?
Or the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were let out of the Anti-semitic Soviet Union with US pressure from the 1950's-1990's)


Your posts also infers that the Jews suddenly appeared in the 1945-1948 period and these New 'Euros' were just given a State, willy-nilly.
This is NOT the case either.

In places like Jerusalem, (Safed etc), Jews were the Largest constituent of the population since about 1840. Heavy Jewish immigration started in the late 19th century, but many even predate that.
(documentation already provided here many times, but will post again on request if this is a disputed issue).

Many Arabs, call them 'Palestinians' if you like, (as I said, they never thought of themselves as that though until the 1960's) followed the Zionists into Israel for the economic opportunity they created in the Sparse backwater that was Israel in the 19th century.

In any case Alfred, you make many false assumptions and show Careless and oddly selective thinking when it comes to Israel.

[Alfred]

Abu:

Well Abu, I am sure you will do very well standing in front of the UN making your argument. I bet they will listen and agree with every word. But they may believe you are being "oddly selective."

CZ:

"The problem between pro-Israel Jews and pro-Israel Christian Conservatives is that the Christians believe that, come Judgment Day, Jews will have to convert to the true faith or be doomed for all eternity. The is the future for Jews in the Christian Conservative world. The long term survival of Jews is only an issue in bringing about the return of Christ. Jews are players in the Christian play who disappear in the 3rd act. It seems that Christian Conservatives only need Jews now to bring an end of Jews in the future. The Christian Conservative may try to hasten events in the belief that they are bring about the return of Christ and cause the death of million of Jews in the process. Jews must be on guard and not allow themselves to be pawns in someone else's idea's of their fate."

One would have to be a complete paranoid (or be in the making others paranoid business) to believe the above. I am not sure who the author was who wrote that piece but he is definately a "glass is half empty" type of guy. That is the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever heard. Christians are waiting for the second coming so that we can watch the death of a million Jews.....give me a break. Nonsense.

By the way. The only problem most conservative Christains have with Jews is their Left wing politics...not that they are Jews. Oh, you might also find some folks who don't like New York Jews because they are pushy and obnoxious. But that is probably more anti-New York than anti-Jew. And no Christian I have ever met says that we need to go out and wipe out some Jews because they killed Christ. That is all the dreams of the fear pushers in your midst. Jesse Jackson says similar things to his flock.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Alfred
Abu:

Well Abu, I am sure you will do very well standing in front of the UN making your argument. I bet they will listen and agree with every word. But they may believe you are being "oddly selective."


That's it! "Tell it to the UN"

That's your response to being utterly blown away on the facts?
Have you no substantial defense for your now empty position?

[Kev]

That would also be true of secular Israelis.

It's sort of simple. If you're really secular, you're just another biological being. So what rationale is there to supporting a Jewish state?

That's putting it in a nutshell.
.


That sounds a bit simplistic an explanation to me.
As if to cast blame on those that arent religious?
I may be wrong but at first glance this is what I get from that comment.

However that said, one shouldnt need to be religious to have pride in their homeland, a feeling of safety in knowing there is always a land to go home to if need be.

Or, perhaps another form of pride can develop from the history of Israel.

I dont believe one must religious to give its support.
I believe the answer must be one a bit more complicated than what was given................for what its worth.

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by Alfred

One would have to be a complete paranoid (or be in the making others paranoid business) to believe the above. I am not sure who the author was who wrote that piece but he is definately a "glass is half empty" type of guy. That is the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever heard. Christians are waiting for the second coming so that we can watch the death of a million Jews.....give me a break. Nonsense.

Well Al instead of calling me paranoid you could have challanged the views of Christian Conservative's like Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson. They have large followings in the US. They may be nuts but so are their followers.


By the way. The only problem most conservative Christains have with Jews is their Left wing politics...not that they are Jews. Oh, you might also find some folks who don't like New York Jews because they are pushy and obnoxious. But that is probably more anti-New York than anti-Jew. And no Christian I have ever met says that we need to go out and wipe out some Jews because they killed Christ. That is all the dreams of the fear pushers in your midst. Jesse Jackson says similar things to his flock. [/B]

I am well aware of Conservative Christian’s problem with Left Wing Jews. You want to push your views of morality on everyone. Most everyday Jews who are liberal live very conservatively. Many of us supported going to Iraq and support a strong defense and foreign policy. The crime rate among Jews both liberal and conservative is lower than it is among Christians. Most Jews who are liberal are liberal on social issues where your sense of morality becomes overbearing. It’s not enough for Conservative Christian’s to live the way they think is right, they have to try and force their views on everyone else.

I did not say anything about Christians needing to wipe out Jews because they killed Christ. As far as fear pushers in my midst, Nearly 2000 years of Christian persecution of Jews is reason enough to question your motives.

I believe Conservative Christians support Israel for the good of Christians not for the good of Jews.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by abu afak
That's it! "Tell it to the UN"

That's your response to being utterly blown away on the facts?
Have you no substantial defense for your now empty position?


Well, Abu. I didn't address your "facts" because for the life of me I could not figure out what you were trying to say. My fault, but I didn't catch your point.

The dislocation of Jews from Palestine occured roughly 2,000 years ago. What you are talking about is post colonial dislocations. Not the same thing. And yes, the Palestinians have not been treated well by their Arab cousins. But we all know why.

It took a Deux Ex Machina to re-create Israel. But in case you are mis-reading the point of my email:

1. It took a special act by the civilized world to re-create the State of Israel. It was not an easy or natural thing to do and thousands of influential people took the time and energy to do it.

2. It was not the Jews that did this all by themselves. It was a world who wanted to help the Jews that did it. This world consisted of a lot of Christians and other faiths.

3. The major reason for re-creating the world was to provide a homeland for the Diaspora Jews, where they could be free of persecution and violence.

4. Despite this, most of the Jews of the world do not want to live in Israel.

5. Despite this, a large majority of Jews in the world support ideologies that are hurtful to the state of Israel.

6. Someday, some Arab may have the brains to bring up for discusison in the UN whether the UN had the right to pass the Israeli charter.

It really doesn't matter what dislocations were going on or not. The UN does not care for Israel any longer and they could realistically use the above argument in trying to de-legitimize Israel.

That is my point.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Kev
That sounds a bit simplistic an explanation to me.
As if to cast blame on those that arent religious?
I may be wrong but at first glance this is what I get from that comment.

However that said, one shouldnt need to be religious to have pride in their homeland, a feeling of safety in knowing there is always a land to go home to if need be.

Or, perhaps another form of pride can develop from the history of Israel.

I dont believe one must religious to give its support.
I believe the answer must be one a bit more complicated than what was given................for what its worth.


Kev:

An argument can be made that there is no SECULAR justification for Israel claiming the land of Palestine as their own.

After all, it all boils down to a claim that Abraham/Moses were told that Canaan (Palestine) was the future land of the Hebrews. The Hebrews then conquered the land and claimed it as there own. Well, then the Romans counquered the land and finally the Arabs conquered the land.

I ask you then; if a non-religious majority were to claim that religion should have no part in any public affairs; exactly what claim would the Jews have for the land....other than as conquerers or as a gift from the UN?

[Alfred]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
Well Al instead of calling me paranoid you could have challanged the views of Christian Conservative's like Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson. They have large followings in the US. They may be nuts but so are their followers.

I am well aware of Conservative Christian’s problem with Left Wing Jews. You want to push your views of morality on everyone. Most everyday Jews who are liberal live very conservatively. Many of us supported going to Iraq and support a strong defense and foreign policy. The crime rate among Jews both liberal and conservative is lower than it is among Christians. Most Jews who are liberal are liberal on social issues where your sense of morality becomes overbearing. It’s not enough for Conservative Christian’s to live the way they think is right, they have to try and force their views on everyone else.

I did not say anything about Christians needing to wipe out Jews because they killed Christ. As far as fear pushers in my midst, Nearly 2000 years of Christian persecution of Jews is reason enough to question your motives.

I believe Conservative Christians support Israel for the good of Christians not for the good of Jews.

CZ:

I said the writer was paranoid.....assuming you were not the writer and that you were taking this out of an article. If I thought you were the author I would have re-phrased my statement.

You bring up a couple of issues.

Regardless of which moral philosophy you follow...or you may not follow one at all...it would be brazen to say that it is the Christians who are forcing their beliefs on others. This nation was founded by Christians and for over 200 years there has been a relative agreement on social issues. Not everyone agreed on every issue, but you had a basic understanding among all citizens of what was right and what was wrong. Stealing was bad; Boys married Girls etc. etc. Those were the basics that this nation was founded on.

Now along come the Liberals.... A liberal is one who would join a Blue T-Shirt club and then sue to allow Red T-shirts. Now you have abortion forced on every State, you have the Boy Scouts being threatened, you have pornography on network TV. You now have the forced recognition of homosexual marriages (its coming just wait). The nation is descending into a slime pool of immorality, disrespect for the law, crooked judges and the like which will lead to gulags and death camps as civilization and a common bond will destroy this country.

So who is forcing what? It is the Liberals who are forcing their immorality on others. They are not content to let others practice and believe what they want. They force their perverted views on us and sue when we say no. They force third-graders to learn how to put condoms on cucumbers before they teach them the basics.

No CZ. We are not pushing our views on you. You are pushing them on us. But things are coming to a head and you will see the results.

The Liberals are the biggest enemy of the Christians. It is a fight to the death. We look at Liberals as the enemy within.

Which makes the second argument that Christians support Israel only to watch Jews die as being somewhat paranoid. We tend to look at Israel and Liberals separately. One is an internal infestation and the other is a land far away which plays a part in the last days.

I would agree with you that most Christians believe that the Jews will convert (so to speak) when their Messiah comes. But the Jews aren't going to become Baptists or Seventh Day Adventists in my opinion. They will become whatever that Messiah tells them to become. Fair enough? I will say that I don't think they will be immoral, anti-God Liberals however :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Alfred
Kev:

An argument can be made that there is no SECULAR justification for Israel claiming the land of Palestine as their own.



Forget about the holocaust Jews from Europe for a minute. The whole region now known as the "Middle East" was one united land under the Ottoman Empire before the British and French came in and divided it up according to how they saw fit. There was never an independent country called "Palestine" and so you saying that the Jews received a large chunk of "Palestine" is misleading. The Arabs at the time argued that the land was part of lower Syria.

Aproximately 900,000 Arab Jews were expelled from these newly formed Arab States, Jews who were a part of the Arab world for thousands of years and have never been compensated for their losses. This number apporximates the same number of Arabs expelled from the newly created State of Israel and it may even exceed it. Now look at a map of the former Ottoman Empire and see just what the Jews got, perhaps 1/100% of the entire land. That's your secular justification in a nut shell. Other posters tried to point this out to you.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Alfred
Well, Abu. I didn't address your "facts" because for the life of me I could not figure out what you were trying to say. My fault, but I didn't catch your point.

[....... Pointless BS....]

It really doesn't matter what dislocations were going on or not. The UN does not care for Israel any longer and they could realistically use the above argument in trying to de-legitimize Israel.

That is my point.

Your point was that Israel has "Outlived it's Usefellness"

I Listed the reasons why you were wrong... in detail.
Your new 'numbered' post (as if numbering hollow sentences, says anything at all relevant to that original discussion), doesn't rebut a thing I said.
While my post rebutted everything you said.

This remains the fact.

Your new post, if it says anything at all was that not only has Israel "Outlived it's Usefulleness", but that it is also not a Legitimate country :

6. Someday, some Arab may have the brains to bring up for discusison in the UN whether the UN had the right to pass the Israeli charter..."

And you talk about "Dislocation".

As I pointed out, there are barely any of the original "Dislocated" Arabs alive today. (Perhaps a few thousand)
Your suggestion to the Arabs (and this board)..
Let's [vote to] Dislocate 6 Million Israelis, 4 Million of whom were born in Israel.

Shall we vote Americia out of Existence and give it all back to the 'Native' population based on the same bizarro logic?

Baghdad was 40% Jewish 70 years ago, shall we return them and their descendants to that hospitable country?
Or the other 550,000 Jews who were chased out of other Arab countries in 1948?

It's OVER Alfred!

If you have a recurring Legitimacy problem.. I suspect it's your own.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
That would also be true of secular Israelis.

It's sort of simple. If you're really secular, you're just another biological being. So what rationale is there to supporting a Jewish state?

That's putting it in a nutshell.



I disagree. You can still feel connected with the Jewish people you belong to, and therefore with the Jewish land, without believing in the religion.

[Ahava]

Why is it that the only country in the world that's being delegitimized is Israel?

[Alfred]

You have totally convinced me Abu.

[ibrodsky]

Alfred, I'd like to address these points individually as they encompass a number of common myths.

Originally posted by Alfred

1. It took a special act by the civilized world to re-create the State of Israel. It was not an easy or natural thing to do and thousands of influential people took the time and energy to do it.

No, that's not true. Jews have lived in Israel continuously for 3,000 years and have been the largest group in Jerusalem since the first reliable census in the 1860s. When the early Zionists came to Palestine they settled in sparsely populated areas and created new towns where before there were none. Continuing up to 1947, Zionists bought land from absentee Muslim landlords in deals agreed to by both sides with no external pressure.

The only thing the civilized world did to help establish the State of Israel is propose, in line with internationally accepted principles, self-determination for both Arabs and Jews by way of a two-state solution.

2. It was not the Jews that did this all by themselves. It was a world who wanted to help the Jews that did it. This world consisted of a lot of Christians and other faiths.

As much as I appreciate Christian support for Israel--and I sincerely do--this is not really true.

Certainly there was support in the British government for helping the persecuted Jews of Europe and Russia create a national home in Palestine. Winston Churchill was even called a "Zionist."

But the fact is that Britain gave three-quarters of Palestine to the Arabs and even accepted their demand that the new Arab state, Transjordan, be Jew-free by law. In the years prior to WW II and up to 1948, the British took a number of actions to stop or limit Jewish emigration to Palestine, while few such actions were taken against Arabs emigrating from neighboring countries.

3. The major reason for re-creating the world was to provide a homeland for the Diaspora Jews, where they could be free of persecution and violence.

