Robert,
Not that it matters WHAT their excuse is...it would be interesting to hear how these voters came to their conclusion. Do they actually state that they are against Israel and for Palestinian terrorism?

Randi:

With all due respect. That's a great deal like asking a homicide bomber, "Say Muhammed can you tell us why you're blowing up Jews?"

By voting against the bill they automatically become in favor of terrorism. Naturally they deny this, but they are liars.

Robert,
okay, so I sound like an idiot...but I really would love to hear what they have to say. These are not homicide bombers (by the way, I think this is the term that should always be used; I resent the term suicide bomber), and should be held accountable for an explanation.
Sorry if I sound naive.

Randi:

All you have to do is write to them for an explanation.

I guarantee that you'll get a form letter back full of Orwellian double speak that will give you a migraine. Try it. Report back to us. Please. I'm quite serious.

Rep. Lahood from Illinois, one of the Republicans to vote against this, is of Lebanese origin, though Catholic. Ron Paul of Texas is anti-Israel, or at least anti-any foreign aid to anyone, a member of the Far right wing. He routinely votes against anything pro-Israel.

Kolbe, Thornberry, Jones and Gilchrest I couldn't figure out obvious reasons why they voted that way.

But they may be in the Ron Paul camp of things, as a guess. But this is a niggling small number and includes the two we could write off, the Lebanese descendant and the fringe beyond right-wing nut.

But Robert, I remember when I saw the bigoted and pathologic liar Al Sharpton being feted as if he were a hero, at the Democratic Convention, with a long and loud ovation....I didn't need to know anything else. It didn't help that all that you have said is true, that the entire Democratic party has been hijacked by the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Left and would sell Israel down the river in a heartbeat and without a second thought.

Maurice:

I remember when I saw the bigoted and pathologic liar Pat Buchanan being feted as if he were a hero, at the Republican Convention, with a long and loud ovation... (yes, he's no longer a Republican, but he got a whole lot more GOP votes in primaries than Sharpton, and had he decided to stick in the GOP, he would have been in W's cabinet).

I remember that James Baker was George Bush I's Secretary of State when he insulted Israel time and again.

I remember that Oslo had a lot to do with Baker and the apparent sea-change in U.S./Israel relations that he oversaw at the Madrid Conference.

We can do this all day. I'll have a recent GOP example for every Dem one.

The bottom line is Democratic loyalist Jews hate Republican Jews and vice versa. In the words of Dr. Phil: "How's the hate working for ya?"

Good luck with that.

Jake:
I am not making a longer term argument: I WOULD argue that in 2006, the Dems are loaded with anti-Israel bigots more so than the Republicans. That's today. I won't disagree that there were times the Republicans were not supportive of Israel, but then, I can remember when Israel flew Mirages from France...

And if you really want to argue, I would say that neither party is much different or better than the other, as the Republicans have wilted on just about every topic they could, and now spend as freely as drunks in a bar.

Right now, though, if support of Israel or against global jihad is of concern, it is the Republicans that are pro-Israel, while there are a lot more Democrats who are against Israel.

You brought up Buchanan..he and Ron Paul are from that far-right wing, the so-called "paleoconservatives", who include many Israel bashers, and often the ones who insinuated bigotry by conflating "neocon" with "Jewish". So what, the Republicans have their own crazies? I don't disagree.

Right now, however, you have a majority of Republicans who avow support for Israel, a President who says he will stand by Israel if its attacked by Iran...on support for Israel, there is no close comparison.

Times change.

Jake:

Let's forget the past. The present day is what counts. If you vote a straight ticket for the Democrats you are voting against Israel.

Some people have replaced religion with politics. It's very hard to change religions. Especially when it has been clearly demonstrated that your religion is false and is helping kill the very people you love.

Hence the massive denial.

Maurice:

You're absolutely right... and I think I went a little overboard with the Dr. Phil thing, sorry about that.

But here is one middling point and one huge point:

1) Imagine this scenario: USC beats Stanford 49-7 and UCLA beats Standford 49-13; clearly USC is the better team!

