U.S. Jews, Arabs in Vote Flip-Flop?

[abu afak]

U.S. Jews, Arabs in vote flip-flop?
Monday, April 19, 2004

By Ann McFeatters, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON -- In the 2000 presidential election, a majority of Jewish voters pulled the Democratic lever, and a majority of Arab Americans voted Republican. In 2004, the opposite could occur.

In the Nov. 2 election, which most experts expect to be close, such a seismic shift in voting patterns has political consultants for both candidates biting their nails.

This year many Jewish voters are leaning toward re-electing President Bush, who just broke with 35 years of U.S. policies to endorse a plan for Israel to withdraw from Gaza but maintain disputed Jewish settlements in territory in the West Bank claimed by Palestinians.
Bush also rejected the Palestinians "right of return" to disputed territory where they lived before 1949.

Meantime, a poll of Arab Americans shows they are disappointed with Bush and increasingly more interested in John F. Kerry.

Republicans see an opening to snare Jewish voters and are pursuing it aggressively. In 2000, Bush got about 19 percent of the Jewish vote, and the Bush-Cheney campaign is determined to raise that significantly.

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who is spearheading the effort in the Senate to get more Jewish votes for Republicans, said on Friday there is "no question" that Jewish voters are in play this year. "I got over 40 percent of Jewish voters in Pennsylvania in 2000. Nobody before then would have believed that would be possible,'' he said.

"The president is focusing on this group as a swing vote, and I think the president will do exceptionally well [with Jewish voters]. This president has been singularly at the side of our closest ally in the Mideast [Israel]. After the events of 9/11, not just Jewish people but all Americans have a better perspective on what terrorism does,'' Santorum said. But Kerry is determined to hold onto the Democrats' base.

When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon came to the White House this past week to stand beside Bush as he made his historic and controversial announcement, the Kerry campaign asked the Israeli Embassy for a private meeting between Sharon and Kerry. The embassy refused, saying the prime minister's visit was too short. On Friday, the Israeli Embassy said Kerry would be invited to Israel and that Sharon would meet with Kerry the next time he is in Washington.

Kerry carefully did not criticize Bush's agreement with Sharon on maintaining settlements in Palestinian territory and not permitting Palestinian refugees in the area. "I think that could be a positive step,'' he said. "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel, and that's what the prime minister and the president, I think, are trying to address.''

Relations between Kerry and Jewish voters have been strained for several reasons. Kerry seemed to many Jews in the United States to be taking an anti-Israel position when he said that Israeli plans for a security fence that could keep Palestinians from their jobs were a "barrier to peace.'' Speaking to Arab Americans in Dearborn, Mich., last October, Kerry said Israel's security fence was "provocative and counterproductive."

Then there was the news, announced by the Boston Globe, that two of Kerry's relatives were Jewish and died in the Holocaust. Why, some Jews wondered, had it taken a newspaper to uncover this? Kerry is a Catholic.

Alarmed by the turn of events in a constituency long thought to be solidly Democratic, the Kerry camp arranged for Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to campaign with Kerry in Florida this week.

Lieberman is an observant Jew who earlier ran against Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination and was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 -- the first Jew to be on a major party ticket. Florida, the state that narrowly delivered the White House to Bush after the Supreme Court intervened, will be his first joint campaign appearance with Kerry. Jews have traditionally been important to the Democratic Party because of their high turnout in elections -- as much as 80 percent compared with 50 percent or less nationwide. They also help raise a lot of money for candidates and often live in key battleground states.

"If you swing the Jewish vote 10 percent in Ohio, that could give you Ohio," Nathan Diament, who lobbies for issues important to Orthodox Judaism, told The Washington Post.

Democrats are worried that if Jewish voters start holding major fund-raisers for Bush, the dent in Kerry's funding could be substantial. While Democrats have held on to many Jewish voters by liberal stands on such sensitive issues as environmental protection and abortion, Israel is a chord that resonates with observant Jews regardless of other issues.

Senate Democrats recently met with about 80 Jewish interest groups to stress that they are pro-Israel and that Bush has not cornered the market in providing support for Israel. Egypt and Israel still get the lion's share of American foreign aid, a legacy of the Camp David accords.

Arab Americans helped elect Bush in 2000. He won 45 percent of Arab American votes nationwide, while Al Gore won only 38 percent and Ralph Nader, 13 percent. In the four battleground states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, Bush did even better, winning 46 percent of Arab American votes, vs. 29 percent for Gore and 13 percent for Nader.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Arabs rallied around Bush even more fervently, horrified at what had happened and grateful for the president's insistence that the war on terror was not a war against Muslims.

