Why is the position taken on Israel ...

[oberliner]

by the vast majority of Progressive Democrats so unpopular here?

I don’t get it.

I'm a new member, but have been an avid reader and fan of DU since the 2004 election.

I always thought this was a place where the opinions of people like Russ Feingold and Ned Lamont and Wes Clark were embraced.

I seriously don’t understand why on this one issue there is this abandonment.

I’ve seen more people cheering for articles written about Israel by Pat Buchanan than supporting statements made about Israel by John Kerry.

Help me understand why this is happening.

[Ravenseye]

1. anti-war maybe?

I know personally I have a problem with any political action which results in the death of children, whether that be a Hezbollah rocket, or an Israeli bomb. I know there are a number of people here who agree. I think maybe people here are fed up with death and destruction and we just can't take it anymore.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Exactly. It is not anti-Israel but revulsion at the policy.

The "shock and awe" approach didn't shock or awe anyone in Iraq, and it is serving only to terrorize the citizens of Lebanon. Hezbullah fights on with renewed intensity.

[Roy]

69. Not to mention many, many new recruits.....

With only revenge for dead family members in their hearts.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. The Israel/Palestine problem has always been a sore point here

Usually, any post about the situation must be posted there, and the rules are very strict.

I think that there are people who post here who have a strong emotional stake in the issue, and tend to post items that others view as inflammatory. I salute the mods for doing their best to keep the flame wars contained.

There are other people who are trying to see all sides to the issue and to make sense of it, including the larger picture (what is motivating Iran and Syria to do what they are doing/what is motiviating Likud to do this now in Israel). They are trying to get information, and trying their best to keep from offending those who are emotional over the situation.

FWIW, Stephanie Miller, a progressive radio host, has been getting a lot of phone calls on her stance on the issue-so it is a hot topic on the air as well as online.

[htuttle]

4. Don't you see both sides of that issue represented here?

Seems to me -- a person that thinks BOTH sides are f'ckin nutz and ought to drop their respective stone age beliefs -- that both pro-Isreal and pro-Palestinian viewpoints get expressed to reasonably equal degrees here at DU. In fact, if things lean any one way, it's probably toward the pro-Israel side, since that's the party's official stance.

I'm always amazed when someone says that DU leans against Israel -- I guess they are only reading 1/2 of the messages. Perhaps it's a common psychological tendency to pay more attention to the message subjects that you disagree with the most.

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Anything that even so much as sneezes towards pro-Arab is labeled

anti-Semitic. AIPAC and the ADL has done a bang-up job in that regard.

[oberliner]

16. Do you really think it's 1/2?

I agree with you that both viewpoints get expressed.

I think it's far from half and half.

Do you think that half of the messages posted on this topic have been along the lines of the statement from Russ Feingold on the matter:

"I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks against Israeli citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated."

If you think that half of DU is in agreement with Feingold's statement above then I guess you are right in saying I must be paying more attention to the message subjects I disagree with.

[htuttle]

27. I think more than half of DU is in agreement with Feingold's statement

Not everyone posts that fact -- there's less reason to post when you agree with the official mainstream opinion.

[oberliner]

28. thanks

Well that's encouraging then!

[bloom]

5. OMG

Like you think that just because "Russ Feingold and Ned Lamont and Wes Clark" say a thing - that we should or would agree?


Well - the DLC thinks that anti-war people are anti-American. And I think they and all the pro-war freaks are.

[oberliner]

10. I didn't say that

No I don't think that.

It just seems odd that the vast majority of prominent Progressive Democrats are saying one thing and the majority of DU posts are not only disagreeing but are in many cases revolted by the statements.

Is there another issue that creates this sort of phenomenon?

[bloom]

13. Like the Iraq War?

There's all sorts of things.

I don't think the majority of Democratic politicians at the national level are esp. progressive.

Kucinich, McKinney, Conyers - there aren't that many.


On edit:

Maybe you are confused and think that the Progressive Policy Institute (of the DLC) is actually Progressive. (Or maybe you work for them :shrug: )

[oberliner]

18. Conyers

Even Progressives like John Conyers have made statements on the subject that do not seem to be particular well-received here.

John Conyers:

"None of us condone terrorism in any way, shape, or form, and I believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that was, is, and remains a threat to peace in the Mideast, and must be dismantled and disarmed."

http://www.house.gov/conyers/Lebanon_PC.htm

[bloom]

22. I was talking about in general

But let's just print the whole statement:


Conyers Urges Action to Quell Violence in Middle East


Representatives Conyers and Kilpatrick discuss Israel/Hezbollah/Hamas conflict

Today, July 19, 2006, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. joined Congressmans John Dingell, Bill Pascrell, and Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick at a press conference on the crisis in the Middle East.