Not exactly, it doesn't work like that. It doesn't work like that in politics either. The overwhelming majority of both parties are solidly Pro-Israel. Both have been for over 30 years. To take a 361-37 voted as an alarm for either party is madness and fear-mongering. Shame on us for wasting so much time on it already.

2) What transcends this entire argument is the breath taking hatred many Jews have for one another and have had for century after century. I'm sorry but when I hear people talk about how so many Jews vote Democrat what I really hear is: "How can my fellow Jews be so stupid," and "Those liberal Jews are destroying my vision of what Judaism should be, etc." Liberals sound the same way to me when they complain about poor people in the red states and why they can't understand why they voted for Bush and his "pro-rich folk" policies.

a) Did anyone consider that maybe those Democrat Jews and those pro-Bush red staters are pretty darn smart and know what they're doing? I'd like to think people realize this, but then I remember that partisans hate the people more than their political polar opposites. The polar opposites are just wrong, while the people are often wrong and always stupid.

b) Zionism has at once been the great uniter and divider of the Jewish people. Make no mistake, 100 years ago the Jewish people were as divided about Zionism as anything else in our history. I'm not going to stoop to saying that it was the religious Jews who mostly opposed the Zionist movement, because it's not entirely true, and there were a lot of out-and-out assimiliationist Jews who also were in opposition. But the Holocaust and the birth of the state of Israel did finally win the argument for the pro-Zionists and so the form of Zionism has become the new battleground. Will Israel be a secular or religious state? Will all branches of Judaism get a say in conversions, divorce, etc? Will we give some territory to the Palestinians? Will we force settler Jews on the West Bank to leave their homes? These are the burning, temper-inducing, wild and crazy questions we face today. And whoa to the Zionist Jew who opposes a heavily partisan Zionist Jew on the other end of any of those above issues because he/she will surely be called a Nazi and worse within the hour.

So don't be fooled. This Democrat/Republican argument is a mere facade. This is about Jews hating Jews and Americans hating Americans.

The good news is most Jews and Americans choose not to hate one another so much. But our politicians love to engage those who do, because partisan anger is the real mother's milk of politics as does my news media, because we need conflict for ratings.

I realize I open a can of worms here, but I feel like if I let these last several posts go, I'll regret it even more.

Robert:

I don't vote the straight Democratic ticket. Lock-step party loyalty never appealed to me. I wish I were more of a free agent, but I vote mostly Democrat.

Jake:

The vote I just quoted speaks for itself. If from this roll call you draw the conclusion that both parties overwhelmingly support Israel equally, well then, I will leave that as the final clarifier.

As I have said many times, my job here is to clarify the issues. I do not expect my Democratic friends to run out and vote Republican.

Furthermore, this has nothing whatever with Jews hating Jews. Rather, this has everything to do with a massive tectonic change in American politics and shifting party loyalties.

Just to help get Ron Paul correctly classified -- he may have an R by his name, but he's the closest thing to a libertarian in national office. He was the libertarian candidate for President a while back, and he hasn't changed his politics at all -- though his affiliation is now Republican. He and Pat Buchanan agree on very little -- Ron Paul is quite principled and so far as I know, votes against ANY foreign aid without regard to which country it's going to.

Given the centrality of Israel, the Middle East, and terrorism, by their votes these 37 Congresspeople defined where the fringe meets the mainstream in American politics. It'll be interesting to follow them and this issue in the months ahead.

For example, the Palestine News Network is giving Susan McCollum (D-Minn) high marks for her war of words with AIPAC.

Thanks for the heated discussion. I can picture everyone shaking their hands at their monitors and contorting their faces while reading the comments and composing their own. (I think I can also hear Randi sighing in frustration that it's politics again ("Again!").

I hope everyone had a meaningful Shabbos and a will have a meaningful Memorial Day.

Robert:

There has indeed been a sea-change in American politics in the past decade. I quote Lou Dobbs here: "Never before has the U.S. Congress and the White House been more under corporate influence, and that includes the era of the robber barons of 1880-1910." And you know, I think 90% of the American people know this, it's just the Al Frankens and the Rush Limbaughs of the world who try to confuse and irritate us with other errata.