That was the Zionist project. And it only came about through the efforts of the Jewish people. That was demonstrated by Israel's War of Independence. No one aided Israel in 1948; most of the West wrote off Israel as having no chance of survival. Not one Western country lifted a finger to stop Arab bombing of civilian population centers. In fact, the Jews had to show considerable ingenuity in buying arms from the few countries willing to sell to them.

4. Despite this, most of the Jews of the world do not want to live in Israel.

So what is the point? A large minority do. And many more visit and give generous donations. It would be more accurate to say Israel exists thanks to the generosity of Jews in countries such as the US.

5. Despite this, a large majority of Jews in the world support ideologies that are hurtful to the state of Israel.

No, a very noisy minority of Jews support ideologies that are hurtful to the state of Israel. Unless you are suggesting that Western liberalism is an ideology hurtful to the State of Israel. That's very debateable--given that roughly 50% of the people in West could be classified as "liberals."

6. Someday, some Arab may have the brains to bring up for discusison in the UN whether the UN had the right to pass the Israeli charter.

Actually, the UN simply proposed partition as a means of allowing both Arabs and Jews in the disputed area to exercise their (equal) right of self-determination.

But what you are really suggesting, perhaps unwittingly, is that the Arabs not only had the right to self-determination but had the right to deny Jews self-determination in areas where they (the Jews) were the overwhelming majority.

What you are forgetting is that the Arabs demanded a Jew-free Middle East--or at least one in which a Jewish minority would live as non-citizen dhimmis subject to punitive taxes, denied basic rights in conflicts with Muslims, and the victims of periodic pogroms.

It really doesn't matter what dislocations were going on or not. The UN does not care for Israel any longer and they could realistically use the above argument in trying to de-legitimize Israel.

That is my point.

Yes, in the sense that the majority of unfree countries have subsequently decided that all nationalities have the right to self determination with one exception: the Jews. And also in the sense that the majority of unfree countries have subsequently decided that Palestinian refugees be dealt with according to unique standards that allow them to claim refugee status for living in Palestine for as little as two years; that put no demands on Arab countries that share the same language, religion, and culture yet refuse to assimilate them; that recognize their descendants as refugees; and that turns a blind eye to the roughly equal number of Jews forced to flee Arab countries.

[abu afak]

Brodsky.... Alfred can read.

He just refuses to incorporate/allow what he reads alter his long held bias.

We're talking obstinance as in breath-holding here.

and a point of information re 'reliable Census' here (re "1860s")
Actually it's 1844 (First official Ottoman Census), and one can extrapolate back to the 1830's for Jews being the largest constituency of the population.

A previous post of mine:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by abu afak
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm

""...Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly half the present population...""

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present
The Growth of Jerusalem

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ...The First Official Ottoman Census (abu)
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... ..Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 .....& third, detailed in NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia link above)
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a previous string Nov 2002:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=32356#post32356

And for Alfreds sake, please note the Links as well.

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by Alfred
[B]CZ:

Regardless of which moral philosophy you follow...or you may not follow one at all...it would be brazen to say that it is the Christians who are forcing their beliefs on others. This nation was founded by Christians and for over 200 years there has been a relative agreement on social issues. Not everyone agreed on every issue, but you had a basic understanding among all citizens of what was right and what was wrong. Stealing was bad; Boys married Girls etc. etc. Those were the basics that this nation was founded on.

They also believed in slavery, lynching and keeping women from voting. I can see how you miss the good old day Al.

Now along come the Liberals.... A liberal is one who would join a Blue T-Shirt club and then sue to allow Red T-shirts. Now you have abortion forced on every State, you have the Boy Scouts being threatened, you have pornography on network TV. You now have the forced recognition of homosexual marriages (its coming just wait). The nation is descending into a slime pool of immorality, disrespect for the law, crooked judges and the like which will lead to gulags and death camps as civilization and a common bond will destroy this country.

yada yada yada. You sound just like an islamist talking about Jews. Liberals, bla bla bla, do every evil.

So who is forcing what? It is the Liberals who are forcing their immorality on others. They are not content to let others practice and believe what they want. They force their perverted views on us and sue when we say no. They force third-graders to learn how to put condoms on cucumbers before they teach them the basics.

I can see how you're being forced into a gay marriage Al. How terrible.

No CZ. We are not pushing our views on you. You are pushing them on us. But things are coming to a head and you will see the results.

The Liberals are the biggest enemy of the Christians. It is a fight to the death. We look at Liberals as the enemy within.

Yes the enemy within. Now you sound just like a Nazi. Hitler said the same thing about Jews. Are you going to lock up liberals in concentration camps Al? Perhaps death camps for Liberals. That’s really what you want isn't it?

Good luck with your hate mongering Al. You are no friend of Israel.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Alfred, I'd like to address these points individually as they encompass a number of common myths.

The only thing the civilized world did to help establish the State of Israel is propose, in line with internationally accepted principles, self-determination for both Arabs and Jews by way of a two-state solution




Ibrodsky:

A lot of what you say is true but you are mostly refering to the British original commitment to the Jews of a future state. What I am refering to is the UN vote which everyone knew would immediately lead to a Jewish State of Israel. The 1948 vote.

You seem to be saying that the US and Europe played little part in getting the vote through the UN. I would disagree with that assessment. I would argue that without the US pushing the vote through, there would be no Israel. I am sure that a whole generation of 1940's US politicians would be shocked to learn that they had not intended to create a state of Israel with their 1948 votes and their subtle convincing of friendly states to do likewise.




Abu:

You must really get a grip on yourself. I stopped arguing "told ya so, told ya so" in High School.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
They also believed in slavery, lynching and keeping women from voting. I can see how you miss the good old day Al.

yada yada yada. You sound just like an islamist talking about Jews. Liberals, bla bla bla, do every evil.

I can see how you're being forced into a gay marriage Al. How terrible.




Let me see if I understand you CZ. If a Christian does not support Israel, he is an anti-semite. If a Christian does support Israel then he is doing it to further the Second Coming so that millions of Jews will die and/or convert to Christianity; which is also an anti-semitic act. Hmmmmm. Guess we can't win can we?


I knew you would bring up slavery CZ. That is a Democrat supported act you know. I am a Republican....remember Abe Lincoln? Don't blame slavery on Christian conservatives. I seem to remember some Jewish shipping firms and middlemen being in on that disgusting trade along with a lot of others.

Mark my words. If we don't stop this Gay Marriage fiat people like you WILL force every state to accept it. Just like you forced every state to accept unlimited abortion. Well, your side will have 40 million dead babies on their record soon. Hey, that's even more than Hitler's 6 million Jews. Good job!!


No CZ, the difference between an Islamist and a Liberal is that an Islamist will kill you if you convert. A Liberal will just abolish God from every facet of public life and sue you or throw you in jail for refusing to go along with it. They both sound bad to me. One uses the knife and one uses the court system. Not a huge difference to me. At least I can shoot the knifeman....haven't figured out how to fight the courts yet.

Originally posted by CZ_2004
Yes the enemy within. Now you sound just like a Nazi. Hitler said the same thing about Jews. Are you going to lock up liberals in concentration camps Al? Perhaps death camps for Liberals. That’s really what you want isn't it?

Good luck with your hate mongering Al. You are no friend of Israel.


Yes, Liberalism is the "enemy within" the United States. Are you saying that Liberals and Jews are the same thing with your reference to Germany?? That would be quite an admission.

Liberalism is destroying the country that has given YOUR religion and culture (and mine) the safest and most welcome home in 2,000 years. Once it completely falls apart into anarchy then it will not be such a safe home for anyone. How do you think NAZI Germany came to be? Do a little reading and discover what turned the Germans from civilized beings to Nazi's. It was the destruction of their systems after WW2....monetary, ethical, political, moral etc. The result was an extreme swing or backlash. But Liberals are too blind to study history. You will soon see the results of the destruction of the American family. Your philosophy has already almost destroyed the Black family and you can see what the result is. You will live in VERY interesting times in the next 20 years.


And no. Death camps for Liberals is too strong of a solution. I much prefer deportation to Canada. Although some Canadians would protest I am sure. :)

Finally CZ. I have been a friend of Israel since 1967....and I am not even a Jew. And as you pointed out...we Christians are anti-semitic whether we support Israel or not...which in itself gets a bit tiring. Just how long have you been supporting them?


Maybe that's why I come to this site; there are so many self-rightous liberals to harrange. But never fear. Unlike Islamics you do not have to worry about me stabbing you in the back.
..
..
Deportation will do. :)

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Alfred
Ibrodsky:

A lot of what you say is true but you are mostly refering to the British original commitment to the Jews of a future state. What I am refering to is the UN vote which everyone knew would immediately lead to a Jewish State of Israel. The 1948 vote.

You seem to be saying that the US and Europe played little part in getting the vote through the UN. I would disagree with that assessment. I would argue that without the US pushing the vote through, there would be no Israel. I am sure that a whole generation of 1940's US politicians would be shocked to learn that they had not intended to create a state of Israel with their 1948 votes and their subtle convincing of friendly states to do likewise.



Alfred, I understand your point, but do you really think the Jews in Palestine would have given up self-determination had the UN failed to pass the partition resolution?

The UN did nothing to enforce the plan.

I suspect the plan passed because at that time there were many colonies as well as nations under military occupation who wanted to see the principle of self-determination reaffirmed for their own future benefit.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Alfred, I understand your point, but do you really think the Jews in Palestine would have given up self-determination had the UN failed to pass the partition resolution?

The UN did nothing to enforce the plan.

I suspect the plan passed because at that time there were many colonies as well as nations under military occupation who wanted to see the principle of self-determination reaffirmed for their own future benefit.


That is an interesting question.

I really do believe that the UN understood what they were doing in the creation as basis for a Jewish state. I think they went a bit "above and beyond" to get the vote.... a lot of it due to the Holocaust and for the other reasons I mentioned. After all, they had to tick off a whole lot of Muslims (with their very valuable OIL) to do so. I even believe that we even pressured the UK into voting for partition....remember, they did not appear too keen on the idea, which is why, as you say, they did almost nothing to help out with Israel's new found problems. Perhaps we used a little Marshall Plan leverage on our "allies."

Now the really interesting part of your statement is what would have happened had the UN not voted for partition? Would the Jews have declared a State? I think the mindset of the Brits at the time would have resulted in Civil War...which the Irgun and Haganah were fighting anyway. It is interesting to think about however. Israel would not have received any arms and ammo from the various countries she obtained them from....at least in any quantity. By declaring a State you are also committing an act of war against whoever thinks they own the territory.

I would imagine that the Brits would have clamped down very hard and if casualties were too high, they would have departed and the Arabs would have won the war. As the Jews would not have found the necessary weapons....which would have been far less than they obtained after the UN vote. This is probably the scenario that Arabs dream about :)

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by Alfred
Let me see if I understand you CZ. If a Christian does not support Israel, he is an anti-semite. If a Christian does support Israel then he is doing it to further the Second Coming so that millions of Jews will die and/or convert to Christianity; which is also an anti-semitic act. Hmmmmm. Guess we can't win can we?

I guess you can't Al. Although I would say there is a difference between mainstream Christians and right wing fundamentalist Christian Conservatives like yourself. It the Christian Conservative like you that I don't trust. I know your type. Christian soldier marching in the name of Christ to save the poor Jew from himself.

I knew you would bring up slavery CZ. That is a Democrat supported act you know. I am a Republican....remember Abe Lincoln? Don't blame slavery on Christian conservatives. I seem to remember some Jewish shipping firms and middlemen being in on that disgusting trade along with a lot of others.

The Democrats of the 1800's are the Republicans of today. The south is lousy with former dixiecrats who became Republicans in the 60's and 70's because you didn't want to give equal rights to blacks or women.

Mark my words. If we don't stop this Gay Marriage fiat people like you WILL force every state to accept it. Just like you forced every state to accept unlimited abortion. Well, your side will have 40 million dead babies on their record soon. Hey, that's even more than Hitler's 6 million Jews. Good job!!

Yes Al you will soon be forced into a gay marriage and you daughter will be forced into an abortion.

No CZ, the difference between an Islamist and a Liberal is that an Islamist will kill you if you convert. A Liberal will just abolish God from every facet of public life and sue you or throw you in jail for refusing to go along with it. They both sound bad to me. One uses the knife and one uses the court system. Not a huge difference to me. At least I can shoot the knifeman....haven't figured out how to fight the courts yet.

You have poor reading comprehension Al. It's you conservatives who sound just like Islamist. In fact I can't find much difference between you and your everyday western hating Islamist except you focus your hate on Liberals.

Yes, Liberalism is the "enemy within" the United States. Are you saying that Liberals and Jews are the same thing with your reference to Germany?? That would be quite an admission.

More of that poor reading comprehension Al. I'm comparing the Nazis attitude of Jews with your attitude of Liberals. Am I going to have to explain every sentence to you?

Liberalism is destroying the country that has given YOUR religion and culture (and mine) the safest and most welcome home in 2,000 years. Once it completely falls apart into anarchy then it will not be such a safe home for anyone. How do you think NAZI Germany came to be? Do a little reading and discover what turned the Germans from civilized beings to Nazi's. It was the destruction of their systems after WW2....monetary, ethical, political, moral etc. The result was an extreme swing or backlash. But Liberals are too blind to study history. You will soon see the results of the destruction of the American family. Your philosophy has already almost destroyed the Black family and you can see what the result is. You will live in VERY interesting times in the next 20 years.

Right. There's no anti-semitism here in the US by white supremists, are there Al? Jews have been welcomed with open arms by you Christian soldiers right? People like David Duke aren't anti-Semites are they?


And no. Death camps for Liberals is too strong of a solution. I much prefer deportation to Canada. Although some Canadians would protest I am sure. :)

Finally CZ. I have been a friend of Israel since 1967....and I am not even a Jew. And as you pointed out...we Christians are anti-semitic whether we support Israel or not...which in itself gets a bit tiring. Just how long have you been supporting them?


Maybe that's why I come to this site; there are so many self-rightous liberals to harrange. But never fear. Unlike Islamics you do not have to worry about me stabbing you in the back.
..
..
Deportation will do. :)


I don't think most Christians are anti-Semitic. I think there is anti-Semitism by a segment of the Christian population. I think Christian Conservatives support Israel but that's not the same as support for Jews. As far as you stabbing me in the back, I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.