Representing the largest Arab-American population in the country, Mr. Conyers is deeply troubled by the escalating violence in the Middle East. His statement follows:

“I am extremely concerned over the increasing deaths, injuries, destruction and suffering in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and Israel. We all agree that actions of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah that sparked the present conflict were reprehensible. We also believe there needs to be a change in America’s posture of non-involvement. These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. President Bush must intervene immediately to work with the UN and EU to begin negotiating the terms of a ceasefire that has the necessary elements to preclude another outbreak of violence. The president should show moral leadership by stepping up to this challenge. He needs to demonstrate that he is not just a ‘war president,’ that he can also be a president for peace.

None of us condone terrorism in any way, shape, or form, and I believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that was, is, and remains a threat to peace in the Mideast, and must be dismantled and disarmed. This conflict cannot be resolved militarily; only diplomacy can bring an end to the bloodshed. Without the participation of the most powerful nation in the world, there will be no resolution. In the recent past we have witnessed strong American leadership working to bring peace and stability to the region through Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. It’s time for George W. Bush to show the same kind of leadership as his predecessors. Once the violence has ceased, the US should immediately call on the World Bank and other international institutions to convene a donors conference to rebuild Lebanon’s shattered infrastructure.

The Bush administration’s Katrina-like effort to get Americans out of the war zone is disgraceful. The State Department now estimates that 5,000 Americans will be evacuated by the end of the week. That’s one-fifth of the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon evacuated in 9 days. At the current rate, it will take 3 or 4 more weeks to evacuate the rest of the Americans. This response is unacceptable.

There are close to 7,000 Americans from the Detroit area presently stranded in Lebanon. The vast majority of them are in the south, where the heaviest bombardment is taking place. While the US’s efforts to transport people from Lebanon to Cyprus is finally starting to get underway, our constituents are still responsible for getting themselves from the villages in the south to the American embassy in Beirut so they can be evacuated. With continuous shelling and most roads destroyed, many people are stuck in their homes and villages, unable to make the trip.

The US should make immediate arrangements with the Israeli and Lebanese militaries and the UN to ensure that these Americans can be evacuated. A secure route from the south to Beirut should be arranged with the Israeli military so our citizens can get to the U.S. Embassy safely.”

[charlie]

30. And further

Congressman John Conyers hosted a press conference Friday for local media and spoke out against the excessive use of force by the Israeli military. State Senator Irma Clark-Coleman also attended, speaking to the media and distributing a statement on the conflict. Mr. Conyers said the "general consensus was that although Israel has a right to defend itself, the bombings are a disproportionate response". Conyers expressed his worry about the conditions being imposed on the innocent Lebanese civilians. When asked about the influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington on the vote for H RES 921, Mr. Conyers said his vote "was not a difficult decision, it (H RES 921) was not balanced."

http://arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=5889

I don't know about the OP's claim that Conyers' stance not being "well-received" here. If Conyers is getting ragged on, I haven't seen it.

[oberliner]

41. Conyers is not being ragged on

It the content in his statement that I said was not being well-received.

Specifically:

"I believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that was, is, and remains a threat to peace in the Mideast, and must be dismantled and disarmed."

And, as I consider the responses I think maybe that it is in fact just a small but disturbing group of posts that I have seen which do not express agreement with the characterization of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization that must be dismantled and disarmed.

Thank you to all who responded.

[Mandate My Ass]

24. can you show a link to somebody who dissed conyers for that?

From what I've read, nobody supports terrorist or violent tactics on either side.

Conyers also said, "This conflict cannot be resolved militarily; only diplomacy can bring an end to the bloodshed."

[jsamuel]

29. totally agree with Conyers... I don't think anyone here does disagree

with that

and if Feingold/Hillary/ect all said THAT, we would be in PERFECT shape

[tnlefty]

63. Next sentence, "This conflict cannot be resolved militarily; only diplo-

macy can bring an end to the bloodshed. Without the participation of the most powerful nation in the world, there will be no resolution."

Prior to this he mentions how the Bush** administration has been totally absent in leadership during the past 6 yrs.

Perhaps the context and a more accurate representation on your part would be in order.