Any voter who doesn't happen to be a corporate lobbyist should have their heads examined if they think Israel or the Jews, or average Americans have any reliable friends in Congress. I'm all for American corporations as opposed to Socialism. But you know U.S. corp.'s can't really be called that. They are multi-nationals, with fleeting loyalty to this country. Thankfully, Israel has a lot to offer the corporate world, but with oil prices going out of control, I worry every day that some of these Arab countries will use their growing cash reserves to bring corporate "America" to heel vis a vis Israel in some way.

As for the White House, the evil people who have been promoting this "the invasion of Iraq was for Israel" canard seem to be ignorant of the fact that the one country that has come out smelling like a rose since the Iraq invasion is Saudi Arabia.

It's the Saudi royals who are richer than ever because of the oil price spike. It's the Saudi royals who have seen a huge number of their homegrown terrorists leave their country to go to Iraq. It's the Saudi royals who get to walk hand-in-hand, (literally), with President Bush. And as Robert has pointed out, the Saudi royals are 1st class thugs and bankrollers of Jew-killers. And the Saudis have never had allies in America like Presidents Bush I and Bush II.

Now if given the choice of extrapolating these above facts about Saudi Arabia or extrapolating the facts about the Congressional vote, (btw do we know if some lame earmark wasn't attached to this bill, like a pay raise or $500,000 to maintain the Lawrence Welk museum?), then I think most Americans and American Jews MIGHT just chose to see the Saudi alliance with this Republican White House to be a little more disturbing because 1) this is the President, not a few dozen marginal members of Congress and 2) given the overall nature of this greedy Republican and Democratic government, alliances with cash-rich murderers who are getting richer by the tank-full is a little scarier.

But that would just be playing the fear-mongering game. Of course this White House has been extraordinarily supportive of Israel at just the right time, (this just isn't the time to be pressuring Israel on negotiations, and the White House has been relatively fair about this).

I WOULD suggest that Jews who consider themselves members of either party try to work out these issues at any forum they can find. Of course, I warn you that in the GOP you'll probably be called something less than a team player, (i.e. the McCain/Specter/Chaffee treatment), and the Democrats will probably call you selfish and "out of it," (i.e. the Lieberman treatement).

What a wonderful group of leaders we have don't we?

Jake:

You seem to be suggesting, again, that corporations run America, and that there is no signifigant differences between the Republicans and the Democrats.

On this day, may I suggest that you make the rounds of the important political blogs. Take a look at Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/ and then take a look at say, Atlas Shrugs or Little Green Footballs.

The differences in concerns and discourse are quite evident. I look at Daily Kos and it is clear to me that their values are simply not mine. It's not even close.

Again, this has nothing to do with Jews hating Jews, nor with multi-national corporations. This is p'shat, (simple) Jake.

Well I agree with you here. The folks at Daily Kos and places like that seem to believe in one thing: "Whatever George Bush does, we will do the opposite." That's the political philosophy of a 10-year-old, if that.

On a problematic but optimistic note, seems to me that between now and November (and beyond) the GOP and Dems get to have vital intra-party debates about their worst weaknesses.

The GOP, when it gets around to pinching itself that W will have to step aside, has to confront two figures, 9T and 12M - a $9T (trillion) deficit and 12M illegal (and effectively amnestied) aliens.

The Dems, when the lights come back on after watching An Inconvenient Truth, have to learn that for most voters national security still trumps social security, and that the best way to preach values is to live them.

(I think I can also hear Randi sighing in frustration that it's politics again ("Again!").

Gosh, was I that loud?

Hi, just trying to make sure you're "heard".

I think the alliance with the Saudis is strategic. Some of them produce terrorists, other are prosecuting them. The Saudi family doesn't want the radical Wahabis overthrowing them, so they do share intelligence with us and help us arrest and kill some of them. It's like our alliance with Musharref, who is not the most savory guy, but he is helping catch terrorists at his end and the people who would replace him ARE the terrorists.

So if we didn't play nice with the Saudis, would the price of oil go down? I don't think so.

A friend of mine thinks we should invade SA and take over their oil fields, which is tempting, but would create more problems. . . .

Yehudit:

It's not quite accurate to say that the Saudis share intel with us and arrest Wahhabi radicals. The intel the US gets form the Saudis is usually worthless or a pack of lies.