Try and deport me Al. You sound more and more like a Nazi with every post.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by CZ_2004


The Democrats of the 1800's are the Republicans of today. The south is lousy with former dixiecrats who became Republicans in the 60's and 70's because you didn't want to give equal rights to blacks or women.

That's interesting, because the main opponents of the Civil Rights Act were southern Democrats.

You have poor reading comprehension Al. It's you conservatives who sound just like Islamist. In fact I can't find much difference between you and your everyday western hating Islamist except you focus your hate on Liberals.

I guess that would explain why liberals opposed overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a man who certainly did his part to support Islamist terrorism, and was a hero to the Palestinian barbarians.

More of that poor reading comprehension Al. I'm comparing the Nazis attitude of Jews with your attitude of Liberals. Am I going to have to explain every sentence to you?

MoveOn.org, clearly associated with the Democrats, runs ads suggesting Pres. Bush is like Hitler.

Liberals have much to answer for, such as the voting fraud that is rampant in Democrat strongholds.

Right. There's no anti-semitism here in the US by white supremists, are there Al? Jews have been welcomed with open arms by you Christian soldiers right? People like David Duke aren't anti-Semites are they?

There are white supremacists just as surely as there are liberal authoritarians like Hillary Clinton.

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
That's interesting, because the main opponents of the Civil Rights Act were southern Democrats.

Who then became Republicans



I guess that would explain why liberals opposed overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a man who certainly did his part to support Islamist terrorism, and was a hero to the Palestinian barbarians.

Your remarks have nothing to do with what I posted.

MoveOn.org, clearly associated with the Democrats, runs ads suggesting Pres. Bush is like Hitler.


Liberals have much to answer for, such as the voting fraud that is rampant in Democrat strongholds.

Your remarks have nothing to do with what I posted. MoveOn.org does not speak for me. I would think Al does speak for himself. Do you know speak for Al? Do you want to deport liberals too ibrodsky?


There are white supremacists just as surely as there are liberal authoritarians like Hillary Clinton.

Once again you are off topic. Are you know claiming Hillary Clinton is Anti-Semtic? I hope you're going to back that up with actually anti-Semitc utterances she made.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
Who then became Republicans

Then you have much explaining to do.

In the Senate, 78% of those voting "No" re: the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. In the House, 74% of those voting "No" were Democrats.

Of course, it is clever of you to shift the focus away from the fact that the Republican Party was overwhelmingly in favor of the Civil Rights Act while the Democrats were deeply divided. A total of 117 Democrats voted "No."

Now, if you can show that a significant percentage of those 117 Democrats became Republicans, please do. [Edit: I did some research. It turns out that a grand total of one Democrat who opposed the Civil Rights Act switched to the Republican Party. So you were way off about that, too.]

While you are thinking up your next excuse, here's something else to contemplate. The three leading opponents in Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., and Robert Byrd. Did any of these racist ringleaders change parties?

Well yes, one of them did. Robert Byrd switched from the Klu Klux Klan to the Democrats.

Your remarks have nothing to do with what I posted.

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension. You accused Republicans of "sounding like Islamists," but in fact most of the opposition to invading Iraq--a country that paid rewards to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers--comes from liberals.

Your remarks have nothing to do with what I posted. MoveOn.org does not speak for me. I would think Al does speak for himself. Do you know speak for Al? Do you want to deport liberals too ibrodsky?

No, I'm responding to your mean-spirited post on my own behalf. I don't care for the cavalier way in which you compare other participants to the Nazis. Do you have evidence that Alfred has committed genocide against liberals or are you just irresponsible and self-absorbed?

Once again you are off topic. Are you know claiming Hillary Clinton is Anti-Semtic? I hope you're going to back that up with actually anti-Semitc utterances she made.

Try reading it again.

In the 1950s and before, liberals tended to be in many ways like what we now call libertarians. But in the 1960s a new type of liberal emerged--people who believe they are so right and their opponents are so wrong that they are willing to use the state's monopoly on the lawful use of force to coerce the opposition.

These people are what some of us call 'Liberal Authoritarians.'

Now, I didn't say one word about Hillary Clinton being anti-Semitic, so it's rather dishonest to suggest I did, but since you brought up I will say that there is quite a bit of disturbing evidence.

A few weeks ago Hillary was in the Midwest and made an appalling racist joke. She was talking about Ghandi and suddenly she said words to the effect "he owns a gas station in south St. Louis." Now, what would lead a person who is supposed to be a champion of the oppressed make such a tasteless remark? Could it be that Lady Macbeth forgot her lines?

There have also been more than a few reports about Hillary Clinton making blatantly anti-Semitic remarks. Plus, the Clintons put tremendous pressure on Israel to make concessions during the misguided "Oslo Peace Process." And who can forget Hillary rubbing elbows with the Arafats as Suha Arafat ran around accusing Israel of using poison gas and hubby planned the next wave of mass murder attacks?

[CZ_2004]

I will be the first to admit that the Democrats are as bad as Republicans. I think TRUE BELIEVERS in both parties are both bad. Frankly I didn't come here to post about politics. My original post had to do with the difference between support for Israel and support for Jews.

I stand by my post. I believe Jews are on their own when it comes to the survival of Jewish people.

To me Al does sound like a Nazi when he talks about deporting people he doesn't agree with it. I don’t' care whether you agree or not. What you say if Al made the same remarks about Jews that he does about liberals? Let's see how that would read.

The Jew are the biggest enemy of the Christians. It is a fight to the death. We look at Jew as the enemy within.
Yes, Judaism is the "enemy within" the United States

How does that sound to you ibrodsky? Sound good?

[Alfred]

I agree with what Ibrodsky is saying.

Now CZ, I sometimes like to pull a Liberal's chain so you have to sit back and have fun with my posts. I have never shot a Liberal before....nor stabbed one in the back. In fact I have never burned one in effigy or even used a picture of one for target practice. I do however almost get physically sick when I see a picture of Hillary, Schumer and Teddy Boy Kennedy.

But I want to be serious for a second. I really, really believe that the Liberal philosophies will destroy this nation. I am being completely honest with you. You are probably a wonderful person and I think that in the end you will discover that you have been supporting the wrong side....especially if you are Jewish. Let me explain.

This nation was founded on principles never before seen in the world- a mix of Judeo-Christian morality with a mix of democratic and republican forms of government (small d and small r). Underlying that formation was a code of conduct associated with the Ten Commandments, a strong family unit, and a tolerance toward religions never before seen on this planet.

This was a wonderful nation in which (for the most part) you could be Jewish, I could be Mormon, Tom could be Catholic, Dick could be Baptist and Harry could be an Atheist. No one forced Harry to pray during football games. Again, there were problems with slavery, with persecution against the Mormons, racism etc. etc. The US is not perfect. And yes, this country was for the most part Christian.

So in come the Liberals...most since 1960.

Prayer in school abolished.
The welfare state created.
Higher taxes
The husband and wife must work to support the family
The destruction of the Black family structure
Abortion in a scale never before seen...30 million plus
Music going into the gutter
Movies going into the gutter
Killer video games
Prozak and mind drugs for children
Gays coming out of the closet and into the family room
Gay marriage force upon all States
Judges passing laws instead of elected officials.
Don't ask don't tell in the military
Girls wearing camo clothing and fighting on the front lines
Putting condoms on cucumbers in the 3rd grade
Re-writing history and demonization of our founders

Now all of these things that I mentioned have a cost. A cost to society. Most liberals would support each and every item. But they all have a cost. You can see in the above list that each of these items was forced on the public at large...some indirectly and some directly. Times have change and it is Liberalism that has been the tool of most of the negative change.

What I see for the future is the continuing destruction of the basic family unit. And on a grander scale the destruction of the American family unit. Tribalization of the entire country. Left, Right, Jew, Gentile, Arab, Latino, White Male, Non white male, Gay, Straight etc. etc. We are being dis-united and tribalized. It is the in-your-face Liberal who is doing the work with a missionary zeal.

What will happen is that this nation will fall, from the inside. You will have LA Riots on a massive scale. You will see revolts from the illegal-Latino population which has been allowed to slowly invade this country. Blacks hate the Whites and Latinos hate both and the Blacks hate their Jewish benafactors and the Right hates the Left and visa versa. You see where I am going?

As Ibrodsky said, the anti-American Left took over the Democratic party after the Chicago Convention in 1968. That was the strategy of the Left (read the book on the subject by Horowitz). The Red Diaper babies and Gentile Communists destroyed what used to be called the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party. JFK was in that wing as was Humphrey, Scoop Jackson et. al. Very pro American and anti communist. Which is why the New Left destroyed them.. The New Left rules the democratic party today. They are socialists at best and marxists at worst.

I recently read the Communist Manifesto. The goal is to destroy the family unit, to destroy capitalism, to destroy marriage (yes its true) to destroy religion and to bring about by violence a new utopia lead by the more enlightened. This is the game plan we see today on an international scale.

Christians can live with religious Jews all day long. Here in Salt Lake we all get along and work together. Everyone respects each other and even goes out to help each other. Christian and Jewish leaders came out and joined with the Mormons to protest the street preachers calling newly weds outside of the Temple, sluts and whores. It can work.

But if the Left destroys religion in the US you will no longer have any common bond. Anarchy will rule and this land will fall apart. Then you will have concentration camps once again.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Alfred

So in come the Liberals...most since 1960.

Prayer in school abolished.
The welfare state created.
Higher taxes
The husband and wife must work to support the family
The destruction of the Black family structure
Abortion in a scale never before seen...30 million plus
Music going into the gutter
Movies going into the gutter
Killer video games
Prozak and mind drugs for children
Gays coming out of the closet and into the family room
Gay marriage force upon all States
Judges passing laws instead of elected officials.
Don't ask don't tell in the military
Girls wearing camo clothing and fighting on the front lines
Putting condoms on cucumbers in the 3rd grade
Re-writing history and demonization of our founders



Alfred, I agree with you that Authoritarian Liberals are responsible for many of the ills that afflict our society. But you have listed mainly symptoms.

A deeper investigation reveals the following causes:

* Authoritarian Liberals have, since the 1960s, invaded our education system, replacing the hard work of teaching and learning with a system based on phony self-esteem, group projects, let no child get ahead, posters instead of reports, and incessant political indoctrination.

* Authoritarian Liberals have injected moral relativism into almost every phase of life. Those who have clear ideas of Right and Wrong are labelled "Judgmental."

* Secularism once meant the simple separation of Church and State to prevent government persecution of minority faiths. Authoritarian Liberals have elevated Secularism to the status of State Religion and use it to persecute Christianity and even Judaism.

* Authoritarian Liberals have imposed an Orwellian regime of political correctness: they are fiercely critical of Western civilization but shield often corrupt and brutal governments and cultures from even mild criticism.

and finally,

* Perhaps as a result of their regime of political correctness, Authoritarian Liberals are responsible for naive foreign policy prescriptions based on appeasement and animosity towards their own military, which they wish to convert into the largest government Jobs Program in history while simultaneously pursuing (what usually turns out to be unilateral) disarmament.

Rather than simply denouncing liberals, the best way to fight these trends is to take them on directly. For example, we must expose the failings of our educational system while defending and expanding alternatives such as Home Schooling and Vouchers. We must also demand higher standards of scholarship from our teachers who have used their corrupt unions to browbeat the public and ensure like-minded administrations in our schools.

Authoritarian Liberalism, like Islamism, is an ideology and all-encompassing worldview that must be opposed philosophically, politically, and practically. We must demand the restoration of our rights. We must bring down the Orwellian system that persecutes anyone who dares to oppose Authoritarian Liberal orthodoxy. We must defend our families, faiths, and morals from constant assaults.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Alfred

You now have the forced recognition of homosexual marriages (its coming just wait). The nation is descending into a slime pool of immorality, disrespect for the law, crooked judges and the like which will lead to gulags and death camps as civilization and a common bond will destroy this country.



In Holland they decided to legalize gay marriages years ago, and I'm DAMN glad they did! How do you mean "forced recognition"? What if you're gay, then you're "forced unmarried". Now that is the way to go? that's tolerant?
Oh yeah right, it'll destroy this great civilization, come on!

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Alfred

So who is forcing what? It is the Liberals who are forcing their immorality on others. They are not content to let others practice and believe what they want. They force their perverted views on us and sue when we say no. They force third-graders to learn how to put condoms on cucumbers before they teach them the basics.


Who is forcing what? YOU are the one who wants to force his intolerance on gay people. That's so not fair! "They are not content to let others practice and believe what they want". Say that to yourself! You won't let gay people be what they are and do what they want, instead you have your judgment on them: they're "immoral". :mad:

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
I will be the first to admit that the Democrats are as bad as Republicans. I think TRUE BELIEVERS in both parties are both bad. Frankly I didn't come here to post about politics. My original post had to do with the difference between support for Israel and support for Jews.

I stand by my post. I believe Jews are on their own when it comes to the survival of Jewish people.

To me Al does sound like a Nazi when he talks about deporting people he doesn't agree with it. I don’t' care whether you agree or not. What you say if Al made the same remarks about Jews that he does about liberals? Let's see how that would read.

The Jew are the biggest enemy of the Christians. It is a fight to the death. We look at Jew as the enemy within.
Yes, Judaism is the "enemy within" the United States

How does that sound to you ibrodsky? Sound good?

Sounds dishonest to me. First you singled out Republicans and Conservatives for attack. Now you claim you are above such political squabbles.

While I agree that only Jews can put their self-interests first, that is true of any group, but it hardly argues in favor of paranoia and isolation. You seem to be one of those Jews who defines himself exclusively based on his Jewish identity, and refuses to admit any commonality of interests with members of other religions.

Of course, the historical record is not pretty and this self-imposed exile from the rest of humanity is somewhat understandable. But at the end of the day it is just a form of parochialism. There are Christians who give real support to Israel, and there are Jews who are sufficiently confident about who they are that they are not threatened by Christian friends who may or may not try to convert them.