But since then relations have soured. Bush's policies on the Israel-Palestinian situation have an 80 percent disapproval rating in the Arab-American community. In addition, 63 percent of Arab Americans express disapproval for restriction of civil liberties on immigrants,

A recent poll by the Arab American Institute done by independent pollster John Zogby found that if the election were being held now, Kerry would get 54 percent of the Arab Americans in the key states of Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. That compares with only 30 percent for Bush. If Nader, a Lebanese American, is a viable national candidate, he would get 26 percent, Kerry would get 40 percent and Bush would get 25 percent.

James Zogby, brother of the pollster and director of the Arab American Institute, says there is no question that Bush is in trouble with Arab Americans. Even if Bush found Osama bin Laden and "arm-wrestled him to the ground,'' Zogby said recently, he does not think Bush will be able to engender fresh support among Arab Americans.

After Bush appeared with Sharon, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei said: "We reject this; we will not accept it.'' He added that Bush "is the first U.S. president to give legitimacy to Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Nobody in the world has the right to give up Palestinian rights.''

Many Arab Americans think the key to Middle East peace is for the United States to be a neutral arbiter between Palestinians and Israel. Many now say with some bitterness that under Bush the United States is no longer the neutral broker it said it was but clearly and publicly sides with Israel.

Many Arab Americans also strongly oppose the war in Iraq and are upset that some testimony before the Sept. 11 commission has indicated that Bush was planning the war in Iraq immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, a charge the White House denies.

Several pollsters warned against jumping to conclusions about Jewish voters. They said Bush's embrace last week of Sharon's controversial plan might have little political effect because Jewish voters are not single-issue voters.

But the action further solidified Arab-American anger at Bush. Zogby told reporters he is "baffled" as to what Bush gained politically.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04110/302859.stm

[abu afak]

Arab American Voters Overwhelmingly Back Kerry

By Rolando Garcia
Reuters.com
July 15, 2004
http://www.aaiusa.org/news/aainews071504.htm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Concern about civil liberties and the war in Iraq have pushed President Bush's already low support among Arab-American voters in key battleground states even lower, a survey showed on Thursday.

In a poll of Arab-American voters in the key states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida only 24 percent said they would vote for Bush, a dip from 30 percent in April, while 51 percent supported Democratic nominee John Kerry.

In the poll, conducted between July 9 and 11, 13 percent supported independent candidate Ralph Nader, who is of Lebanese descent.

"Maybe if Bush said 'I'm sorry' and fired (Attorney General John) Ashcroft and (Vice President Dick) Cheney, that might make a difference," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, which commissioned the poll.

Ashcroft has been targeted by rights groups for security measures introduced since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, some of which have impacted Arab-Americans, and Cheney is criticized by opponents for unwavering support for invading Iraq.

Bush narrowly won the Arab-American vote in 2000, but 69 percent in the latest poll said Bush did not deserve to be re-elected, including 30 percent of those who identified themselves as Republicans.

Although they comprise only about one percent of the national electorate, the 500,000 Arab-Americans expected to vote in these four swing states could make the difference in a close race, especially in Michigan where they make up 5 percent of the overall electorate.

Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel said the campaign was actively courting Arab-Americans and that Bush's support for an independent Palestinian state and his promotion of democracy in the Middle East would resonate with those voters.

Topping the concerns of those polled were the economy, national security and health care, but nearly two-thirds also ranked Iraq and civil liberties as "very important" issues.

The Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law critics say threatens Americans' civil liberties, and the war in Iraq are the main factors souring Arab-Americans on Bush, said Zogby, who is also a member of the Democratic National Committee.

More than half of respondents supporting Kerry said their main reason was dislike of Bush, rather than support for Kerry's policies.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, which is owned by John Zogby, brother of James. It had a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

[Alfred]

The above assumes that American Jewish voters care more about Israel than they do about Liberalism.

I predict American/Israeli Jewish vote will be 70% Kerry

Blacks 90% Kerry
Latinos 45% Kerry
Asians 40% Kerry
WASPs 20% Kerry
Californians 80% Kerry (they are, afterall, a new ethnic group..Fruits and Nuts)
Arabs 80% Kerry
Dead people in Chicago 100% Kerry
Braindead people in Palm Beach 90% Kerry (120% when they count the hanging chads).
American Military personal 0% anybody (they will lose the ballots)
French posing as Americans 100% Kerry

[Boblight]

For Bush!!! Read this weeks AiPacs report on Kerry! HE is as supporting of Israel as GWB is, without the Saudi baggage!! Kerry won't have to check with Prince Bandar first before he makes a decision on the ME.