Here's how it really works.

The Saudis allow their Wahhabi killers--all Wahhabis are radicals, even to radical Muslims!-- to operate outside their borders and kill Americans and Jews and Europeans with total freedom. They finance these operations through various "charities" and through their thousands of Mosques headed up by Imams they pay. Imams who are just blood-thirsty fanatics.

They only clamp down when these terrorists start operating within their own borders and threaten the stability of the Al Saud regime.

So: OBL was AOK as long as he was in Sudan or Afghanistan. But once he started calling for the overthrow of the Al Sauds, well, then he was persona non grata. Then they started hunting down his followers and executing them in chop-chop square.

The Saudis cannot be trusted. They never tell the truth. Not to us. Not to their own people. And they are manufacturing and exporting the most vile anti Semitism the world has seen since Nazi Germany. I won't even bother cataloging their crimes against women. I'm sure you already know or can imagine.

It's not the right time to invade and dispose of them right now. But that time will come. Of this I have very little doubt. They are easily the most repressive regime in the middle east. Syria is Disneyland compared to Saud Arabia. This kind of tyranny cannot stand. I don't care how much oil these barbarians have.

In the meantime, while the friendly republicans continue their vendetta against AIPAC, it is a democrat who poiting out the stupidity of it.
- Proud Frum Democrat

Top Democrat slams AIPAC prosecution
The top Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee questioned the statute used to prosecute two former AIPAC lobbyists.

The committee heard testimony last Friday on how to balance First Amendment protections with the need to stem leaks.

Some Republicans counseled the prosecution of recipients of leaks, including journalists.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, blasted such talk. “If anyone here wants to imprison journalists, I invite them to spend some time in China, Cuba or North Korea and see whether they feel safer,” she said. She singled out for criticism the prosecution of Steve Rosen, the former foreign policy director at American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst.

Harman said the 1917 statute used in the case was too broad. It is the first time the statute has been used in a prosecution.

Town Crier:

If I'm reading correctly, you are inferring that currently, in this day and age, under this administration, the Democrats support of Israel outweighs that of the Republicans.

If that is your position, then I have no response. Facts will not matter.

I thank you for writing. You have clarified this issue more than you realize.

You were the one who made a unilateral declaration that democrats do not support Israel, which is an aboslutely ludicrous assertion.

I there are many members of both major American political parties who either support Israel or could care less.

Kaufman in his biased coverage failed to Acknowlege that the principal sponsor and author of the Bill is none other than jewish democrat Gary Ackerman whose speech on the floor of the house last week oabout the bill was amazing as always. He is the single most outspoken friend of israel on the house floor for many years and happens to be a democrat.

He also fails to acknowlege, as do you, that the vast majority of house democrats - totalling 151 did indeed vote yes for the bill. Leaving the 31 who voted against it an unrepresentative minority.
Kaufman has grossly misled people by not akcnowleging all the facts.

in the interest of full discosure, here is a list of the 151 congressional democrats including sponsors who support the bill and Israel:

Gary Ackerman, Thomas Allen, Robert Andrews, Joe Baca, Brian Baird, Tammy Baldwin, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Timothy Bishop, Dan Boren, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Robert Brady, Sherrod Brown, G.K. Butterfield, Ben Cardin, Dennis Cardoza, Russ Carnahan, Ed Case, Ben Chandler, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, Jim Cooper, Jim Costa, Jerry Costello, Bud Cramer, Joseph Crowley, Henry Cuellar, Elijah Cummings, Susan Davis, Artur Davis, Lincoln Davis, Diana DeGette, Rosa DeLauro, William Delahunt, Norman Dicks, Michael Doyle, Chet Edwards, Rahm Emanuel, Eliot Engel, Bob Etheridge, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Charles Gonzalez, Bart Gordon, Al Green, Gene Green, Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings, Stephanie Herseth, Rubén Hinojosa, Tim Holden, Chris Van Hollen, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Darlene Hooley, Steny Hoyer, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, William Jefferson, Stephanie Jones, Paul Kanjorski, Dale Kildee, Ron Kind, James Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick Larsen, Sander Levin, Daniel Lipinski, Zoe Lofgren, Nita Lowey, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey, Jim Matheson, Doris Matsui, Carolyn McCarthy, Mike McIntyre, Michael McNulty, Martin Meehan, Kendrick Meek, Gregory Meeks, Charles Melancon, Michael Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Brad Miller, Alan Mollohan, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Jerrold Nadler, Richard Neal, James Oberstar, John Olver, Solomon Ortiz, Major Owens, Frank Pallone, Bill Pascrell, Ed Pastor, Nancy Pelosi, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Charles Rangel, Silvestre Reyes, Mike Ross, Steven Rothman, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Tim Ryan, Martin Sabo, John Salazar, Loretta Sanchez, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Allyson Schwartz, David Scott, Robert Scott, José Serrano, Brad Sherman, Ike Skelton, Louise Slaughter, Adam Smith, Hilda Solis, John Spratt, Ted Strickland, Bart Stupak, Linda Sánchez, John Tanner, Ellen Tauscher, Gene Taylor, Mike Thompson, Bennie Thompson, John Tierney, Edolphus Towns, Tom Udall, Mark Udall, Peter Visclosky, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler, Lynn Woolsey, David Wu, Al Wynn