If you search Israel Forum you'll find I don't agree with everything Alfred says. He has a habit of lumping all Jews together and occasionally resorts to implied threats. But the fact that Jews are among the most notorious Authoritarian Liberals is undeniable. As much as I would like to pretend Adam Shapiro doesn't sup with Yaser Arafat, the fact is that he does.

Your substitution of the word "Jew/Judaism" for "Liberal/Liberalism" is a dishonest debate tactic. Alfred did not to my knowledge declare Jews/Judaism to be the enemy. That is purely your creation.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by CZ_2004

I can see how you're being forced into a gay marriage Al. How terrible.


:D Exactly!

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Alfred

Mark my words. If we don't stop this Gay Marriage fiat people like you WILL force every state to accept it. Just like you forced every state to accept unlimited abortion. Well, your side will have 40 million dead babies on their record soon. Hey, that's even more than Hitler's 6 million Jews. Good job!!


OMG.... :mad: :mad:

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Sounds dishonest to me. First you singled out Republicans and Conservatives for attack. Now you claim you are above such political squabbles.

You are dishhonest. It was Al who made this a political issue when he wrote The only problem most conservative Christains have with Jews is their Left wing politics. My original post said nothing about political issues only about support for Israel vs. support for Jews.

I should have ignored his remarks but I didn't.

While I agree that only Jews can put their self-interests first, that is true of any group, but it hardly argues in favor of paranoia and isolation. You seem to be one of those Jews who defines himself exclusively based on his Jewish identity, and refuses to admit any commonality of interests with members of other religions.

Thats a lie. I recoginze the commonality of interests with members of other religions. I am just realistic enough to know that there is a difference between support for Israel and support for Jews.

Of course, the historical record is not pretty and this self-imposed exile from the rest of humanity is somewhat understandable. But at the end of the day it is just a form of parochialism. There are Christians who give real support to Israel, and there are Jews who are sufficiently confident about who they are that they are not threatened by Christian friends who may or may not try to convert them.

I am not exiled from the rest of humanity. I have many Christian friends and Jewish friends. I don't need you to lecture me on Christians who give support to Israel. I am not arguing that. History has showed that at the end of the day, Jews can only rely on Jews

If you search Israel Forum you'll find I don't agree with everything Alfred says. He has a habit of lumping all Jews together and occasionally resorts to implied threats. But the fact that Jews are among the most notorious Authoritarian Liberals is undeniable. As much as I would like to pretend Adam Shapiro doesn't sup with Yaser Arafat, the fact is that he does.

First you say Al has a habbit of lumping all Jews together and then you do the same thing by saying Jews are among the most notorious Authoritarian Liberals. What garbage. Very few Jews are like Adam Shaprio.


Your substitution of the word "Jew/Judaism" for "Liberal/Liberalism" is a dishonest debate tactic. Alfred did not to my knowledge declare Jews/Judaism to be the enemy. That is purely your creation.

I substituted Liberal/Liberalism with Jew/Judaism to show you how the same sentence would sound if he had used Jew/Judaism. It's called a comparison.

Main Entry: com·par·i·son
Pronunciation: k&m-'par-&-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French comparaison, from Latin comparation-, comparatio, from comparare
1 : the act or process of comparing : as a : the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities
2 : identity of features : SIMILARITY <several points of comparison between the two>


My point was IF he said the same thing about Jews that he said about liberals that would sound very Nazi like. But now that I've had this discussion with you, I'm not sure that you would even admit that.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
My point was IF he said the same thing about Jews that he said about liberals that would sound very Nazi like. But now that I've had this discussion with you, I'm not sure that you would even admit that.

...My point was IF he said the same thing about Jews that he said about liberals that would sound very Nazi like.

So would it be OK if I replaced select words in your posts with words of my choosing and then accused you of evil intentions based on my revisions?

Example: My point was IF you said the same thing about Conservatives that Hitler said about Jews that would sound very Nazi like. :D

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
So would it be OK if I replaced select words in your posts with words of my choosing and then accused you of evil intentions based on my revisions?

Example: My point was IF you said the same thing about Conservatives that Hitler said about Jews that would sound very Nazi like. :D

You're grasping at straws. I did not say the same things about conservatives that Hitler said about Jews.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
You're grasping at straws. I did not say the same things about conservatives that Hitler said about Jews.

CZ_2004, you are tiresome.

Neither did Alfred say the same things about Jews that he said about Liberals.

Please don't put words in other peoples' mouths.

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
CZ_2004, you are tiresome.

Neither did Alfred say the same things about Jews that he said about Liberals.

Please don't put words in other peoples' mouths.

Alfred did say the same type of things about Liberals that Hitler said about Jews

Tiresome? Am I supposed to bow down to you or keep silent because you are a moderator here? You injected yourself into this. Are you posting as a moderator or as a person with a different opinion?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
Alfred did say the same type of things about Liberals that Hitler said about Jews

Tiresome? Am I supposed to bow down to you or keep silent because you are a moderator here? You injected yourself into this. Are you posting as a moderator or as a person with a different opinion?

No CZ-2004, Alfred said that Liberals are enemies of Christianity. That's a point that reasonable people can disagree on.

You could have responded intelligently--for example, by pointing out that the majority of Liberals are Christians (or at least come from Christian backgrounds). Or you could have argued that Liberals are trying to safeguard religious freedom. Instead, you resorted to hyperbole, linking Alfred to Nazis, Hitler, and concentration camps.

Your problem is that you don't play fair, but when you are called on it, you protest that you are being persecuted.

For example, you repeated the popular lie that the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act became Republicans. When I pointed out that only one of the 117 Congressional Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act became a Republican, you dismissed the issue as irrelevant, conveniently forgetting you were the one who brought it up!

[Alfred]

My goodness CZ....have a decaf.


I do tend to lump Jews together as I have only known two conservative Jews in my life..... You notice however that I gave equal billing to Teddy Kennedy, Chuckie Schummer and Hitlery Rodham Clinton. To my knowledge Teddy and Hillary are not Jewish. I believe Teddy is still Catholic and Hillary is whatever the most politically expedient religion is at the moment.

But I NEVER make implied threats.

DEPORT THE LIBS, DEPORT THE LIBS, AND DEPORT THE LIBS.

Well, almost never.

Ibrodsky:

Your list is much better than mine. I would add Judicial Imperialism. This propensity to "make laws" and "create rights" out of thin air is damaging our system of government. Wasn't it Hitler's judges who found perfectly "legal" justification for what they did to the Jews and others?

One point Ibrodsky bought up is central to a recent decision I have made.

He says: "Rather than simply denouncing liberals, the best way to fight these trends is to take them on directly. For example, we must expose the failings of our educational system while defending and expanding alternatives such as Home Schooling and Vouchers. We must also demand higher standards of scholarship from our teachers who have used their corrupt unions to browbeat the public and ensure like-minded administrations in our schools."

One of the frustrating things for me over the past 25 years has been the lack of recognition from the US Government that Islamic fundamentalists were at war with the USA. Starting from Bobby Kennedy, to the hijackings in the 70's, to Iran, to Beirut, to Somalia... we have looked at the Islamics as a bothersome fly buzzing around our head. We would brush them aside and then go about our business. Sept. 11 however was an awakening call to the US. We finally realized that you could not negotiate with Islamic terrorists....you could only destroy them. This is the course we have been taking since Sept. 11.

I came to the conclusion during the Bush/Gore/Florida debacle that the Left would bend and break all the rules of agreement to win their battle. I finally realized, as I looked back on history since 1972 that there was no law they wouldn't break and no lie they wouldn't spread to win the "war" they had declared on traditional American values. I realized that the enemy had declared war on America and that America still looked at the enemy as a buzzing fly.

I have declared war, in return, on the Left. You cannot argue with a Lib as to why unlimited abortion may be bad. You cannot argue with a Lib as to why Gay Marriage is bad. You cannot argue with a Lib as to why Judicial Imperialism is bad. You cannot argue with a Lib as to why Socialism is bad. They are in a different world if they cannot (past the age of 21) understand the consequences of their action. They must be defeated....for that is what they are attempting to do to traditional American values and standards.

So, many on the Right can go ahead and analyze and debate and argue and press their point (this is good). I on the other hand, am going to try to defeat them (in a legal manner) wherever I can, whenever I can. I will speak out just as I speak out on the war on terror. This country is at a crossroads; this may be the last fight before they destroy it from within.

I honestly feel that Liberalism is more dangerous to this country than is Islamic fundamentalism. Rome, remember, died from within, not from without. Most great countries that have ceased to exist fell apart in the same manner.

So, Liberalism/Communism/Secular Humanism/Socialism is my enemy and the enemy of my country; it is a cancer. As a former officer in the US Military I took an oath to "defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." I will always use legal means to fight my battle (unlike my enemy), but I WILL fight the battle, whenever and wherever I can.

Hopefully; the Jewish people on this board who have not fully drunk the Liberal Kool-Aid will sit back and see where the country is heading. Think back to Germany in the 1920's. What happened? You had currency fluctuations and total economic uncertainty. You had morals that descended to levels as low as in the US today. You had communists battling conservatives, which became more and more violent....then you had the Nazis. What you didn't have which we have today is the national tribalization, the mass sanctioning of pornography, and influx of immigrants who maintain their allegiance to their former country, racial problems, a future attack on the basic family structure, and a major split in the country where people on both sides cannot even agree on the definition of the word "is."

Add to that a nuclear threat to our country by China, North Korea and Islamic Fundamentalism. Where is the straw that will break the camel's back? What will kick off a nationwide LA Riot? The fuel is ready...who is going to light the fire? How will the Jews and other religions fair when there is a huge backlash?

So, what I am doing is trying to be a Paul Revere in some form. I think there is a LOT of commonality between Christian and Jew. Or at least there can be. On the Jewish side you have to open up a little and stop thinking every Christian is a Nazi in disguise. On our part we need to understand why the Jews don't trust anyone. Whether you agree or not, we are in the Last Days. Even if you do not believe in God you must admit the world seems to be heading toward a vortex of sorts. You will have to make a choice at some point whether to stand on the side of good or evil. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BECOMING A CHRISTIAN. I am talking about your people remembering what YOU stood for, your family traditions and the moral integrity YOU developed all those years ago. I guess I am saying that too many of you have moved to the dark side and it is now time to return to your roots....before you are lumped in with the bad guys.

Sorry for the preaching. But it should put into context everything I say.

I fully support Israel and have since the age of 12 (1967). I believe it to be the God-given land of the Hebrews, which the modern Jewish religion/culture mostly embodies. I support Israel against ALL of its enemies; both Islamic and European.

On this side of the pond I want the Jews and Christians....and even the Muslims if they will bury some of their hate and ambition to convert the world by force, to join together to fight the good versus evil battle. It is a natural alliance....or at least it can be. If we lose the battle there will be concentration camps or worse. It is a battle we cannot sit and watch, we must take an active part.

The pulpit is yours, sorry for the rant.

Oh Ahava. I sense that you have deep affinity and concern for the homosexual community. I am sorry if I have offended you. Holland has its future and America has its future. You are free to make whatever law you wish and to abort your babies, euthanize your elders and marry your boys. In twenty years when Islam is the dominant religion in Holland you will see how tolerant religions can really be. :) :) :)

[CZ_2004]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
No CZ-2004, Alfred said that Liberals are enemies of Christianity. That's a point that reasonable people can disagree on.

You could have responded intelligently--for example, by pointing out that the majority of Liberals are Christians (or at least come from Christian backgrounds). Or you could have argued that Liberals are trying to safeguard religious freedom. Instead, you resorted to hyperbole, linking Alfred to Nazis, Hitler, and concentration camps.

Your problem is that you don't play fair, but when you are called on it, you protest that you are being persecuted.

For example, you repeated the popular lie that the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act became Republicans. When I pointed out that only one of the 117 Congressional Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act became a Republican, you dismissed the issue as irrelevant, conveniently forgetting you were the one who brought it up!



Okay ibrodsky where did I protest that I'm being persecuted?

I found what Al said to be offensive. When did you become the judge of whats a correct response? Other than the fact that you are a moderator here you opinion is not worth more than mine or anyones.

It's you who doesn't play fair ib. At least don't misqote me. What I said was
The Democrats of the 1800's are the Republicans of today. The south is lousy with former dixiecrats who became Republicans in the 60's and 70's because you didn't want to give equal rights to blacks or women.

You were the one who mentioned congressional voting records (which I'd like a link to the vote). I did not say anything about people in congress. Many people who were democrats before the civil rights act in the south are republicans today. You got defensive and read into it what you wanted. Thats your problem ib, not mine. I didn't conveniently forgetting anything since you misquoted me.

You say I should respond intelligently to Al. Al saying something offensive is okay since it's about liberals. My responding to Al is hyperbole and not okay because it's about a conservative. I consider that hypocritical.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Alfred

Oh Ahava. I sense that you have deep affinity and concern for the homosexual community. I am sorry if I have offended you. Holland has its future and America has its future. You are free to make whatever law you wish and to abort your babies, euthanize your elders and marry your boys. In twenty years when Islam is the dominant religion in Holland you will see how tolerant religions can really be. :) :) :)

Here in Holland gay people don't have to fight for their rights so much anymore, I wish it was the same in the US. You see, gayism is not a choice, gayism is not wrong. If you're (born) gay, you should have the same right as straight people, you can't take their right to marry away from them. What does it matter to you? It won't bother you in any way if homosexuals are allowed to marry, it doesn't cause you any harm.

Islam won't be the dominant religion in Europe in 20 years. Anyway, I hope not, because as you justly point out, the tolerance will really show. I don't understand how you can object islamic fundamentalism so much, because you come close to it, just the Christian form of it. I find that worrying too. Religion can be tolerant, it's the intolerant people, like islamists and people like you, who are causing the trouble. Live and let live!

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Ahava
Here in Holland gay people don't have to fight for their rights so much anymore, I wish it was the same in the US. You see, gayism is not a choice, gayism is not wrong. If you're (born) gay, you should have the same right as straight people, you can't take their right to marry away from them. What does it matter to you? It won't bother you in any way if homosexuals are allowed to marry, it doesn't cause you any harm.