[Mediocrates]

Kerry's brother, Chaim ben Avraham has made several 'official' visits to Israel and is quite a good spokesman for his brother's position on Israel. I would submit that the people who are worried about what Kerry might do vis a vis Israel need to evaluate that in light of what Bush HAS DONE vis a vis Israel with all the power and clout of the office of the President. Sure he has made a few statements about what Israel should be willing to sacrifice. He's also the first President to say openly the PLO deserves their own [third] Palestinian nation. He's also riding shotgun over the Saudi Sponsored Suicide Roadmap. He's also engaged James Baker the most openly antiIsraeli official of his father's administration. He's also allowed Jimmy "The Mullah" Carter to be his middle east spokesman or at least has never distanced himself from the Palestinian Peanut. So ok, he's refused to ever allow Arafat a White House visit. Compared to Bill that's a good thing but on balance the record is not really all that stellar. If American Jews and Christian Zionists want to hang their hope on George "The best President for Israel, ever" Bush then we should just prod the Israelis to begin to think about worrying about their relationship to the US a little less.

[Alfred]

Medio:

You have to consider that Bush has been trying to fight a war against radical Islam and needs Arab support to some degree. Israel has been allowed to do more against the Pals than they were allowed under Clinton. Not enough, but more than under Clinton.

Kerry is Mr. Europe remember? He wants the French and Germans and the UN on his side for any political adventure.

Just how much support for Israel will that entail?

Zip, zero, nada. He may very well help force an "international" solution to the "Israeli problem"

So I believe Kerry would be a disaster for Israel, and a slightly less disaster for the US.

[Olivier]

French posing as Americans 100% Kerrya bit more complicated than this.

it's clear europe is anti-bush and so, pro-kerry.

it's clear too reelecting Bush would keep the unilateral, arrogant american policy on the same track. Paradoxically, it would show chirac was right in his policy of opposing a unilateral invasion and boost him!

now, even if a re-election of bush would clearly be a boost for the nations of europe getting together, we don't know (or rather we do have an idea) in what state the world will be after four more years of idiocies. So Kerry is better, even if we don't know him.


another opinion on that
In Europe, passionate cheering for Kerry
Charles M. Sennott/Boston Globe The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 27, 2004


LONDON Most European historians and political pundits agree that it has been a long time, at least a generation, since the world has felt so consumed with passion about an American election, and since so many have been so hopeful of regime change in Washington. This year, they say, there is one place where the choice between John Kerry and George W. Bush will indeed have a profound impact, and interestingly it is not the Middle East. It is Europe. Timothy Garton Ash, director of the European Studies Center at Oxford, argues that the ‘‘wrenching confrontation’’ between Europe and America over the war in Iraq has plunged the world into crisis and made this ‘‘a formative election for the world.’’ If Bush is re-elected, Garton Ash said, his perceived unilateral approach to the international community and willingness to flout international law will cause Europe ‘‘to define ourselves against America.’’

He added: ‘‘You will become ‘the other,’ for Europeans.’’

But if the winner is Kerry, who is perceived as having a multilateral and internationalist approach to diplomacy, he said, the European Union is more likely to develop ‘‘in concert’’ with the United States, to look to it as a partner in the economy and security and to focus on what the two sides of the Atlantic have in common.

A West European diplomat in Washington said: ‘‘There will be a sense of relief in Europe if Kerry is elected. He has a very different style than Bush, and a very different instinct as an internationalist. And in diplomacy, style is substance.’’

‘‘The foreign policy establishment in the Democratic Party is not substantively different from that of the Republicans, certainly not in the Middle East,’’ the diplomat said. ‘‘But with Kerry the feeling is that there will at least be a dialogue, an attempt at understanding.’’ Steven Everts, senior research fellow at the Center for European Reform, a London-based think tank, said, ‘‘This is a foreign policy election for the U.S. and a critical election for the world.’’

The newly enlarged European Union, which is in the process of adopting a constitutional treaty, is coordinating a new foreign and security policy, and seeking to redefine its role in the Middle East and the Caucasus. While Europe has been grappling with this process over the last three years, Bush has alienated many Europeans. Even before the Iraq rift, Bush rejected the Kyoto protocols on global warming and enacted steel tariffs that defied America’s free-market rhetoric.

‘‘If Bush is defeated, Europe will say this was a difficult period, but an aberration,’’ Everts said. ‘‘Four more years of Bush, however, will have a long-term impact on European policy, and the development of a permanent rift between the U.S. and Europe.’’ One crucial foreign policy difference between Kerry and Bush, he added, is that Kerry would disconnect the war in Iraq from the wider war on terror — a linkage the Bush administration has repeatedly asserted exists but that Europe has never bought. ‘‘If we can disconnect that, it would unlock potential for cooperation in the future between America and Europe,’’ Everts said.