TC:

That is not what I said.

(Head in hands, deep sigh, deep shudder.)

I said, and if it was not clear, let me clarify my position--that the Republicans are the party that, at this time in history, and in the forseeable future, are the party who can be counted on to support Israel.

I said that the Democrats have time and again demostrated far less commitment to Israel, not to mention a creeping isolationism in foreign affairs.

These are not wild and general accusations, these are simple facts that are demonstrably true--if you prefer truth to ideology.

There are, obviously other issues that separate the parties. Let's have some fun and skim the top of the cup.

1. Taxes: The Dems almost always favor higher taxes. The Republicans do not. Sometimes the Republicans lie. As I have written, I do not seek utopia, I live in the real world; I play by the best odds possible.

2. Abortion: The Dems, well, you know the answer to that one.

3. Capital Punishment: I'm for it. Big time. So are most Republicans. In general, most Democrats are not.

4. Defense Spending: Most Democratic Administrations gut defense spending. See the Carter and Clinton administrations. And then see the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

5. National Defense: The major responsibility of the Federal Government is National Defense. The Democrats don't seem to be aware of this. Whereas The Republicans are acutely aware of this grave responsibilty.

6. Bush Hatred: The Democrats seem to hate President Bush more than they hate the Jihadists. I don't know about you, but this seems, um, counter productive in the war on terror. Go to any of the major Democratic websites, like Daily Kos and you are inundated with a steady stream of adolescent Bush invective. If President Bush says white, well, they say black. The discourse is also--and this might not bother you, but to me it's revealing--the language is just foul.

7. Homosexual marriage: That's the new big battleground for the Dems. And make no mistake about it, this is a vital issue for them. They believe passionately in this "right." Take a look in the blogosphere. As a frum Jew, I have no idea how you square this with halacha. But denial is a powerful psychological dimension.

8. Have you ever wondered why it is that Arab Americans in overwelming numbers vote a straight Democratic ticket? If you haven't--I suggest you start giving it some deep, honest thought. Emphasis on the word honest.

Again, I thank you for writing. You responses are greatly appreciated. I sincerely hope that you keep in touch and inform us with more of your cogent and well argued opinions.

While i agree that there are a greater number of anti-israel supporters in the Democratic Party, I don't think that the Democratic party is lacking in its supporters of Israel. Ackerman was brought up before, and almost all the of the Northeastern Corridor is filled with Democrats who are extremely pro-Israel, who i dont doubt for even one second would support Israel in times of peace and in times of crisis. The 9 issues of domestic importance that you mentioned are the reason why I vote democratic. We obviously have VERY different opinions on what is best for Jews in America domestically(though i like to think of it as best for the country in general) If one of your readers lived in a district where one the congressman voted against the bill, it would be suggested to think twice about voting for that person again, but that could mean running a strong candidate in the primary. Since i disagree so strongly on so many of the other 9 issues that you mentioned with the Republican viewpoint, to me voting Republican as a response would be a last resort effort. I'd hope there could be other ways of influencing your congressman's opinion without resorting to voting Republican.