[cali]

6. Take a look at the front page of the NYT

today and you'll see a devastating picture of a bloody young boy being carried by an older man, as well as many other devastating pictures that demonstrate how many innocents are being killed by this massive bombing campaign.

My question is this: How can a progressive support such a disproportionate response that destroys lives and infrastructure and creates hundreds of thousands of refugees?

[Ms. Clio]

49. I would like that question anwered, too n/t

[ourbluenation]

7. I think we've answered this question 1000 times. The over the top

militarianism. They're bombing the shit out of the seat of Lebanon. It'senseless.

[Armstead]

8. Because Israel's Neo-Cons are ruining them and us

I am not anti-Israel -- and more important I know that in Israel opinion in general is divided betweenm hawks and those who support the pursuit of peace and co-existance.

But the hawks are in charge in Israel, and they are inflaming the situation. Have been for years.

Support for Israel's version of neo-cons translates into support for the same policies being pursued by Bush and the American Neo-Cons.

That fact gets lost here in the US, because we're supossed to march in lock-step in terms of supporting whatever Israel does, no matter how wrongheaded.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. I've Been Sickened By Some Of The Zealotry And Animosity Here Over This.

Of all the different DU mini-wars I've witnessed this one has made me the most nauseous I think.

But I have to remind myself how many other stand up posts and posters there are as well, and that the ones that are making me sick are still just a handful of DU'ers when it's all said and done. It just seems so prevalent because of their rabid tone and frequency, but there are a lot of good posts out there as well. But regardless, I have felt at times embarrassed for DU reading some of this stuff lately.

I think those who you mentioned had fine statements and understand why they have to take that position. In the end, I just want the M.E. violence to stop and a solution to be found. I can understand Israel's rage but also know they're going just a bit too far right now. I hope to hell in the end cooler heads prevail with this.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. We don't like genocide.

Call us crazy.

[cali]

17. Genocide

is a specific term. Deplorable as the bombing of Lebanon is, it doesn't even remotely meet the criteria. Overstatement doesn't help anything, and people who claim that that's what's happening, damage legitimate arguments about the wrongness and even the criminality of what Israel is doing.

[oberliner]

20. thank you

Thank you for that statement.

I think there can be useful and productive disagreements among progressives around this issue.

I have seen a sizable number of posts using the term genocide in relation to Israel.

As another poster said, maybe I am just seeing that sort of thing because I am so sensitive to it, but I think it's fair to say that it is a claim not uncommonly made here.

[TomClash]

32. I'd have to agree

"Genocide" is just a bit over the top in a conflict where 380 Lebanese civilians have been killed.

[Spazito]

35. Well said! n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. That's the exact same rationale used in the late 1930's. (nt)

[cali]

45. No it wasn't.

History and critical thinking would love to meet you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. Oh really? It wasn't?

So you're telling me everyone knew there was a genocide going on and referred to it as such back in the late 1930's? Very interesting... I guess all of those Jewish studies courses I took in college were completely and totally wrong, because they all told me that the Americans and British downplayed what Hitler was doing as normal warfare and not genocide, which is exactly the rationale that was used here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Israel has a right to exist and to protect themselves. However,...

What they are doing now is largely indiscriminate and further alienates them from international support. Furthermore they're doing it with my tax dollars.

They are undermining their own cause. Lebanon has asked for international military help in ridding themselves of Hezbolla and Hamas, but this request has been stonewalled while Israel prepares troops for a full-on invasion that (as Will Pitt writes so lucidly) has every chance of becoming a chemical/biological/nuclear exchange.

This is happening because war is an interesting spectator sport to the people who sit in our white house, while peace is hard work and a bit of a drag.

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. But, why do we always have to preface remarks with

'Israel has a right to defend itself.' Isn't that a given? That's one thing I don't understand. Why is it necessary to put on some rhetorical protective armor when voicing criticism of Israel?

(those are rhetorical questions :hi: )

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Because civil debate has become compromised...

... by a couple of decades of talk radio-style rhetoric.

The "rhetorical protective armor" is intended to shield one's self from the anticipated response: "Why do you hate Jews? Why such anti semitism? Why do you support Hamas and Hezbolla? Are you a terrorist? Go back to... uh... someplace else, you terrorist you!"

[cali]

38. Heh.

It's equally true in the other direction. I got attacked the other day for posting a thread about war that actually had nothing to do with Israel and I was accused of having some sort of agenda. Speak out against antisemitism and someone will accuse you of being an apologist for Israel. Most people don't do this stuff, but there's a vocal minority who do.