Europeans hold a very negative view of this White House. The Economist magazine published a poll this year that showed only 6 percent of Europeans held a positive view of Bush. But this loathing of Bush in Europe is about more than just popularity ratings among a world constituency that has no vote in America. It is also a matter of policy.

It is no secret that the UN is approaching Iraq with great caution, leaving some political analysts to suggest that European leaders are dragging their feet to punish Bush or at least deny him the chance to use an international effort in Iraq to boost his campaign. Many pundits in Europe regard Kerry’s public comment in March that foreign leaders preferred him over Bush as a clumsy political gaffe, but it reflects a widely held European view that Bush embodies much about America that the world loves to detest. The long lines at cinemas from Paris to Prague for Michael Moore’s ‘‘Fahrenheit 911’’ attest to that. Newspapers and magazines and television talk shows and speeches in parliaments across Europe make the sentiment apparent on a daily basis. Laura Tyson, dean of the London Business School and a top economic adviser in the Clinton administration who is now advising Kerry, said, ‘‘It’s important to note that this election is about America and its superpower status.’’in the short term I personally fail to see any real difference between bush and kerry on iraq. Do you?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Kerry? A big Israel supporter today?

What about tomorrow (http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv)?

[Elisheba]

Jimmy Carter said that President Bush is to blame for the collapse of the peace process, when Arafat-supported terrorism is the real reason. In a Brownsville, Texas speech back in April, Carter said:

“The prime source of animosity towards the United States is the lack of progress in dealing with the Palestinian issue… We have been exclusively committed to the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel, and have made no effort to try to have a balanced negotiating position between Israel and the Palestinians… In the meantime, of course, the Israelis have established hundreds of settlements all over Palestinian land with no critical comment ever coming from the present Bush administration.”

Barack Obama said the security barrier erected by Israel to keep terrorists out is “a wall dividing the two nations [and] another example of the neglect of this administration in brokering peace.”

Imam Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain (who gave the invocation at the Democratic Convention) of Georgetown University, testified in court as a character witness on behalf of Sami al-Arian. Al-Arian is currently under indictment for being the North American head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization which is responsible for the deaths of more than 100 Israelis.

“We also note the VIP treatment given to Michael Moore, who sat with President Carter in the presidential box and who has been outspoken in his criticism and hostility toward Israel and America.

“The decision to highlight these individuals is part of a disturbing anti-Israel trend in the Democratic Party that stands in stark contrast to the steadfast support of Israel exhibited by President Bush and Republican leaders.

“According to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush has proven his ‘ongoing friendship to the State of Israel and the Jewish people.’ Ed Koch, the Democratic former mayor of New York, said that President Bush ‘has exhibited more concern for the Jewish state than any other President.’ And Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman told Jewish Democrats gathered in Boston, ‘I don’t have a negative word to say about President Bush when it comes to supporting Israel.’

The purpose of a party convention is to present the party’s leaders and principles to the voters. Unfortunately, the American Jewish community got a good look at the disturbing anti-Israel bias at the core of today’s Democratic Party.

excerpted from http://www.rjchq.org/News.asp?formmode=Detail&ID=594 by a life-long democrat who expects to vote republican in November ...

[Eugeenie]

This is my first post here, so be gentle, folks. Or if not gentle, at least try to avoid any of the body parts I'm still using.

I'm fairly familiar with what John Kerry has to say on the subject of Israel, but am starting to become a bit apprehensive about the commitment to such words, since his web site gives every indication that he is trying to adjust his appeal in order to capture as many votes as possible. Better to judge based on actions rather than words, no?

Perhaps I am making an assumption here, but I look at a candidate's official website as that candidate's face to the world -- or at least the cyberworld in which we are all residing here. At his website there is an unrelenting, and very virulent and dominant element posting nothing but polemic, anti-Israel and very often anti-semitic propaganda. The message, the tactics, and especially the language corresponds quite closely to that used by the ISM, the Electronic Intifada and such. I'm sure folks most folks here would recognize the rhetorec, and recognize the code words -- the conspiracy theories with Jews always placed in the middle, the term "You typical Zionist" used as an epithet towards a person who is openly Jewish, the support for Hamas, the specious attempts to change the definition of "anti-semitic"..... Well, it reads like an open book.