Brad:

Thanks so much for your comment and most of all for your honesty. There are not too many Democrats who will admit that National Defense is not as important as homosexual marriage to the core of the Democratic constituency. But we both know that is the truth.

Which leaves the issue of how does one fight the war on terror if the defense budget is slashed when Dems are in power?

But the answer, again, as we both know, is that the Dems are far more concerned with global warming than fighting the Jihadists and will retreat into some form of isolationism.

Afterall, 9-11, according to all the Liberal blogs I read, was our fault: we are too powerful, we are too arrogant, we are imperialists, we are out to steal oil, we are supporters of the Zionists, yadda, yadda, yadda, and of course for this, we deserved to be punished by poor Third World oppressed revolutionaries.

Anywhoo, back to reality.

So at least our differences are clear, and that is invaluable. For as I have said time and again. More than anything I seek clarity.

What are my values?
What are your values?

And then let the undecided choose.

So, let's move on to your notion that the Northern corridor is not lacking in supporters of Israel. Well, this is true. To an extent.

INTERPOLATION:
I have no idea what Hilary Clinton believes in, beyond Hilary Clinton--do you?
END INTERPOLATION:

But that does leave the rest of the country, a rather big country. And as in all things political the Arabs are working quite hard on changing the Northern corridor. They have done quite well elsewhere with the Democratic party. Why would it be different in the North? Rapidly changing Demographics and shifting economic patterns speak powerfully to politicians who crave power. Have you strolled in Bay Ridge lately? If you wear a yarmulke, don't. You'll get the stuffing knocked out of you in no time at all. That district is lost and many more will follow.

It is good and noble of you to urge Dems to dump a congressman who voted against the anti-Terrorism bill. However this sounds, and please forgive me if this comes across as patronizing, just plain naive. The Democratic base is, if not plain hostile to Israel, at least squarely in favor of an "even-handed middle-eastern policy." Which translates into giving Hamas a free hand in slaughtering innocent Jews.

Let us not forget that at the last Democratic National Convention, Michael Moore, a man who has publicly stated that Israel has no right to exist, was given a standing ovation, and then a seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, a man who has done and continues to do incalcuable damage to the state of Israel.

In short, by insisting on the primacy of the radical secular leftist program of the Democratic party, Jews in the Democratic party are essentially sacrificing Israel's security -- not to mention seriously compromising America's war on terror.

There is one reason Arab Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democrtas, Brad. And believe me, it's not because the Imams are wild about gay marriage. It's because the Democrats are the party most pliable and most willing to give up Israel to the powerful Arab lobby, which translates into the Jihadists.

If you can't see this elemental truth, well then, I really don't know what else to say.

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment and for your frankness and honesty. They are rare traits and truly appreciated. I hope to hear from you again.

Now you are jumping into a different debate entirely.
Your title was "who supports Israel" disclosing only half a story to make a vain point about how bad Democrats must be because some of them voted against a bill cutting off funding to the PA.

Using some carachteristically political domestic issues, and sneaking in my religious atitude among them you enter a different realm entirely.

Shall I address each one? Perhaps. Shall I point out that great presidential hopeful republicans like Rudolph Giulinai is both pro abortion and pro gay? Most jews choose to ignore that.

WHat would I need to reconcile with halacha if a gay couple living together for 15 years want the same health care a married couple gets? What does My halacha have to do with my mexican dry cleaner?

Dear TC:

Let's put aside all unessentials, okay? Let's ignore my self-evident vanity, you got me, too long in Hollywood. Let's put aside my sneaking in halacha. I apologize. I assume that on your website you identify yourself as a Proud Frum Democrat, so I assume that you are, well,a proud frum democrat. Let's not discuss health care, or your Mexican dry cleaner.

One question: At this time in history is it the Democrats or the Republicans who can be counted on to support Israel and take a hard line against the Arab terrorists?

I do not think that either as a whole group can be counted on to unconditionally "support Israel" or to honestly take a hard line against Arab Terrorists.

Why in 5 1/2 year has Dr. Rice never relished an oppurtunity to urge Israelis to not to react rashly without giving equal admonishon to the arabs everytime they shoot a rocket into someones living room?