Islam won't be the dominant religion in Europe in 20 years. Anyway, I hope not, because as you justly point out, the tolerance will really show. I don't understand how you can object islamic fundamentalism so much, because you come close to it, just the Christian form of it. I find that worrying too. Religion can be tolerant, it's the intolerant people, like islamists and people like you, who are causing the trouble. Live and let live!

Marriage isn't a right--it is a privilege. It's possible to defend the rights of gays without supporting their access to the privileges of traditional marriage.

Someone else could come along and claim it is unfair not to let two men and one woman marry. We could argue all day whether that is moral, natural, or fair. But the point is that societies also have rights--such as the right to determine their form of government, immigration rules, and marriage laws.

Really, when you demand gay marriage you are insisting either 1) that any combination of people be permitted to marry or 2) that those who believe we should encourage traditional families are so wrong that they must be overruled even if they are the clear majority.

However, the problem we have in the U.S. right now is that the judiciary is being allowed to change laws and not just interpret them. If a free society chooses to legalize gay marriage through its legislative process, then the only legitimate recourse for dissenters is to elect legislators who will overturn such laws. (There is precedent for this: we once made alcoholic beverages ilegal and then overturned that law.) It is unfair and improper for judges to stretch laws so far beyond their intended meaning.

I also think the question of whether people are born gay is far more complicated than you suggest. Based on my experience, I believe there are people who are born gay, there are people who choose to be gay, and there are people who find homosexuality physically disgusting. I take the word of people who say they were always attracted to the same sex. But the fact there are bisexuals and gays who married someone of the opposite sex and then ran off with someone of the same sex proves beyond any doubt that *some* people do choose to be gay in that they can switch from one mode to the other.

It's interesting that many Islamists also claim they are tolerant. So maybe what's needed is not your claim of tolerance versus mine versus Alfred's, but some objective standard. You would tolerate gay marriage, but would you tolerate my community saying that we prefer single-family homes inhabited by traditional families?

I think free societies must accept that if 40% of the people want 'A' and 60% want 'B', the preferred solution is to let the majority view prevail with concessions to the minority view. That's the beauty of our system of states' rights and local control. We might not impose gay marriage on the entire country, but certain local communities or even states may choose to recognize such marriages or provide gays with other privileges. At least then people can live where they feel most comfortable instead of a self-proclaimed elite telling them they have no choice.

[Alfred]

Believe it or not, I am not as anti-Gay as one might think. Yes, I think their lifestyle is perverted and yes I do not consider it “normal” from either a religious or a Darwinian perspective. But what goes on behind closed doors is none of my business, as long as it does not involve children or is against anyone’s will. I don’t care if one is born that way or becomes that way. In private they can do whatever they want to do.

I grew up very close to San Francisco. I found it entertaining to watch the Gays and their public manifestations….in all its color and incredibility. But in the Reagan years a Gay political movement started with a very Leftist tilt. That is when they became my opponent.

I remember when AIDS hit the San Francisco Bay. Most people shook their heads in amazement when the Gays demanded (yes, demanded) that Reagan spend billions on an AIDS cure when wearing a condom would solve the problem. The bath houses were shut down as a public nuisance, but after political pressure they were opened up again. When Reagan wouldn’t spend billions on a self-avoidable disease they publicly said that they would purposely go out and infect women to make the problem bigger. In that way Reagan would have to find a cure.

My second problem with the Gay political movement is their desire to preach their religion in all public schools. It is usually under the guise of “Tommy has two Daddies’” or some other nonsense. You hear reports all over the country of Gays coming into classes to teach “tolerance” but leaving invitations to join some orgy somewhere, or getting into detail of how much fun Gay life can be.

My third problem with the Gay political movement is their war against the Boy Scouts. Thank goodness the Supremes shot that one down. But they are continually trying to destroy the Boy Scouts. With the example of the Catholic Church, where almost 50% of their priests are homosexual, do you really want your Boy Scout to go on a campout with a Gay Boy Scout Leader?

My fourth problem with the Gay political movement is their insistence that all companies provide equal health and life benefits to Gay partners. AIDS healthcare costs drive up my insurance. Your lover gets AIDS and you declare him as your domestic partner. The company gets stuck with a million dollar bill.

My fifth problem with the Gay political movement is their insistence that they can adopt children into that lifestyle.

My sixth problem with the Gay political movement is their new attempt to equate their marriage with traditional marriage.

In all of the above cases, they force these desires by judicial fiat. The people NEVER vote for any of the above (except in a few unique areas), but liberal judges force every locality to accept them, regardless of what the people want.

This is the judicial imperialism that the Liberals have brought us in the past 40 years. Abortion, whether you agree with it or not, is definitely NOT a guaranteed right under the US Constitution. At the same time they are inventing rights, they try to take away listed rights such as the Second Amendment guarantee of a citizen’s right to bear arms, or freedom of speech in a political year (Campaign Finance Law). So the main complaint against Liberalism (other than their silly ideas and anti-American behavior) is that they go around the legal process that we all agree to; voting for representatives and having laws past. If they do not get their way through the legal process they find a judge somewhere who will create some new law. Very similar to what Gore tried in Florida, what the Liberals in New York accomplished in the Senate vote and what the Liberals tried to do in California’s Davis ouster. They play outside the rulebook, which is ok with them because they are at war with traditional America.

If Massachusetts says that Gays can marry, then some judge will rule that all States have to allow it. Or, at a minimum, every State will have to recognize legally married Massachusetts Gays. They will force this upon the 50 States who do not want Gay marriage, just as they forced all 50 States to allow unlimited abortion, just as they forced all States to have Gay awareness taught in schools.

But we should all be open minded. We should allow Gay Marriage, Man-Boy marriage, Man-Animal marriage, Polygamy (hey, I know about that concept), and other associations. Lest you accuse me of hyperbole I would suggest that anyone offering the idea of Gay Marriage 30 years ago would have been called nuts.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by CZ_2004
Yes the enemy within. Now you sound just like a Nazi. Hitler said the same thing about Jews. Are you going to lock up liberals in concentration camps Al? Perhaps death camps for Liberals. That’s really what you want isn't it?

Good luck with your hate mongering Al. You are no friend of Israel.


Now CZ, I find this quote of yours fascinating. Let me see if I understand it.

A. Because I say that Liberals are the enemy within I sound like the Nazis.

Plus:

B. Hitler said the same things about Jews....(I assume you mean that they were an enemy within).

Plus:

C. Am I going to lock up Liberals? Death Camps for Liberals.

Equals:

D. I am no friend of Israel.


So, if I hate liberals (which is the same thing as hating Jews) then I am no friend of Israel.


Ibrodsky and Mediocrates are going to have a very large chuckle.

Deep Breath.....................Ahem.

You see CZ, all Jews are not liberals. You are lumping them all together. You are generalizing. Just because I hate liberals does not mean I hate Jews....and because I hate liberals doesn't mean I am not a friend of Israel. For all Jews are not Liberals and all Israelies are not Liberals.

(How did I do Ibrodsky?)

But I can say one thing about Nazi Germany. I did a bit a research in graduate school about how they came to power. Their main battle was with Liberals and with Liberals ideas. Mostly we are talking communists. What they succesfully did was tie communism to the Jews...as a Jewish invention. Which it was (Marx/Engels) if you want to be precise. Therefore the battle against communism was also a battle against the Jews. The end result then was that a lot of innocent Jews died because they were associated by proxy with the primary enemy...communism. Of course Hitler and his bunch were not fond of Jews as Jews. But I am talking about the country as a whole.

A lot of Liberal Jews in America cry anti-semite when they are attacked for being Liberals. A lot of Jewish Hollywood types do the same thing when people decry their filthy movies. It cheapens the word anti-semite.

[ibrodsky]

Alfred, I agree with everything you said except...

The Nazis' rise to power was a bit more complicated. I think the Nazis blamed the Jews for both the terms imposed on Germany after WW I and Communism.

But keep in mind that the Nazis were able to win an election because the Communists, acting on orders from Stalin, refused to enter an alliance with the Social Democrats to block the Nazis.

Plus, the Nazis recruited hordes of unemployed thugs and mastered the art of using street mobs to intimidate everyone else.

In the end, the Nazi regime had much in common with Communist and Islamist regimes. All three are totalitarian. All three have nothing but contempt for individual rights. All three are committed to imposing their ideology on everyone else. And all three end up with leaders who achieve absolute corruption through absolute power.

Though there are many socialists in Israel, they have never really implemented anything but a sort of mock socialism. I know from first-hand experience that Capitalism is alive and well in Israel. Israel has an incredible number of computer, telecom, and biotech companies and startups for such a small country.

Let's not forget that Ayn Rand, perhaps the most famous libertarian, was also Jewish.

P.S.: An interesting aside, many of Ayn Rand's followers were ambivalent towards Israel for years due to Israel's large and powerful Left. But the last few years have really brought a turnaround. Many of Rand's followers aren't shy about pointing out that Israel is the *only* country in the region that respects individual rights, and they proudly compare the Israeli settlers with the pioneers of the American west.

[CZ_2004]

Al, you and IB can joke all you want and misquote and mischaracterize my posts all you want. You can twist and spin or do an Irish jig for all I care.

All you've done is turn me off from this board. There is no reason to continue with either of you or this board.

I'll let my posts speak for themselves. I'll also let your dishonest characterization my posts speak for the both of you.

[Alfred]

Don't leave CZ. You just have to learn to take abuse if you give abuse. I certainly have learned that.....for I have given a little and received a little. Just relax and realize this is a debating society. No one here has the power to change anything in Israel or in the States. And frankly, as fun as this forum can be at times, it is not read by Sharon, Arafat, Bush, or Osama to my knowledge. And so far, unlike the Islamic websites, no one has threatend to rip out your testicles (I do make an assumption here) and feed them to the mother of all pigs.


Ibrodsky:

I read, and for the life of me I cannot remember where, that Israel is experiencing a very strong form of Judicial Imperialism. That the courts have all but emasculated any Israeli government...Left or Right. Maybe it was Savage's book...or an excerpt from it.

[abu afak]

Primary Problems for Dems
The breakdown of the black-Jewish alliance.
Sept 6, 2002

By Edward B. Miller

For some time now, Jewish voters have been disproving the old adage that Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Republican incumbents such as New York's George Pataki and Ohio's George Voinovich, and recent Republican officeholders like New York's Rudy Giuliani and Al D'Amato and Massachusetts's Bill Weld each won more than 40 percent of the Jewish vote in one of their campaigns. However, if the recent division between blacks and Jews in the Democratic party continues to grow, these politicians will no longer be the exception and Jewish support for Republicans will be the rule.

This latest rift within the Democratic party began in late spring when rank-and-file Jews across the country targeted for defeat several black members of Congress, because of their positions on Israel.

The first to lose his seat was Earl Hilliard. During his nearly 30 years in elective office the Alabaman repeatedly took positions which were offensive to Jews. These included voting against non-binding resolutions supporting Israel in her fight against terrorism, including one in May less than one month before his primary. He also opposed U.S. sanctions against rogue regimes, and introduced legislation only weeks after last September 11 to remove the sanctions in place against Iran, Iraq, and Libya, among others.

The division widened after Cynthia McKinney, a ten-year veteran of Congress was defeated The Georgian, too, had voted against pro-Israel resolutions, joining Hilliard and 16 other Democrats (compared with only five Republicans) in opposing the May resolution. She had also criticized New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for rejecting a $10 million donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to aid the families of the victims of September 11 because of comments the prince made tying the attacks against the U.S. to its Middle East policy and support for Israel. In addition, last year, one of her congressional staffers, referring to Jewish members of Congress, wrote in a Capitol Hill newspaper, "[M]ost disturbing to me is that many of these pro-Israeli lawmakers sit on the House International Relations Committee despite the obvious conflict of interest that their emotional attachments to Israel cause. The Israeli occupation of all territories must end, including Congress."

The fact that two veteran Democratic officeholders were defeated by two political novices would have been cause enough for concern for the Democratic-party leadership. In fact, aside from Gary Condit and redistricting-related primaries in which incumbents faced one another, Hilliard and McKinney were the only incumbents in either party this year to lose a primary election.

That both were black and their defeats resulted from overwhelming Jewish opposition is cause for panic among Democrats. Without the combination of Jewish money (Jews raise at least one-third of all Democratic funds) and black-voter turnout (nearly twenty percent of Democratic voters are black) Minority Leader Richard Gephardt has about the same chance of becoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives this November as Newt Gingrich. However, as a result of Hilliard's and McKinney's defeat this is exactly what is now unfolding.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D., Tex.) said that among black voters there was a growing perception that "Jewish people are attempting to pick our leaders. There is some concern about that." And, when asked to explain his daughter's defeat, state representative Billy McKinney, said, "J-E-W-S."

Indeed, Hilliard's and McKinney's challengers, both blacks, received strong support from Jewish donors, including eight out-of-state Cohens who contributed to McKinney's opponent. As Jews become more attuned to the voting records of elected officials outside of their own districts the differences between Jews and blacks within the Democratic party will only expand. For years now, Jews have looked the other way as the Democratic party has embraced the likes of Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney and acquiesced to their anti-Israel positions. But, for several reasons, Jews are no longer willing to do so.

For starters, the number of Jews being killed in Israel during the past two years has led many American Jews to conclude that the stakes are just too high to sit by and let the Earl Hilliards and Cynthia McKinneys in Congress continue to shape U.S. foreign policy. Other Jewish Americans have become emboldened by President Bush's decisive leadership in the war against terrorism and in support of Israel's right to self-defense, and consider themselves political free agents, free to support and oppose candidates based on their records.

Many see survey results, such as those released by Time magazine earlier this summer in which 53 percent of Republicans term themselves supporters of Israel compared with only 40 percent of Democrats, and choose to identify with Republican candidates. On top of that are the results from the congressional votes on Israel, like the one last May, in which the vast majority of those opposing pro-Israel measures are Democrats. Finally, demographics are also playing their part in reducing Jewish ties to the Democratic party. The most pro-Democratic Jewish voters are those who came of age during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and each election cycle will continue to see fewer of them at the polls.