Now, if the administrators of his website would only remind people occasionally of his stated stance on the issues, I would be satisfied that his commitment is real. If they would remove the obviously anti-semitic statements, likewise. Unfortunately, they not only do neither, but one administrator in particular has been aggressively censoring the replies to these people. When one person cut and pasted a daitribe from a known terrorist website, and then indulged in anti-semitic rhetorec in the next post, the official response was to chide the person who objected.

I don't know. A paradigm shift? Perhaps there is, because I have noticed an increasingly ugly anti-semitic element to the left that is based upon the semantics of Islamist propaganda, and this observation is coming from a life-long liberal. If the actions of the website are any indication, these people are being coddled and facilitated to a degree much greater than Kerry's stated positions would indicate.

[Mediocrates]

where? pls point to it.

[Eugeenie]

where? pls point to it.


Here is the forum in question, and you may need to poke around for a while in the current as well as archived postings to get the full effect.


http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=122

[Elisheba]

Welcome, Eugeenie!

You are, of course, correct.

Mediocrates apparently didn't bother to read the info I posted immediately preceding your first post, but that isn't unusual...after all, we are 'only women' ... :rolleyes: !

[Mediocrates]

No I read it. I asked for a specific pointer to that info in the john Kerry website which isn't all that well laid out.

[Mediocrates]

LETTER FROM RUTH MATAR (WOMEN IN GREEN) JERUSALEM
Thursday, August 5, 2004

Dear Friends,

I have gotten a number of emails from you, asking me why I am so interested (a few unfriendly emails used the word obsessed) in the outcome of the American Presidential Election.

I am an American Jewish citizen - and proud of it - and therefore it is very important to me, and many other Jews, who will lead America in the next four years.

Jews worldwide are passionately interested in the survival of Israel, and the possibility of their Jewish brethren being able to return to their Biblical Homeland, especially after the horrendous Holocaust of Jewish Europe. Anti-Semitism in the Arab world has long been rampant, even after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism in Europe and other countries in the world, has again surfaced, like a cancer after a short remission period.

America has proven itself to be the only reliable friend of the Jewish People. It has often been in the forefront, to defend Israel against the new anti-Semitic onslaught. This has been done not just by beautiful words, but by effective action. The whole world, led by the Arab countries, may vote sanctions against Israel in the United Nations General Assembly, but all these nations are impotent against the veto of the United States in the United Nations Security Council.

Jewish interest in American presidential elections goes way back. Ephraim Kishon, Israel's bestselling humorist, wrote this satirical essay in 1964, after the election of Lyndon Johnson as president. Barry Goldwater was the candidate who ran against Johnson. I think that you will find this satire quite relevant to the present situation. Enjoy! Have a good laugh! (Or, at least a small chuckle!)

***

Satirical Essay by Ephraim Kishon

"Well, sir, so justice triumphed after all."

"Lyndon Johnson was elected President of the United States with an enormous majority, while Goldwater suffered an abject defeat. He got just 39 per cent of the vote, only slightly more than Mapai [Israeli Labor Party. -- R.M.] at the last election here."

"What a flop!"

"Indeed. Though we, as a people, don't have to be sorry. President Johnson is a loyal friend of our country, while Barry Goldwater always kept aloof of Israel, perhaps because of his Jewish grandfather."

"That makes sense, psychology-wise. Really, how lucky we are that LBJ won."

"I'm not so sure, sir. Quite possibly Johnson, whose friendship for Israel is quite well known, will now have to be somewhat severe towards us, so as to prove that the Jewish vote has no influence on his policy line."

"Good Lord!"

"So it's really a pity that they elected Johnson. As I understand it now, Goldwater would have been better for the Jews because he is against them."

"Exactly. Though, had Goldwater made a gesture towards us, they might well have said that he is doing it because of his Jewish grandfather and then he would have had to prove his outspokenly anti-Israel feelings, in order to set the record right. President Johnson, on the other hand, cannot harden his attitude toward us, lest he be accused that his friendship towards Israel was opportunistic, a trick for attracting the Jewish vote."

"So, Johnson is to be preferred after all?"

"I don't know. Goldwater is still nearer to us, because of his Jewish grandfather."

"A pity Johnson had no such grandfather."

"God forbid! So that he, too, should be against us?"

"I confess. I'm a little mixed-up, sir. Couldn't you tell me in plain words what's good for the Jews?"

***

With Blessings and Love for Israel,

Ruth Matar

P.S. I would be most interested to know your reactions to Ephraim Kishon's satirical essay.

Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380
mailto:michael@womeningreen.org
http://www.womeningreen.org

To make a contribution via our secure server or through Paypal, go to: https://host5.apollohosting.com/womeningreen/funds/donation/donation.html

To subscribe to the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:
list4-subscribe@womeningreen.org

To unsubscribe from the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:
list4-unsubscribe@womeningreen.org

[Elisheba]

where? pls point to it.

You can't be so naive as to expect Kerry's own website to be truthful, can you?

So, how about this article? (I especially like paragraphs 1 and 4 myself.)

Flip-flopping for the Jews

Oy vay , as my bubby would say. A lot of Jews will vote Republican this year. Bubby's spinning in the great beyond.

Most Jews vote Democratic, and they have for a long time. They have voted in huge majorities for Democratic nominees since FDR created the New Deal. Several Republican nominees since have only occasionally increased Jewish voting percentages. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 40 percent of the Jewish vote against Adlai Stevenson in 1956; Ronald Reagan won 39 percent against Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush won 35 percent against Michael Dukakis in 1988. He slipped to 11 percent against Bill Clinton.

Although George W. did a little better with 19 percent against Al Gore four years ago, the president should do better in November. Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York who is as partisan as a Democrat comes, is a Bush man this year.

"I do not agree with President Bush on a single major domestic issue," he says, "but in my view those issues pale in comparison with the threat of international terrorism. The stated goal of al-Qaida and its supporters is to kill or convert every infidel, and that means Jews, Christians, Buddhists and everyone else who will not accept Islam's supremacy."

Critics of George W., Jewish and otherwise, complain that he plays to evangelical Christians (among the best friends Israel has), but there's good reason for people of different faiths, including moderate Muslims in America, to encourage the president's strong stand against terrorism.

Ed Koch, like a growing number of his co-religionists, doesn't think a President Kerry could withstand the pressures from the left-wing radicals of his party, no matter how hard they bit their tongues in Boston. These lefties are hostile to Israel, and cultivate strong links to anti-American partisans in Europe, especially in France and Britain.

John Kerry tells Jewish audiences what they want to hear, and when he imagines he's safely out of their sight, flip-flops. During the primaries, in a speech to the Arab-American Institute, he denounced the fence Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was building on the West Bank. "We don't need another barrier to peace," he said.

Eight months later, with the Democratic nomination safely tucked away, he sang a different tune: "The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense erected in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israeli citizens."

He suggested that he might send Jimmy Carter, the rare evangelical Christian who is not a friend of Israel, to work on Middle East peace negotiations. When that idea bombed, he blamed the "mistake" on his speechwriters. It's not clear whether John Kerry would encourage negotiations with Yasser Arafat, whom he described as a "role model" and "statesman" after the signing of the Oslo accord. How he really feels apparently depends on where he is, and who's listening.

The Republicans count on Jews in America to spot the Kerry weakness as it affects Jewish and Israeli interests. They are actively courting the 500,000 Jews who live in Florida, where a small shift could make a big difference.

Only one in 10 Jews in Florida are thought to have voted for George W. in 2000, but that was before Sept. 11. A spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign does the math. "Without Joe Lieberman on the ticket we get a jump," he told the St. Petersburg Times. "Then you add in the president's Israel policies and our grassroots effort . and you can't help but get a big jump."

Many Jews agree with Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who calls President Bush "the best friend Israel ever had." In January, 31 percent of the Jews surveyed in a major poll said they would vote for the president's re-election. The perils of Middle Eastern politics and worldwide terrorism trump everything else.

When Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981, the world universally - and naively - condemned the raid. Had it not been destroyed, there would be no argument today about whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. One of the Scuds that landed on Tel Aviv and Kuwait in 1991 would likely have carried a nuclear tip. Saddam, in fact, had shown no mercy when he used poison gas to kill his own Kurds.

Terrorism in the Middle East was used first against the Jews, but the suicide bombers were but a warm-up act for the terrorism against the United States on 9/11. Jews who take pride in their smarts know the stakes this time.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20040805.shtml#


... and how about some light reading? ...

http://www.thbookservice.com/bookimages/27/c6527_full.jpg

[Eugeenie]

[QUOTE=Elisheba]You can't be so naive as to expect Kerry's own website to be truthful, can you?

I'm not sure about truthful or not truthful, naivete or cynicism, myself, but there is a continual pattern of supporting anti-semitism at the Kerry forum, especially by the top administrator of his site. They are going out of there way to silence anything that might be construed as anti-arab, but it's full speed ahead on the anti-semitic garbage.

[abu afak]

The Kerry Forum is VERY Tame by Internet message board standards from what I've seen in a few minutes read...
About as tame as they get .. except for here.. naturally.