[Amonester]

57. Hey! The Mohawks have a right to defend themselves too!!

They need to be strong and violent to keep their homeland, their children and their civilians safe.

:sarcasm:



So they've been supplied with thousands of tons of Ultra-Decomposing Lazer-Guns, Ionizer Bombs, and Paralyzing Gas by the Klingon Imperial Neocon Federation for decades to help them claim back hundreds of square miles of their Ancestors' Sacred Land.

But the former inhabitants - the Mohawks successfully chased away violently - suddenly found themselves dispersed throughout the United States and Canada. For decades, these poor innocent victims of robbery have been so desperate to get their counties back that they've manage to blow-up many Mohawk busses, discos, and shopping malls, killing civilian Mohawks without showing any remorse at all! They've even committed the supreme terra-ist act of kidnapping two Warriors, not to mention them continuously firing rockets at Mohawk villages that kill innocent civilians each day. How dare they?!?!

Of course, the Klingons declared that the Mohawks have the right to defend themselves since the Warriors got rightful orders to go on and destroy both the United States and Canada, because some of their citizens and representatives still support the evil terra-ists who constantly attack the Mohawks for no reason! As of today, the Warriors have lazer-gunned down hundreds of innocent women and children, de-ionized thousands of bridges, houses, and suspicious skyscrapers, as well as paralyzed millions of pigs, chickens, cows and dogs, staying the course and claiming they will continue to do so (with non-stop support from the Klingon Imperial Neocon Federation) until the day their two Warriors will be properly released and all terra-ist attacks against their forever expanding country will stop.

(Fiction)

OK. Kind Of... Star-Trek-Nemesis-War-Of-The-Worlds-eesh, I admit.
But What If The Tables Had Turned Like That Instead?
And Who Would The Real Terra-Ists Be Then?

Now: Waiting for the flames to come. (I hope not.) I am against ALL wars, and I protested in the streets, in subzero temperatures, against BushCo's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. All mass murderers are criminals, period.

(Sincere apologies to all peaceful Members of the Mohawk Nation living in settlements spread throughout New York State and Southeastern Canada. Peace to you, Brothers and Sisters of The Mohawk Nation, and peace to all peaceful but resolute citizens of this resources-limited planet, which carelessly gets more and more destroyed each and every day.)

Peace :hippie: :hi:

Peace Talks + UN Peacekeepers wanted...

[butterfly77]

60. everytime I ask that question ...

I am called anti-semetic.

[rman]

15. The Dems you mention are no progressive - Kucinich is progressive

I support his call for a cease-fire.

[oberliner]

21. Kucnich says

"Now is the time to reaffirm our support for Israel by showing leadership in diplomacy."

Dennis Kucinich

Is there agreement with Dennis on that statement?

[jsamuel]

31. diplomacy is not equal to war

[bloom]

33. He also wrote - "What are they waiting for, the Apocalypse?"

What are they waiting for, the Apocalypse?

US Has a Moral Obligation to Become Diplomatically Involved -- Immediately.
As the situation in the Middle East continues to rapidly deteriorate, the Administration is failing our nation's moral obligation to become actively involved, diplomatically, to resolve this conflict.

This Administration's stated policy of inaction has allowed the situation to degenerate and therefore has contributed to the increasingly violent conflict in the region. Their policy of inaction makes the region, and the world, less safe. It makes Americans more vulnerable here at home and abroad. It puts our troops in Iraq at great risk. It makes a peaceful resolution nearly impossible.

Everyday this Administration sits on the sidelines the chance for a peaceful resolution becomes less likely. Every day this Administration sits on the sidelines more innocent civilians on all sides are dying. Every day this Administration sits on the sidelines America's already poor reputation in the world community gets worse.

The Administration seems content to sit on the sidelines as a full-blown regional war breaks out. What are they waiting for, the Apocalypse?

The region urgently needs diplomatic assistance. The US must claim the role of mediator. It must speak and act like a mediator.

The US must become involved immediately in seeking a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. To help accomplish this, I have introduced legislation, H.Con.Res. 450, calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit US diplomats to multi-party negotiations.

Only by acting as an honest broker can the United States have any authority and success in bringing peace to the region, and in de-escalating the conflict.

In introducing H. Con. Res. 450, Kucinich issued the following statement:

"The continuing violence in the Middle East is spiraling out of control and is on the verge of being full-out regional war in which there will be no winners.

"The US has a moral obligation to become immediately engaged and to try to seek a peaceful resolution to the situation. This Administration must seek an immediate cease-fire and return all sides to the negotiating table.