American Jewry also fails to realize that unilateral "support" for Israel is independant of whether you are on the right or left side of Israeli politics. Right or left has been blurred to good or bad and suddenly we have people who would rather apper anti Israel when they are only being anti specific policy.

I live in New York. I vote on many issues. When it comes to Israel, we have some great unconditionally uncompromising 100% pro-israel supporters in the house. The records speak for themselves. Ackerman, McCarthy, Nadler, Israel, Weiner, Engel, etc etc.

The East Coast is full of Senators whose have perfect voting records in support of Israel . John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg...

Very interesting debate....

However, as usual, the liberals just dont get it.

Sure, there may be individual Democrats that may support Israel....or may support a vigourous national defence.

However, there can be no denying the fact that INSTITUTIONALLY the Democrats...the Left...Liberals...however, you want to label it..... are anti Israel...anti Jew, or any faith for that matter, unless you are a jihadi...and for policies that would weaken our national defence.

Not to mention for policies that would weaken our social fabric.

To say otherwise...speaks volumes...
and just chutzpadik!!

Now I am going to return to my capitalist endeavors....

Something liberals want to take from me too....

Town Crier:

Even I have to say that Republicans in general at this time seem to be the better supporters of Israel. Now I think there are a number of problems within the party, the top one being the Saudi influence with this president, but I think where things stand now, with the Palestinians really not ready to negotiate, the Bush White House has been more than pretty good.

HOWEVER, I really don't think we would have seen much real difference in Israel policy if Gore or even Kerry were president. I know most Republican Jews will hackle at that because they would rightly point out a statement or two by those Democrats that would point otherwise. But STATEMENTS and ACTIONS are two different things. I think Kerry and Gore would have followed the Clinton model, and I remember just about every Israeli telling me in 1996 how they thought Clinton was the "best friend of Israel ever," something they now say about Bush.

So while I disagree with anything that appears like scare tactics, I'm all for reasoned vigilance. As you seem to be saying in your comment above: the obsessive anti-Bush zeal in the Democratic party lately has put everything it does, including support for Israel under the microscope. I think the best thing Jewish Democrats can do is remain critical of this president, but admonish our fellow Dems to back off this "worst president ever" nonsense, (which never works, ask the Dole 1996 campaign), and hit on the specific issues that we find problematic.

Town Crier:

Tthe problem is that yes, there are many responsible Democrats who vote pro-Israel... of course, many do it out of a desire to win their district's Jewish votes, but that's fine. I have no problem with that. And there are individual Republicans who are not pro-Israel for various reasons.

And in the end, both parties will ultimately do what they believe is best for either themselves and/or for the United States, not Israel.

But I think (and he can correct me) Robert is pointing out that the leadership and direction of the Democrats as well as even the rank and file, has turned leftward for years and continues to do so, and part of that agenda is the Left's disdain for Israel and its security and survival.

Here's something from Daniel Pipes...it's about polls, which is why I quote it, not just to use his opinion, which I know would be dismissed as biased. Note the poll he quotes is from Arab-American anti-Israel basher Zogby...

"As the cold war ended in 1990, a third era began. Democrats cooled to Israel and Republicans further warmed to it. The left made the Palestinian cause a centerpiece of its worldview (think of the Durban conference in 2001), while the right deepened its religious and political alignment with Israel.

This trend has become increasingly evident. In 2000, survey research commissioned by the left-wing, anti-Israel activist James Zogby found 'a significant partisan split' on the Arab-Israeli conflict, with Republicans significantly more pro-Israel than Democrats.

For example, asked the question, 'With regard to the Middle East, how do you feel the next president should relate to the region?' 22 percent of Republicans and only 7 percent of Democrats said he should be pro-Israel.

Recent research by the Gallup Poll finds that 72 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of Democrats sympathize more with the Israelis than Palestinians. A detailed look at this same data finds more dramatic results, with conservative Republicans over five times more sympathetic to Israel than liberal Democrats.

The Democratic coolness toward Israel fits into a larger pattern of conspiracy theories about neo-conservatives and anti-Jewish outbursts by such party luminaries as Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, and James Moran. One observer, Sher Zieve, concludes that among Democrats, "anti-Semitism is and has been on the rise" for some time."