I've just signed on there and made a few posts to clear up any misconceptions... and will be there now for a while.

[Elisheba]

You can't be so naive as to expect Kerry's own website to be truthful, can you?

I'm not sure about truthful or not truthful, naivete or cynicism, myself, but there is a continual pattern of supporting anti-semitism at the Kerry forum, especially by the top administrator of his site. They are going out of there way to silence anything that might be construed as anti-arab, but it's full speed ahead on the anti-semitic garbage.


Yes, Eugeenie, you are absolutely correct. The Democrats are going full-tilt after the arab vote and it is very upsetting indeed.

[Elisheba]

The Kerry Forum is VERY Tame by Internet message board standards from what I've seen in a few minutes read...
About as tame as they get .. except for here.. naturally.

I've just signed on there and made a few posts to clear up any misconceptions... and will be there now for a while.

We are not discussing any 'Kerry Forum' but rather the official Kerry For President website.

Of course, the website is tame. It is fully sanctioned by the democratic party.

The fact that a party that claims a great majority of the Jewish American vote has turned against Jews and is now supporting arab causes is what we are concerned about.

As to the 'Kerry Forum' - perhaps it's a good idea for more of us to sign up there - I wasn't even aware of it until Eugeenie posted the link on this thread!

[Elisheba]

Oh, GAWD, I just went to the Kerry Forum.

Did you know that 10 out of 10 terrorists are supporting Kerry/Edwards?

[Elisheba]

Here's another forum which addresses Kerry; this link is to their discussion of possible vice-presidential candidates.

There are a few people here who ought post on the following (and others like it) rather than on IsraelForum.com.

http://interactive.zogby.com/fuse/messageview.cfm?catid=8&threadid=25


However, the Kerry Forum to which Eugeenie directed us has got to be my favorite so far ... :o .

[Eugeenie]

The Kerry Forum is VERY Tame by Internet message board standards from what I've seen in a few minutes read...
About as tame as they get .. except for here.. naturally.

I've just signed on there and made a few posts to clear up any misconceptions... and will be there now for a while.



And had at least one deleted by the same admnistrator who runs interference for the ISM types there.


From my standpoint, it really isn't really so much the magnitude of the statements being made so much as the reactions by the Kerry people to these statements. The tolerance for personal attacks upon Israel supporters is high. The tolerance for personal attacks upon the Palestinian supporters is low. Israel supporters can be singled out as having more loyalty to Israel than the U.S., while statements detailing the rhetorec used by the ISM have been deleted. Anti-semitic statements are tolerated as long as they are enveloped in the typical rhetorec used by Islamists, but there is little tolerance for similar statements regarding Arabs. Any complaint about anti-semitism is met with a tongue lashing by the administrator, but nothing similar when it comes to complains of anti-Arab bias.


I have to agree that I have certainly seen much worse forums as well, and overall it may be more tame than some, but I get a real sense that the forum is being engineered to achieve a certain tenor, and that sense is based upon the way postings are censored. A posting loudly proclaiming various bits of "Jewish Denial" stand while a similar one initiated as a response detailing Arab or Islamic denial are deleted. Maybe I'm nuts and am reading far too much between the lines, but I've posted there daily for quite a while, and sometimes the only way to get a sense of what is happening is to see what is being censored and what is not. There was an abrupt change about a month ago in the way the site was being administered, as suddenly the administrators were encouraging the ISM types to contact the Kerry campaign through the mail as well as aggressively censoring Israel supporters. Now, when I see this, I think one of two things -- either the site administrators are acting on their own, in which case I start to wonder about the Kerry campaigns disinterest in the happenings on their own forum, or else the administrators are acting according to directives they have received. If the latter is true, then I would place my bet on they have calculated that the Islamic/Arabic vote is more important for them to capture than the Jewish -- which is the basis for this thread.

[Eugeenie]

Oh, GAWD, I just went to the Kerry Forum.

Did you know that 10 out of 10 terrorists are supporting Kerry/Edwards?



I'm not sure very many of these people actually support Kerry. They do love to rationalize why Palestinian Arabs need to murder Israelis though. In one sentence they blather about "the last resort of an oppressed people", (reacting as any oppressed people would react to the "criminal Zionists") and in the next sentence deny that they have just supported terrorism.

I get the feeling many of these people are Naderites/ISM members/Chomskydittoheads/ anarchists who have no intention of voting for Kerry.

[abu afak]

And had at least one deleted by the same admnistrator who runs interference for the ISM types there.