Such a shift will make it much harder for the Democratic leadership to keep its fragile coalition intact. Consider Hilliard's election. Responding to criticism from the Congressional Black Caucus that the Democratic leadership had not done enough to protect black incumbents (from more moderate black challengers), the Democratic House leadership contributed nearly $50,000 to Hilliard's campaign after he had been forced into a runoff. Yet, it was at precisely this time that Jewish donors were pulling out all of the stops in their fundraising efforts, correctly sensing that momentum was on their side.

The Democratic congressional leadership has taken for granted Jewish support for so long that it ignored the potential political fall-out from making such a sizable contribution in the face of overwhelming Jewish opposition to Hilliard. Moreover, Jewish success in defeating McKinney and Hilliard has given Jews a newfound sense of political empowerment, which they may use against additional Congressional Black Caucus members with poor records on Israel. This will only intensify the conflict within the Democratic party between Jews and blacks, many of whom already feel a sense of disenfranchisement in the wake of these losses.

This is not good news for Democrats, who need only look back to 1994 to see the effects of low black-voter turnout combined with large-scale Jewish support for Republican candidates. That year, the GOP captured Congress and a majority of the nation's governor's mansions. Without the support of Jews and blacks, Democrats look likely to live with those results for some time to come.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-emiller090602.asp

— Edward B. Miller is an attorney practicing in New York and formerly a Republican pollster.

[Alfred]

I am convinced that 20 percent of the Democratic vote is really for FDR. My grandfather was that way. He thought Clinton was a bozo but he would not betray FDR.

It will be interesting to see how the blacks, Jews and Latinos vote this year. Republicans have pretty much given up on Blacks, but are fighting hard for Latinos. I think we are wait and see regarding Jews. The Israel issue may make it a 50/50 vote for the Jews and Republicans. The problem is that the Jewish vote is pretty small...its their one-third total Democratic contributions that hurt. The problem with seeking Latino votes is that you have to propose some kind of amnesty to get it. I am not sure I want to make that sacrifice.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Alfred
I am convinced that 20 percent of the Democratic vote is really for FDR. My grandfather was that way. He thought Clinton was a bozo but he would not betray FDR.
....

I somewhat Agree .. My parents were big FDR fans too and still democrats.
And as I've said to Mediocrates in a previous discussion..
for some reason, perhaps 2000 years of Persecution etc, Jews have stayed in the minoritIES party much longer than any other Successfull and sucessfully absorbed group.

I think it 's slowly changing... finally.

Jews under 30 are now voting a Majority for the GOP.
(I'll try and find the article I read recently containing the stats))

[red crabtree]

An interesting though somewhat wandering discussion here. Thought I would jump in a bit.
First, while I do not agree with all that CZ has said, the premise that the Republicans of the 1800's became the Democrats of today is fairly correct. It is necessary to take a look at the differences in the Democratic party to see this. There were Northern and Western Democrats, then there were the Southern Democrats. And that southern block saw things from a very different viewpoint then the democrats from other regions.

Note that after the Civil War there was an election not so different than the one that put Bush into office. President Hayes ended up as President after making a deal with the southern Democrats that would pull out the soldiers in the south and end reconstuction. By making that deal Hayes was voted in as President. I don't want to go into all the politics of that, so for those interested simply do a search and it is easy to find. While Civil rights in the 60's were brought about by the Democratic party as a whole, the history of the Democrats particularly in the south was not one that was friendly to the blacks or to women in particular. I don't think the south of the 20's through the 60's needs to be belabored here, I believe we are all familiar with that history. The political force at the time was Democrats, not Republicans. And so while the Democratic party changed and the Democrats of the late 50's and early 60's AS A PARTY, NOT A REGIONAL BLOCK, fought hard for Civil Rights etc... the south as a region did not continue to stay Democrat. The south of this country is much more Republican now than at any time before or since the Civil War.
What I am trying to say is to not mix up what particular parties did or did not do, with how particular regions vote. So certainly the Democratic party remains and is seen as the champion of minorities, they were not always thus. And while they Democrats held the south for over a 100 years more or less, they no longer do, and there are reasons for that.
By and large the south is more conservative from many standpoints first of all, and the Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives they once were. Next, the south by and large, is much more conservative religiously than the rest of the country. Many cultural reasons there, that I won't get into here either, or the post is too long.
So yes, the parties have flip flopped to a large extent and the south followed that change, from a region that could always be counted on to vote Democrat, to one that primarily votes Republican.
I personally find the Fundamentalist wing from both parties, left and right, to be something that needs to be contained for the good of this country. While their ideology is quite different, what they want is essentially the same. A country that runs ONLY according to their particular ideological view and they will smear, scare the hell out of people and scream and rend their hair, in order to get it down. Neither Fundamentalists side, left or right, is willing to concede that they do not have the right in this country to make others live the particular lifestyle that each feels is the only way to "save" the country.
It is that in particular, that pisses off each side. When someone else's morality from either camp, is forcing it's way into my home, I have a problem with it. When the constitution is not being followed I have a really big problem with it. I don't give a damn what party that comes from. Neither is right all the time.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Marriage isn't a right--it is a privilege. It's possible to defend the rights of gays without supporting their access to the privileges of traditional marriage.

Someone else could come along and claim it is unfair not to let two men and one woman marry. We could argue all day whether that is moral, natural, or fair. But the point is that societies also have rights--such as the right to determine their form of government, immigration rules, and marriage laws.

It's such an easy counter argument: if you start allowing gay marriage, what will follow? Instead of these theoretical brain twists, one should look at the reality. The reality is that quite a number of people are gay, and that these people cannot marry therefore. Everybody should have the same rights, or privileges as you like to call it. Gays shouldn't be deprived from this "privilege". Everybody is allowed to marry only one person: that is fair and should remain so. Of course, every country has the right to determine their from of government and laws etc. Doesn't mean it's good, or that I agree with it.



Really, when you demand gay marriage you are insisting either 1) that any combination of people be permitted to marry or 2) that those who believe we should encourage traditional families are so wrong that they must be overruled even if they are the clear majority.

Point 1: yes, that is, woman and man, man and man, and woman and woman. Point 2: here you lost me totally! if gay marriage is allowed, straight people won't suddenly become gay and marry someone from the same sex! The number of gay people won't rise. Nothing changes for the straight people.


However, the problem we have in the U.S. right now is that the judiciary is being allowed to change laws and not just interpret them.

Nothing as ever-changing and fluctuant as law.


I also think the question of whether people are born gay is far more complicated than you suggest. Based on my experience, I believe there are people who are born gay, there are people who choose to be gay, and there are people who find homosexuality physically disgusting.

I can't find myself in either of the three profiles above. There's enough scientific evidence, genetic research, to state with little doubt that gayism is a question of nature, not nurture or free choice. The deciding factor is the percentage of female brain structure and male brain structure, or lack of it, as the original mold of human brain is entirely female and is "masculined" in the process when the embryo is a boy.


But the fact there are bisexuals and gays who married someone of the opposite sex and then ran off with someone of the same sex proves beyond any doubt that *some* people do choose to be gay in that they can switch from one mode to the other.

What you're describing here, is not neceassarily people who chose to be gay. Without a doubt, there are people who are exploring in an extravagant way in their youth and be temporarily 'gay', which is fake. I do think, however, that bi-sexuals are exactly on the line of straight-gay, and therefore can fall in love with either sex.


It's interesting that many Islamists also claim they are tolerant. So maybe what's needed is not your claim of tolerance versus mine versus Alfred's, but some objective standard. You would tolerate gay marriage, but would you tolerate my community saying that we prefer single-family homes inhabited by traditional families?

It's an interesting point you're raising here. The question is: how tolerant should one be towards an intolerant person? It's a hard question. You have the right and freedom to express what you think of gay marriage, and you have the right not to attend gay marriages even if it's a friend of yours who's gonna marry. But do you have the right to decide for other people what they cannot do, cutting in on their freedom, whilst it is NOT affecting YOUR freedom?


We might not impose gay marriage on the entire country, but certain local communities or even states may choose to recognize such marriages or provide gays with other privileges. At least then people can live where they feel most comfortable instead of a self-proclaimed elite telling them they have no choice.

I entirely fail to understand this "imposed", "have no choice" thing. Holland is smaller than average state in America, and was the first country to allow gay marriage, something a good number of people, including some American Jews I know, have used to do what they long wanted: marry. I don't notice these things, it doesn't affect me or bother me: I can totally pretend as if it doesn't happen if I want to, I'm not confronted with it. There's nothing being "imposed" on me and I have as much choice of everything as before.

[jewbyc]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I would prefer to leave off the specifics of Mr. Shapiro's critique because I think there are some flaws in it and it appears to be a thinly veiled slam at non Orthodox Jews. Ok so everyone is entitled to their own identity Mr. Shapiro, let he who is w/o sin...and so on.


But I think the wider political question is this. For decades the Democratic party has automatically assumed "The Jews are with us.." and taken us for granted. In truth the Democratic party has for a long time dropped any concern or action on Jewish or Jewish-American issues in the US and focused on issues that appeal to Jewish-American's self perception and perceived values:

Labor unions, women's rights, immigration, egalitarianism, senior care, public education reform, etc. Yet for most of those issues with the exception of women's rights and reproductive rights, few really touch directly on our lives. They are to be sure, national issues but we don't live in the inner city, aren't in the group of people with no medical care or can't afford college, aren't a force in unions (anymore). The few million of us in the US are for the most part middle class dual income urban/suburbanites. And while we might feel an affinity for all those other issues for their own sake and see a need to address them 'liberally' we are for better or worse victims of our own success.

The Democratic party was happy to go into the Jewish community and prompt cooperation with the Freedom Ride movement. We were happy to do that. After all it wasn't so long ago that Jews couldn't vote, own real estate or hold public office (in my own state, NC Jews were given that right in 1868 fully 3 years AFTER passing the 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments).

But what did we get out of the bargain? A faint promise to 'support Israel'? That's been pretty uneven and very hard fought. What about the values we want now? What about public support of Hillel schools? What about Jewish museums? What about hate crime legislation, what about Koby's Law?

(2001)
http://www.jlaw.com/LawPolicy/kobymandellact.html
(2003)
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.684&congress=108

See instead of taking us for granted and telling us to go find new allies we might have to hold our noses over, they should be addressing our issues. Unlike the Democrats who want to tell us to do nothing as long as our hearts are pure and our hands are clean, we have to deal with the Republicans who are at least willing to trade. And if they will address our national and international interests, for whatever reason then I for one am willing to, as we used to say on Wall St. to "not look too hard up that rhino's ass."

That is the lesson the Democrats have to learn. Today either they are indifferent to Jewish interests and not just Israel but solid middle class domestic issues or they simply take us for granted. I think it's something of both. I think they have been comandeered by their own extremists as much as have been some of the Republicans. Because when Al Sharpton starts making sense, you know you're in deep. And it's also true that they're playing the Jew-Liberal card too heavily. They believe they will always support them even if it means losing out ourselves because we all just want to be 'nice'. The time for 'nice' is over. I and many of the people and fellow Jews are not 'nice'. We're not waiting around for someone to tell us how grateful they are. Not anymore. Not when Democrats rub shoulders with CAIR and AMC and flat out deny the need for vouchers sometimes and deny all the good work that religious organizations do every day.

And it's not just them. We are as guilty. American Jews will always tell you about how interesting some other culture is but theirs. They will always support some far off place or some group here in the US who wants to preserve their history and identity as long as no one reminds them where they came from. They will always tell you how Jewish they are as long as you never bring it up yourself. They will always want to listen and appreciate everyone else's POV when it comes to Palestinians murdering people. They will always warn you of the dangers of 'extremist fundamentalism' w/o once understanding how important cultural and religious education is for their very survival as a people. They will always tell you they hate religion while regaling you of their latest trip to the their new Buddhist temple or Quaker Hall or Unitarian Fellowship. This is the group the Democrats count on. People always willing to subsume their interests beneath those of people who are quite open with how indifferent, sometimes openly hostile to those Jews.

Is it striving? Low self esteem? Shame? I don't know. What I do know is that every time I hear a candidate claim some pittying long lost connection to his/her Jewish roots I am ashamed to be associated with public statements of Judaism and Jewishness which are no different from brand names and shoe logos.

While I agree with a lot of what you are saying but you are suggesting that jews should get in bed with a party( Republicans) that claims Daivd Duke and Pat Buchanan as members. No thanks I would rather remain independent. thanks but no thanks. When you lay down with dogs you just might end up with fleas. I think at this point both of the major partys could use a good flea bath.

[Mediocrates]

I'm not so sure you need to paint with so broad a brush. The Buchanans etc are fairly marginal to the Republican party and let's face it, Sen Robert Byrd REALLY IS a KLAN HOOD WEARING RACIST (- some people are regenerate but not him. Don't be swayed by glorious oratory against the Iraq war - it's straight up isolationist twaddle. )

-So are all the radical elements of the far left end of the Democratic party. And a big piece of the African American chunk of the Democratic party barely restrains from talking about "The Jewish Problem" in antisemitic language.

At any rate - It's all about politics isn't it? If the Democrats see us all flee and the Republicans can help us for even the short term, then why not? I mean, I really can't think of any reason to ignore what Dean says about Palestine, can you? Those are MY issues for this electorate, you are though free to have your own.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I'm not so sure you need to paint with so broad a brush. The Buchanans etc are fairly marginal to the Republican party and let's face it, Sen Robert Byrd REALLY IS a KLAN HOOD WEARING RACIST (- some people are regenerate but not him. Don't be swayed by glorious oratory against the Iraq war - it's straight up isolationist twaddle. )

-So are all the radical elements of the far left end of the Democratic party. And a big piece of the African American chunk of the Democratic party barely restrains from talking about "The Jewish Problem" in antisemitic language.

At any rate - It's all about politics isn't it? If the Democrats see us all flee and the Republicans can help us for even the short term, then why not? I mean, I really can't think of any reason to ignore what Dean says about Palestine, can you? Those are MY issues for this electorate, you are though free to have your own.

Well said, Mediocrates! :p

[Alfred]

I think if Kerry wins the democratic nomination, he will suddenly discover that he has Jewish great-grandparents.

Ann Coulter says this guy is on the prowl for rich widows. After throwing his medals away in a protest he finds a widow with $300M...has a couple of kids, then dumps the old widow for a new model (Heinz) with $750 million.