"The region urgently needs diplomatic assistance. The only way the US can reclaim its role, as a mediator is to speak and act like a mediator. Unfortunately, the Administration is making statements that only will contribute to escalation.

"My resolution is not about assigning blame, it is about seeking an end to the conflict."

http://www.kucinich.us/

__________________________


It looks to me like Kucinich is about peace. What are you about? Do you think that Israel should make any concessions. Or do you think that only the other side should.

[oberliner]

43. What I'm For

I'm for a reasonable discourse where we can attempt to get a better understanding of the complexity of the situation.

Like Kucinich, Feingold, and all progressive Democrats, I am for peace.

And as John Conyers states, I believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that must be disarmed and dismantled.

And on the DU front, I want to see an end to posts that say things like "Israel is as bad as the nazis" or "AIPAC controls American foreign policy" or "Israelis brutally and deliberately kill civilians".

I think there is an important and valuable conversation that can be had by thoughtful progressives that is shut down by people making such comments on this site.

[bloom]

58. "Israelis brutally and deliberately kill civilians"

Yeah - well - the trouble is - is that Israel did and they are and they will tomorrow.


I think that none of the sides should expect for others to think that they are the good guys and the others are the bad guys. (I'm just as critical of the US actions in Iraq - the US is not acting like the "good guys" either).

As far as I'm concerned - Israel, Hamas, and Hezbolla are all guilty of killing civilians. Until people can acknowlegde that - I don't think there will be progress.

And the sense that I am getting from most of the US politicians as well as from Israel supporters is that they are so sure of Israel's superiorty - that when backed by the US - the intent is to kill off all opposition (or drive it further underground) - not to make peace with it. And I don't support politicians who support that.

[rman]

34. Thats only part of what Kucinich said

The intention of the diplomacy is to negotiate for a cease-fire. It's an alternative support for Israel.

[LSK]

66. Kucinich voted "Present" on the Israeli support bill last week

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. The "cheering for Pat Buchanan" isn't because it's anti-Israel

though that's what comes off as soon as some posts they agree. As soon as you post (generic you, not you specifically), you're tagged as either a terrorist supporter or an Israel supporter. There seems to be no other choices.

I take issue with the statements from Kerry, Feingold, Lamont, etc. because they have absolutely no criticism of Israel...ever. And as I've watched over the years, it has become standard to accuse that you're either with Israel or against Israel.

If I criticize my husband for something he does and tell him he's wrong, I'm telling him there's another course of action and asking he own up to his mistake. It doesn't mean I love him any less or that I'm filing for divorce.

[cali]

39. I'm going to say this again

and hope people get it: Pat Buchanan writing about Israel is objectionable in the same way that David Duke writing about affirmative action would be.

[GeorgeGist]

25. Maybe because holding the course...

of ceding the high ground to Israel hasn't lead to any real

progress.

[jsamuel]

26. Because we have our own opinions and do not blindly follow our "leaders"

[oldcoot]

37. The bigger picture

Unlike many of our "leaders," we can see the bigger picture. For example, many of us were accused of loving Saddam Hussein. However, that was not the case. Instead, most of us were worried about the outcome. Posters accurately predicted before the invasion that it would be a disaster and that one result might be a civil war in Iraq.

On the other hand, Bush and many of our leaders predicted that we could use Iraq to spread democracy in the Middle East. Well, Lebanon was a democracy. Unfortunately, Israel's actions-whether you agree with Israel or not- are threatening Lebanon's government. Honestly, I do not think that democracy is going to survive in Lebanon. Even if it does survive, I imagine that many in the Middle East will start to question the value of living in a democracy. After all, if the Iraqi and Lebanese governments are too weak to protect their own civilian populations, who else is going to want to give democracy a chance?

[The Stranger]

40. Those "Progressive Democrats" are the aberration -- we are the rule.

You simply cannot support the bombing of innocent people who never attacked Israel and who never had anything to do with anyone who did, and truly be a Progressive Democrat.

Let Feingold, Lamont, Clark and others be judged accordingly.

[Bridget Burke]

42. Because many of us are against the killing of civilians.

It is wrong when Hezbollah does it. And it is wrong when Israel does it.

[Ms. Clio]

46. instead of making broad generalizations, why don't you post links

to all these posts "cheering" Buchanan, etc. Because I sure as hell haven't seen any.