From my standpoint, it really isn't really so much the magnitude of the statements being made so much as the reactions by the Kerry people to these statements. The tolerance for personal attacks upon Israel supporters is high. The tolerance for personal attacks upon the Palestinian supporters is low. Israel supporters can be singled out as having more loyalty to Israel than the U.S., while statements detailing the rhetorec used by the ISM have been deleted. Anti-semitic statements are tolerated as long as they are enveloped in the typical rhetorec used by Islamists, but there is little tolerance for similar statements regarding Arabs. Any complaint about anti-semitism is met with a tongue lashing by the administrator, but nothing similar when it comes to complains of anti-Arab bias.


I have to agree that I have certainly seen much worse forums as well, and overall it may be more tame than some, but I get a real sense that the forum is being engineered to achieve a certain tenor, and that sense is based upon the way postings are censored. A posting loudly proclaiming various bits of "Jewish Denial" stand while a similar one initiated as a response detailing Arab or Islamic denial are deleted. Maybe I'm nuts and am reading far too much between the lines, but I've posted there daily for quite a while, and sometimes the only way to get a sense of what is happening is to see what is being censored and what is not. There was an abrupt change about a month ago in the way the site was being administered, as suddenly the administrators were encouraging the ISM types to contact the Kerry campaign through the mail as well as aggressively censoring Israel supporters. Now, when I see this, I think one of two things -- either the site administrators are acting on their own, in which case I start to wonder about the Kerry campaigns disinterest in the happenings on their own forum, or else the administrators are acting according to directives they have received. If the latter is true, then I would place my bet on they have calculated that the Islamic/Arabic vote is more important for them to capture than the Jewish -- which is the basis for this thread.

You Certainly are correct..

While the board looks tame.. it's so because it De-claws Israel supporters.

I had two strings removed already!

one "The Settlement Myth" which had gotten only mildly confrontational.. with lunatic 'DefeatBush'..
Posted here on Israel Forum by me: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=2036


and another "Where Hatred Trumps Bread", http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003690 an Article Published in the Wall Street Journal by celebrated author (4 time O'Henry Prize winner for Short Stories and essays) which only had a friendly response from poster 'heart' and a greeting from me. Perhaps the most well written article I've ever read on the conflict.

They just took it down.. and sent me a warning.. I asked for a reason and got NONE.
and I am now on 'Preview' not allowed resonses without their preview.. and the aren't previewing at the moment, so I cant post.

I hope this isn't what we can expect from Kerry-Edwards America.

[Elisheba]

From my standpoint, it really isn't really so much the magnitude of the statements being made so much as the reactions by the Kerry people to these statements. The tolerance for personal attacks upon Israel supporters is high. The tolerance for personal attacks upon the Palestinian supporters is low. Israel supporters can be singled out as having more loyalty to Israel than the U.S., while statements detailing the rhetorec used by the ISM have been deleted. Anti-semitic statements are tolerated as long as they are enveloped in the typical rhetorec used by Islamists, but there is little tolerance for similar statements regarding Arabs. Any complaint about anti-semitism is met with a tongue lashing by the administrator, but nothing similar when it comes to complains of anti-Arab bias.


That is exactly what struck me and why I posted (above) how that forum is 'my favorite!'

[Elisheba]

While the board looks tame.. it's so because it De-claws Israel supporters.

I had two strings removed already!

I hope this isn't what we can expect from Kerry-Edwards America.

Wow, abu afak: I saw your user name all over that forum and would never have thought they removed threads of yours. When they do that, does their Admin let you know the reason?

BTW, I hope we don't experience a Kerry-Edwards America!

[Eugeenie]

You Certainly are correct..

While the board looks tame.. it's so because it De-claws Israel supporters.

I had two strings removed already!

one "The Settlement Myth" which had gotten only mildly confrontational.. with lunatic 'DefeatBush'..
Posted here on Israel Forum by me: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=2036


and another "Where Hatred Trumps Bread", http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003690 an Article Published in the Wall Street Journal by celebrated author (4 time O'Henry Prize winner for Short Stories and essays) which only had a friendly response from poster 'heart' and a greeting from me. Perhaps the most well written article I've ever read on the conflict.

They just took it down.. and sent me a warning.. I asked for a reason and got NONE.
and I am now on 'Preview' not allowed resonses without their preview.. and the aren't previewing at the moment, so I cant post.

I hope this isn't what we can expect from Kerry-Edwards America.



I have been ignored as well, when asking for reasons.

Of course, they can't really admit to the real reason, can they? What with one aforementioned thug given carte blanche to attack at will, it certainly isn't merely "civility" they are after. I really have no problem with censoring for behavior, but they are obviously censoring for content -- a whole different kettle of fish.