It will be fascinating to see (this fall) what percentage of the Jewish population in the USA care more for Israel than for ideology. I doubt if Lieberman will get the VP slot, but assuming he doesn't....

I predict 70% of the American and Israeli Jewish voters will still vote Democrat. That is my prediction.



Let's see what happens this November.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Alfred

I predict 70% of the American and Israeli Jewish voters will still vote Democrat. That is my prediction.

Let's see what happens this November.

And I predict the percentage of Jews voting Republican will increase a few points. That's still far from a majority, but any movement away from knee-jerk support for Liberals/Democrats is welcome.

The percentage of Jews voting for Bush might be higher if Dean wins, though that now looks very unlikely. Though Dean's wife is nominally Jewish, I think we could have counted on Dean to take a "balanced" position between Arab/Muslim jihad-genocide and Israeli self-defense.

BTW Alfred, given your fixation on Jewish liberals, perhaps you should pick up a copy of Commentary magazine. You'll find that Jews can not only be effective liberals, they can be effective conservatives.

It's time for you to give some credit to Jews who are helping to advance conservative causes. Bill Kristol, David Frum, Daniel Pipes (plus his father, Richard Pipes, a fervent anti-communist), and Normon Podhoretz to name but a few.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by jewbyc
While I agree with a lot of what you are saying but you are suggesting that jews should get in bed with a party( Republicans) that claims Daivd Duke and Pat Buchanan as members. No thanks I would rather remain independent. thanks but no thanks. When you lay down with dogs you just might end up with fleas. I think at this point both of the major partys could use a good flea bath.

This is more an indictment of a flawed political system that permits people to choose political parties as if they were deciding what clothes to wear.

From a Washington Post article: "GOP officials repudiated Duke at every turn, and many Republican leaders openly endorsed Duke's Democratic opponents... Yesterday, the party moved quickly once again to disassociate itself from Duke. Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson declared: "There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman like David Duke."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces99/stories/duke122198.htm

In fairness, it should be mentioned that former Klansman Robert Byrd is a leading Democrat to this day, and that 3/4 of those in Congress who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Democrats--Al Gore Sr. being one of the most outspoken "no" voters.

Regarding Pat Buchanan, he ran in 2000 as the "Reform Party" candidate against both the Democrats and Republicans. I suppose I could claim he was an "independent" like you, but that would be misleading wouldn't it? So perhaps you should be fair and acknowledge that neither David Duke nor Pat Buchanan have any significant support in the Republican Party (though both have encountered fierce opposition).

[Alfred]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


BTW Alfred, given your fixation on Jewish liberals, perhaps you should pick up a copy of Commentary magazine. You'll find that Jews can not only be effective liberals, they can be effective conservatives.

It's time for you to give some credit to Jews who are helping to advance conservative causes. Bill Kristol, David Frum, Daniel Pipes (plus his father, Richard Pipes, a fervent anti-communist), and Normon Podhoretz to name but a few.

#1. I helped out on Bruce Herchenson's California Senate campaign in 1992.

Bill Kristol comes off as an opportunist.... neocon
David Frum is ok...... neocon
Herschenson....is great in my book
Dennis Praeger (sp?)...is also great in my book.
Pipes is focused on Israel/war on terror/Israel only. To my knowledge.
Michael Savage? I think he is Jewish...not sure. He is great in my book but very unhappy sounding.
David Horowitz...necon...but sounds like a true convert in writing. Watching him on TV he comes off as an opportunist.

There is a difference between a fiscal/war on terror-only "conservative" and a true conservative. But it is nice to have them on our side for half the issues. I welcome them.

I think "fixation" is a bit strong. This is a Jewish forum, so it may appear that way. If this were a Catholic or Black forum then one might say that I was fixated on Catholic or Black Liberals. I am equal opportunity....as I am against all Liberals in principal. But most Liberals are just airheads, misinformed, voting for FDR or naive.

It is the Liberal powerstructure that is the real threat. The Jewish Liberals....as was mentioned earlier in the thread contribute fully 1/3 of the total Democratic party funds. Thus they are more influential than their numbers, wouldn't you say?

I give full credit to all 1273 Jewish Conservatives (social and fiscal...as social Libs are still Libs) in America. More power to them and may the Force be with them. I have a cousin in law who is one of them.

Happy Super Bowl Sunday! Enjoy the game, and more importantly the great commercials.


Oh, #2. Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion" is coming out this Easter. I noticed a billboard at the movies yesterday where I saw the Last Samurai. Very good movie by the way.

I am saving up wood and barbed wire to build Concentration Camps. As the ADL and JDL insist that there will be another Holocaust after the movie (could it be that they are looking for more funding??) :) :) :)

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I'm not so sure you need to paint with so broad a brush. The Buchanans etc are fairly marginal to the Republican party and let's face it, Sen Robert Byrd REALLY IS a KLAN HOOD WEARING RACIST (- some people are regenerate but not him. Don't be swayed by glorious oratory against the Iraq war - it's straight up isolationist twaddle. )



I agree.


David Duke could hardly be called a Republican.... he is VERY regional....more like micro-regional....more like within several counties.....more like, you get the idea.

Buchanan had a lot of appeal to conservative Republicans mainly for his stand on:

1) keeping jobs in America not in China, Japan etc. etc.
2) keeping our foreign aid dollars in America...not in Egypt, Israel, Germany, France, Saudi, Korea, South America, Africa etc.
3) bombing Hollywood. (Oh well, he never actually said that)
4) building a fence at the border and controling immigration
5) The Left is the most dangerous enemy to the USA
6) The West is in decline and the Muslims will be taking over in Europe....low birth rates, abortion, suicide, drugs, immorality.

I have seen some the above arguments on this board. In particular, numbers 1, 4, and 6.

My major disagreement with Pat is his isolationist foreign policy. I see where it comes from but it is much too strong. As far as he being a Nazi....that is the ADL and the JDL calling him that .... which is kind of like Jesse Jackson calling you a racist. It's politics. Meaningless. There are plenty of real Nazi's out there to be tossing around the word like the JDL and ADL do.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Alfred
By the way #1. I helped out on Bruce Herchenson's California Senate campaign in 1992.

Bill Kristol comes off as an opportunist.... neocon
David Frum is ok...... neocon
Herschenson....is great in my book
Dennis Praeger (sp?)...is also great in my book.
Pipes is focused on Israel/war on terror/Israel only. To my knowledge.
Michael Savage? I think he is Jewish...not sure. He is great in my book but very unhappy sounding.
David Horowitz...necon...but sounds like a true convert in writing. Watching him on TV he comes off as an opportunist.



Here's something to chew on: the term "neo-con" not only describes justifiably suspect nouveau conservatives, it serves as a notice to Jews that it's not only OK to be conservative but that it's OK to join most traditionally conservative organizations in the US.

I'm curious on what basis you call the editor of The Weekly Standard an opportunitist. Bill Kristol may be more moderate on some issues than you would like, but I think it stems from a belief that representative government must also consider the wishes of a substantive minority. I see no evidence that Kristol is conservative purely re: Israel. (That might be said of Alan Dershowitz).

Pipes is focused on Islamism, and for good reason. As I said, his father is a well-known anti-communist who served in the Reagan admin. (Perhaps I should ask if Reagan was too liberal for you...)

Michael Savage does not belong in this discussion...

David Horowitz is indeed someone who came to a conservative outlook later in life... as have many non-Jews, too. The fact that terrorism and Islamism are central to people like Horowitz is no more surprising than the fact that in previous decades Communism was central to people who came late to conservatism.

Your "joke" about building Concentration Camps is tactless. If you are truly conservative and not an "opportunist" having a bit of fun at our expense, please keep in mind that most Jews had family who perished in those camps. The majority of my grandmother's family remained in Europe and now we can find no trace of them.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Here's something to chew on: the term "neo-con" not only describes justifiably suspect nouveau conservatives, it serves as a notice to Jews that it's not only OK to be conservative but that it's OK to join most traditionally conservative organizations in the US.

I'm curious on what basis you call the editor of The Weekly Standard an opportunitist. Bill Kristol may be more moderate on some issues than you would like, but I think it stems from a belief that representative government must also consider the wishes of a substantive minority. I see no evidence that Kristol is conservative purely re: Israel. (That might be said of Alan Dershowitz).

Pipes is focused on Islamism, and for good reason. As I said, his father is a well-known anti-communist who served in the Reagan admin. (Perhaps I should ask if Reagan was too liberal for you...)

Michael Savage does not belong in this discussion...

David Horowitz is indeed someone who came to a conservative outlook later in life... as have many non-Jews, too. The fact that terrorism and Islamism are central to people like Horowitz is no more surprising than the fact that in previous decades Communism was central to people who came late to conservatism.

Your "joke" about building Concentration Camps is tactless. If you are truly conservative and not an "opportunist" having a bit of fun at our expense, please keep in mind that most Jews had family who perished in those camps. The majority of my grandmother's family remained in Europe and now we can find no trace of them.

I believe that the term "neo-con" is a leftist term for new found conservatives. So, I really shouldn't use the term. I think there is a sublime attempt to attach Neocon with NeoNazi....or at least to have one think of NeoNazi for a millisecond. I am not sure who coined the term but Chris Matthews uses it all the time.

I reckon that the arguement is "can a leopord really change its spots"? Can a tried and true liberal join the other side? I don't know....especially one who has changed his spots at middle age; which a lot of "neocons" have done. I am talking mainly of those talking heads we watch on TV. There is clearly a reason for them to say what they say. They are getting airtime, speaking fees and book tours. So, lets just say that I am suspect of the neocons in public life.

I have nothing to back up my suspicion of Bill Kristol. It is just a feeling which could be completely wrong. The same can be said of Horowitz. I enjoyed his book but when I see him on TV he comes off a bit opportunistic. Again, nothing to back that up with. Some people (like Herschenson/Praegler/Savage) I sense actually believe what they are saying.

Why does Savage not belong in this discussion?

Just because someone "worked" for Ronald Reagan does not mean he shares the same ideals that Reagan stood for. Some local editor tried the same fallacy as he promoted gun control in Utah. And just because one's father worked for Reagan does not mean his son follows the same path. And yes, Reagan was a true conservative in my view....Bush II is not, in my opinion. That does'nt mean I don't disagree with much of what he is doing; just not all of what he is doing.

My comment about Pipes is that I have only seen him talk about Israel, or what we should be doing to help Israel, or why bombing certain Arabs countries should also be in our interest as well as Israel's. He reminds me of Debka.com. Very interesting information but you need to understand their agenda. But I do not know his other views.

Finally. Instead of getting upset with me regarding my joke on Concentration Camps; get upset with the JDL and ADL for saying Conservative Christians are going to burn Jews at the stake once they watch The Passion (only a slight exaggeration on my part). I am mocking them. We are the insulted party, not you. I also have family who were killed in Germany during WW2 as a result of Hitler's war. They died differently, but they were killed nevertheless; and they were probably as innocent as your relatives were. But that decision is not up to me.

[jewbyc]

How many times has bush said one thing in favor of Israel and the next gone back on his word. You have got to start realizing one fact about politicians and that is "They say one thing to one group and another to some other group" Its called pandering!!!!

[jewbyc]

this is bush's stand on Israel directly from his web site

On the Middle East

“My policy in the Middle East is pretty clear. We are for a two-state solution. We want there to be a Palestinians state living side-by-side with Israel. Now, in order to achieve a two-state solution there needs to be a focused effort by all concerned parties to fight off terror. There are terrorists in the Middle East willing to kill to make sure that a Palestinian state doesn't emerge. It's essential that there be a focused effort to fight off terror.”

“This administration is prepared to help the Palestinians develop an economy. We're prepared to help the long-suffering Palestinian people. But the long-suffering Palestinian people need leadership that is willing to do what is necessary to enable a Palestinian state to come forth.”

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2078

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Alfred
I believe that the term "neo-con" is a leftist term for new found conservatives. So, I really shouldn't use the term. I think there is a sublime attempt to attach Neocon with NeoNazi....or at least to have one think of NeoNazi for a millisecond. I am not sure who coined the term but Chris Matthews uses it all the time.

I reckon that the arguement is "can a leopord really change its spots"? Can a tried and true liberal join the other side? I don't know....especially one who has changed his spots at middle age; which a lot of "neocons" have done. I am talking mainly of those talking heads we watch on TV. There is clearly a reason for them to say what they say. They are getting airtime, speaking fees and book tours. So, lets just say that I am suspect of the neocons in public life.

I have nothing to back up my suspicion of Bill Kristol. It is just a feeling which could be completely wrong. The same can be said of Horowitz. I enjoyed his book but when I see him on TV he comes off a bit opportunistic. Again, nothing to back that up with. Some people (like Herschenson/Praegler/Savage) I sense actually believe what they are saying.....


"Neocon" is used often as a PC Code Word for "Jew".
Jews within the Goverment or Think Tanks with the same views, lets say on Iraq (where the term is almost always referring to anyway), as a non-Jew Like Condoleeza Rice, are called 'Neocons'.

The term is also used on some non-Jews such as Rumsfeld, so it is not exclusive.. but Rumsfeld is not a very 'neo'.. con.
Even Cheney is somtimes included in this group, tho he in no way could be construed as 'neo' on his 'con' either.

For many Anti-Semites 'Neocon' is just the latest PC term for all the other old terms the used to use to describe the 'Jewish conspiracy to Rule the World'.
Past classics like "Jewish Bankers" (/Zionist Bankers), [the previous, but very long running] "illuminati", and "Masonic", etc come to mind.
In other words....
It's OK to have a Hawkish foreign policy... but if you're Jewish and have one, your motives are suspect and the old 'ZOG' and 'NWO' (or 'Protocols' for that matter) are really what they are accusing you of.


From the title post in "Planet Chomsky: how the Neocons took over the world":
"...In truth, the people labelled neo-cons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is another term for new, although some see it as short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another.

The ones outside government have almost no contact with President George Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to the insidious power of Richard Perle, chairman of the Defence Policy Board, over Administration policy, but I've been told by senior Administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he's shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings.