[oberliner]

50. link to post cheering Buchanan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=223321&mesg_id=223321

2. I never thought that Pat Buchannan would be the voice of reason!
4. Yeah..
No kidding..
7. OMG, things are bad when I start agreeing with Pat Buchanan nt
24. Zounds! Could Buchanan be wiser than Russ Feingold?

[Ms. Clio]

52. wow, you found 4 posts on a thread with less than 40

hardly representative of all of DU.

And so what? Plenty of people here support Lou Dobbs' jackass views on immigration, and I don't see you complaining about that.

[oberliner]

53. Buchanan and Kerry

I said: "I’ve seen more people cheering for articles written about Israel by Pat Buchanan than supporting statements made about Israel by John Kerry."

Compare that link I provided at your request with the 4 supportive posts I cited in response to an editorial by Pat Buchanan to this link to a post I made with a recent statement made about Israel by John Kerry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1713970

The comments on Kerry's position are entirely negative, with nothing like the positive response to Buchanan's.

If you disagree and think Kerry's position on Israel is more popular on DU than Buchanan's please provide links illustrating that argument and I will retract my statement.

[Ms. Clio]

54. I think it's asinine to try to determine whose positions are "popular"

in this fashion. For every person who posts here, there are 1,000 lurkers, and nobody knows what they are thinking.

[RethugAssKicker]

47. What surprises me .. is Why aren't you shocked and disgusted

at Israels over aggression?

[warrens]

48. We don't have to get elected

It's political suicide to say anything against Israel. Even the anti-war Israelis and American Jews resent it if anyone else criticizes Israeli actions. I don't think anyone can say that this is a defensive war; the Israelis have taken far more prisoners than the Palestinians and Hezbollah ever have, but for some reason it's OK for them, but cause for total war if anyone else does it.

I hate double standards. And claimjumpers.

[smacky44]

51. I think you may have said what most Dems running for office fear to say.

And to me that means our nation is in real serious trouble.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. Not totally true.

There are many, many Israelis that freely criticize their country's actions. Haaretz, a major Israeli news organization, regularly has commentators on both sides of the issue and B'Tselem (www.btselem.org) is made up partially of former Knesset members. Still, it's sad that they can discuss the merits of their own actions more readily than we can.

[jonnyblitz]

61. I have read analysis that agrees with what you say

in regards to your last comment about them discussing the merits more readily then we do.

[butterfly77]

59. I want to know why it is usually a big deal...

on any post if you disagree with Israel, is there some rule that says we should agree with everything that they do. I am not saying that I agree with one or the other, but if I was to say I disagree with Israel and then said palestines are right or had some rights and feelings I would get jumped all over for stating those thoughts. I see that the government has come up with some bill saying they stand behind Israel and I want to know why this was necessary. America is made up of different religions, races and cultures and we all know that everyone in america doesn't believe that but...oops maybe I shouldn't say.

[Nutmegger]

62. I think what really bothers folks

is that the United States and Israel have a very cozy relationship (too cozy); if Israel were to ever nuke anything, the United States would support that 100%.

[Bluebear]

65. .

[Rex]

64. Democracy doesn't like popular views, traditionally.

Democracy wants everyone, bad ideas, views or what have you. Pat Buchanan? Big tents will find some people who like him, same as some people here love William F Buckley.

It's not a weakness, it is a strength. If you want to see the opposite, go post on free Republic that you support the Lebanese and see how fast your post gets pulled.

[bigtree]

67. principled folks more concerned with lives than with elections

politicians do what they do, mostly to preserve their positions of power and influence. That's just the calculation that they (and their supporters) make that their appointment is important enough for them to carefully nurture the support that keeps them in the seat. Politics.

Many here, to their credit, appear to be placing their objections to Israel's actions before their feathering of some politician's or party's political campaign.

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. They hate Israel . Always have. It's the I/P issue that makes them

go nuts. Hamas and Hezbollah are non-issues to them because the Jews took the Palestinian's land and won't PEACEFULLY give it back.....that's ALL of Israel, mind you. They don't want Israel to exist. SO, Hamas and Hezbollah can do anything they damn well please because Israel has a military and all Hamas and Hezbollah have are suicide bombers, rocks and rockets.:eyes: See how this works? Israel's the bad guy, Hamas and Hezbollah are the good, innocent guys because they are fighting for the Palestinian's land that Israel TOOK.

[Malikshah]

70. Hmmm...be careful

all these names being dropped these days.

The whole "Why is such a progessive site..." etc.

Must be difficult to see the rest of the world from down below the bridge these days.