It's true that both Bush and the people labelled neo-cons agree that Saddam Hussein represented a unique threat to world peace. But correlation does not mean causation.

All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently. Besides, if he wanted to follow the neo-con line, Bush wouldn't know where to turn because while the neo-cons agree on Saddam, they disagree vituperatively on just about everything else. (If you ever read a sentence that starts with "neo-cons believe", there is a 99.44 per cent chance everything else in that sentence will be untrue.)

Still, there are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organised and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything..."
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=4854

[abu afak]

Back on topic..

Democrats, , and the Jews:

[b]Kerry's Jewish brother stumps for John

By John Murawski, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2004


South Florida's Jewish retirees may not live to see the day the country elects its first Jewish president, but they could settle for the next best thing: a president with a Jewish brother.

Presidential candidate John Kerry's younger brother, Cameron Kerry, brought that message to town Monday when he campaigned as a Jewish convert in Palm Beach County Democratic Jewish strongholds west of Boca Raton and in Boynton Beach.

It was the first time that many of the politically active retirees in Century Village and Westchester Country Club had heard about Cameron Kerry's unorthodox credentials.

Reared Catholic like his older brother John, Cameron became Chaim ben Abraham Avinu when he converted to Reform Judaism in 1983, the year he married a Jewish woman.

"The family was at ease with it," Cameron Kerry said of his conversion after his public appearance.

Cameron Kerry, 53, is not as tall or craggy as 60-year-old John Kerry.

His morning speech to some 150 people and afternoon speech to 550 people were nearly identical, hitting the standard themes of John Kerry's character and experience.

Monday's campaign stops in South Florida are part of the Kerry campaign's Jewish strategy that dispatched Cameron Kerry on his first trip to Israel last week to meet with officials and shore up support there.

Cameron Kerry, an adviser to his brother and a lawyer in Boston, played to a receptive audience, touting the presidential candidate's unstinting support for Israel and admiration of all things Jewish.

Ultimately, though, many retirees were more united in their dislike for the current president than in their awe for Cameron Kerry's adopted Yiddishkeit.

"Religion, color -- it makes no difference to me," said Ira Kaufman, a Century Village resident.

Added Lois King, another Century Villager: "As long as he's a good guy, I don't care what he is."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/south_county_04cfd8c0863f706f002a.html

[MGB8]

The NeoCons, in terms of the NeoCon Jews, are very similar to John McCain in terms of politics. Very strong on US defense - often because of being put off by the radicalism of some of the opposition to the vietnam war when they were younger, or the pro-communist anti-American streak of the left.

On economic and values issues, they are more middle of the road. They believe in a level of a welfare state - that we as a society should provide for our elderly, for example, and that capitalism requires some degree of regulation and even wealth transfer/circulation (since any wealth transfer from rich to poor quickly trickles back up to the rich - poor people spend all of their money on products, which companies make a profit off of, and the companies are majority owned by the wealthier classes).

On the other hand, they are anti-socialist and don't believe in having a system where it is too easy to not be a productive member of society. Some are a bit more free market, others a bit more regulatory. You get the same range on social issues. Some are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-censorship/standards. Others are less so.

The pro-Israel comes with the pro-Americanism - because its about ideals and values.

However, these NeoCons aren't Paleocons, who are essentially the haves and have-mores, like Bush joked, who are looking out only for their own interests, and who are simply using the "value-card" to get socially conservative but economically poor and disinterested (in terms of policy) votes. "Paleo" Conservatives are often anti-Israel, like James Baker, because it makes more sense to them to get Arab oil cheaper, and if that means sacrificing Jewish blood...so be it. These men are not about conservative ideals...they are about greed and selfishness, even if it hurts the nation in the long run.

[Boblight]

I am Pro-Israel, but I do not Trust Bush and his close Saudi Ties. Saudi-Arabia spends billions on Anti-Israeli-Pro Whabbism Propaganda. Saudi-Arabia is Anti-Peace in the Middle-East. They use Arab hatred of Jews as a wedge to keep Muslim public opiniom focused on the Jews, not on their corrupt/racist regime!!! Bush's close ties to Arabia and oil make his support for Israel suspicious at Best.. Bush supports Israel in Public to get backing from Christain Zionists.. I would bet if Christains Zionists pulled their support of Bush, Bush would cater more to Arab/oil interests. Than the Roadmap would have a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza and Prince Bandor would be pulling his strings... Call me a liberal but I like Kerry's plan to Free America from Mid-East oil as the best thing for America and Israel... If Bush is re-elected( G-D Forbid!) he doesn't have to cater to Christain Zionists and his real love of Arab oil will show!! More money going to the Mid-East for oil, more money for Terrorists!!! Not good for America, Israel, the West!!! Just my opinion!!! Bob

[CanDo]

I am Pro-Israel, but I do not Trust Bush and his close Saudi Ties. ... Bush's close ties to Arabia and oil make his support for Israel suspicious at Best.. Bush supports Israel in Public to get backing from Christain Zionists.. I would bet if Christains Zionists pulled their support of Bush, Bush would cater more to Arab/oil interests. Bob

Actions speak louder than words, ALWAYS.

President Bush has been the strongest supporter of Israel EVER. The letter that he has just recently given to Sharon, stating that the Arabs only have a right of return to an Arab state, and showing support for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, took a lot of balls.

During these times of Islamic terrorism, America needs a strong leader who is not afraid to take a bold step to defend America. Bush took bold steps when America invaded Afghanistan, and another very daring and bold step when America invaded Iraq.

Under Bush, America has really stood next to Israel, as Israel's closest and most important friend.

You can imagine all kinds of plots and subplots, and conspiracies, but before you jump to conclusions without evidence, take note of Bush's actions, not imaginary secret plans and plots.

America, and Israel, needs four more years of Bush as President!

[Boblight]

Can do, let me remind you Bush is the ONLY US president to support a Palestinian State( Saudi Pressure), and maybe behind Sharon's about face in Gaza. Yes actions speak louder than words, and under Bush , Sharon is retreating. Maybe Saudi Royals threatened Bush to Push Israel to making concessions without getting anything in return from the Arabs. If Bush is re-elected ( G-D Forbid) watch Saudi Pressure force Bush to pressure Isreael in further concessions, while Bush speaks of his support for Israel. Never trust a freind of your enemy!! Bush needs to get Mid-Evil on those racist bigoted Saudi Royls or the funds will keep comming to Al-Quida!!! Vote Kerry this November, it's the WISE choice!!! Bob

[CanDo]

Can do, let me remind you Bush is the ONLY US president to support a Palestinian State( Saudi Pressure), and maybe behind Sharon's about face in Gaza.

Wrong on both. Bush was the first President to put a "tentative" date on the creation of a Palestinian state, through the Roadmap.

And...... the idea of disengagement from Gaza came solely from Sharon's government. Bush had been backing the Roadmap. There was never a mention of disengagement from Bush, until Sharon brought it up.

Yes actions speak louder than words, and under Bush , Sharon is retreating.

Retreating? Because of Sharon's brilliant plan of disengagement from Gaza (which will never happen), the different Palestinian criminal gangs are turning on each other. What Sharon has to do is drag out the disengagement plan for another year to see if the positive changes continue.

Maybe Saudi Royals threatened Bush to Push Israel to making concessions without getting anything in return from the Arabs.

Threatened Bush in what way?

Sharon wants to trade the Gaza land for more West Bank land. Sharon feels that there are significant benefits in not having to support and protect settlements within Gaza. I hate the thought of Gush Katif disappearing from the face of this earth, and being made into another brutal, criminal Arab slum. I am not sure that Gaza disengagement will ever come to fruition.

If Bush is re-elected ( G-D Forbid) watch Saudi Pressure force Bush to pressure Isreael in further concessions, while Bush speaks of his support for Israel.

There is little link between the Saudis and Bush. What speaks for Bush's support is the strong support for Israel by America, up to this point, and Bush's letter to Sharon stating that Arabs do not have a right to return to Israel, and that borders will be determined by facts on the ground.

Never trust a friend of your enemy!!

The Saudis are not friends of America, but we have to deal with them because of the oil, and because we don't want Saudi Arabia to fall into the hands of worse Islamic extremists.

Do you want the Saudi royals to be overthrown?

Bush needs to get Mid-Evil on those racist bigoted Saudi Royls or the funds will keep comming to Al-Quida!!! Vote Kerry this November, it's the WISE choice!!! Bob

Kerry told the CAIR Arabs that the West Bank security fence was an impediment to peace, and other kinds of pro-Arab statements.. Then he addresses a Jewish group and says the opposite.

I do not trust Kerry. I don't think that he will be a strong leader. I think that he will be willing to make too many concessions to the world in order to "improve America's image". These concessions will hurt both America, Israel and the rest of the free world.

Be careful what you wish for!

[Boblight]

Can Do, Please take off the Bush sunglasses and see the world the way it is. And Yes, I would like to see a democratic change in Arabia. Bush wants democracy in the ME, how about the Saudi people? Something just ain't KOSHER between Bush and the Royals! Bob

[abu afak]

Kerry alternately pleases, befuddles Arab Americans and Jews

By JAMES KUHNHENN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry is a former altar boy with a Jewish heritage that includes at least two victims of the Holocaust in his family tree. His brother converted to Judaism. He supports Israel. So he should be a cinch with Jewish voters and donors, yes?

Not quite.

Over the past few months, wary leaders of the Jewish community have questioned Kerry's stance on the Middle East. Many were incensed when he told Arab-Americans in October that Israel's security fence presented a "barrier to peace."

They've urged him to clarify his position and warned that Jews, a reliable Democratic bloc in the past, are politically in play after President Bush's forceful post-Sept. 11, 2001, policies in the Middle East.

"The Jewish community has not been a battleground until now," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who attended a question-filled session between Kerry and Jewish leaders last week in New York.

For Kerry, holding on to Jewish voters is especially important in states such as Florida. So far, Kerry has fared well with Jews as he has moved to secure the Democratic Party nomination, but the Sunshine State could be crucial in November's general election, and Jewish defections to Bush could cost Kerry the state.

The closely divided U.S. electorate, however, has led Kerry to perform a political high-wire act.

Arab-Americans are also becoming a political force and constitute a sizable voting bloc in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. Kerry has gone out of his way to appeal for their votes. He has scored with his criticism of Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom many Arab-Americans accuse of civil rights violations in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

"We feel closer to Senator Kerry than we did to many of the other (Democratic) candidates who were running," said James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, an advocacy group for Arab-Americans.

Zogby pointed out that Ralph Nader, who is of Lebanese ancestry, received more than 13 percent of the Arab-American vote in 2000. More than 80 percent of those voters, Zogby said, chose Nader because of his pro-Arab stance on Middle East policy.

"There's something there (for Kerry) to be concerned about," Zogby said.

The Middle East thicket also could affect Kerry's ability to raise money. Jewish contributors have always been a staple of the Democratic donor base. With President Bush armed with a record-setting campaign treasury, any slippage in fund raising could be disastrous.

"Among the Democratic voter base for whom Israel is a seminal issue, there are many more who are writing checks to Republicans than I have ever seen," said Weiner, a Kerry supporter.

The Middle East also poses another problem for Kerry: It illustrates the criticism that he equivocates on issues.

In his speech to Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich., in October, Kerry said Israel's security fence was "provocative and counterproductive" and presented a "barrier to peace."

He also said that, if elected president, he would name former President Jimmy Carter or former Secretary of State James Baker as peace envoys to the region.

But many Jewish leaders have long perceived Carter and Baker as being tougher on Israel than on Arab countries and object to giving them negotiating roles.

At his meeting with about 50 Jewish leaders in New York on Feb. 28, Kerry backed off and offered to send President Clinton's former national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger and his special Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, as his intermediaries.

Kerry also has been a persistent critic of President Bush's foreign policy, calling it arrogant and inept and has demanded a greater role for the United Nations. That sparked a question from Jack Rosen, the president of the American Jewish Congress.

"Given his position on the question of multilateralism and knowing that the United Nations has not been a kind home for the Israelis ... would he continue to maintain the current Bush policy of vetoing any one-sided resolution at the U.N. Security Council," Rosen said he asked. "He quickly reacted and said he would maintain that same policy."

Kerry also repeated his assertion, made in a debate earlier in the day, that the fence is "necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate." Campaign spokesman David Wade later said the objections Kerry expressed in Michigan about the fence were based on its proposed location inside the West Bank, not on Israel's right to build it.

Rosen, a longtime Democrat, is a fan of Bush's Middle East policy and gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2002. He said that while Kerry has a long pro-Israel record, he was withholding final judgment.

"You can't go to Michigan and give nuances to one crowd and then come to New York and give nuances to another crowd," he said.

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat turned Bush supporter, exemplifies the problem Kerry faces.

"I am for Bush because I think his position on international terrorism and the Bush doctrine, which is we will go after terrorists and countries who harbor them, trumps everything else," Koch said. "I don't agree with any domestic position he has taken."

In meetings with Jewish backers, Kerry reminds them that his brother Cameron converted to Judaism and that his sister-in-law is Jewish. Kerry also mentions his Jewish ancestry - his grandparents on his father's side were Jewish.

Last week, an Austrian genealogist hired by the Boston Globe discovered that Kerry's grandmother's sister and brother, Jenny and Otto Lowe, died in the Holocaust. On his Web site, genealogist Felix Gundacker said Otto Lowe was murdered in the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia in 1943. Jenny Lowe disappeared in the Treblinka death camp.

Two weeks ago, aboard his campaign plane, Kerry voiced concern about the resurgence of anti-Jewish sentiment in America and abroad. Asked whether he intended to watch Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ," Kerry said he was unsure.

"I'm concerned about the anti-Semitism message," he said. "I don't know if it's there or not there. But it's a concern. There's a lot of that around right now. There's a lot in Europe. There's a lot in other parts of the country. I think we have to be careful of it."

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/special_packages/election2004/8137153.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

[Boblight]

I have read Annies, Publisher William Regenery@ is starting an ALL-White Christain dating service.. Is Annie aware of the racists publisher backing her books. I'd take what she says with a grain of salt!!!!! From, Intelligence Report, Summer 2004, Southern poverty Law Center! Bob