Robert mentioned Michael Moore... I wrote of Al Sharpton at the Dem Convention.

Here's an interesting tidbit off the website of the Progressive Democrats of America...one of their ideas of how to "help":

"Hold meetings with chapters of American Jewish peace groups, and Arab American, and Muslim American organizations in your area. Build alliances. Show that there is support for elected representatives willing to adopt a more even-handed approach towards Israeli-Palestinian peace. Lobby individual members of Congress."

Let me point out two things: One: it's the usual nonsense of "even-handedness", which some of believe is codespeak for trying to palaver with murderous Arab terrorists who would destroy Israel...great in theory, would there be a peace partner...and that brings me to Point Two:

NOTE THE ABSENCE OF ARAB AMERICAN PEACE GROUPS!

Does it get any more clear than that? We have these useful idiot Jewish peace groups, who would bend over backwards, are almost fully made up of Jewish liberal, most often secular Jews, to make peace with the likes of Jihad and Hamas...and yet, there are no ARAB peace groups to even SPEAK WITH.

What else do you need to know? This is where the Democrats are. They have embraced the suicidal multiculturist surrender mentality of the Left, AS A GROUP, and while I would tend to agree with Robert in disliking almost all the leftist Democratic agenda, I certainly have seen that OVERALL, the Dems have left the center vis-a-vis Israel and in their zeal to hate and despise Bush and the Republicans, will excoriate and NOT stand by Israel, and are willing, as a group, with exceptions, to stand for that which is INIMICAL to Israel.

I can find more examples. This is the tip of the iceberg. Yes, there are Republicans who are idiots and liars and not supporters of Israel, but as a whole, the Republicans AND THE REPUBLICAN BASE, is much more friendly at this time, and has grown more strongly so, over the past number of years.

Did we EVER hear the kind of support and no-nonsense stand-up type of talk from ANYONE at the UN from the U.S. over Israel and anything else as from John Bolton?

What did we have with Clinton? A man of the Left center, who made the bed up repeatedly for the visits to the Motel 6 White House version, "we'll leave the lights on" for Chairman Arafat the MURDERER of Americans! And they KNEW it. And they got nothing from him. Nothing but more perfidy and lies and deaths.

Carter? The scion of the Dems is a traitor to America in my honest opinion, as well as a classic anti-Semite.

I don't vote Republican solely because of the stance for Israel. I worry about that support, because the realpolitik of the world is that the US will always do what's right for the US and that may or may not be what is right for Israel. And I have a dismayed and cynical view right now of the current Republicans on many domestic issues, as they have often NOT stayed true to their avowed principles..but it is those principles, strong defense, free markets, smaller taxes, smaller government, that have been espoused by them in the past... now they need to return to those ideals.

But the Dems have clearly not only maintained their socialist and leftist agenda, they are striving to move further that direction all the time. That is why I cannot vote for the Dems as a whole. There are exceptions, and I am glad of them.

And in a less cynical mien, I will agree that not all the support is for vote pandering. Many Dems are not taken in by the far left craziness... but as a group, as a whole, the leadership and far too many of the adherents of the party are NOT supportive, at the end of the day, of Israel.

Jake,

The Clinton model?

You mean the wonderful model that meant strong-arming Israel into dividing Jerusalem and giving the killers a "nation" of their own.

Get real!!

wow so much so little time...
why is it when a democrat favors israel it is to win jewish votes but when a republican does it means he is a great friend?

While Im at it....I have another suggestion for your "Jewish Deomcrats"...

How about trying to influence the party to be more friendly to religious people.....instead of falling lock step with the abortionists...and others who want to expunge G-D from the public square.

How about the "Jewish Democrats" standing up for the war on terror. Beef up the patriot act....stop the illegals rolling in like oranges....and standing up to self hating Americans like Rep. Murtha.

Until that happens....whether you like or not...or want to admit it or not....there is only ONE party that we can count on....and let me give you a hint....

Its not the Democrats.

Lance:

So-called Democratic hatred of the religious is true of the Hollywood donors to the party, for just about everyone else, it's as real as "the war on Christmas." You've got to be careful not to let lip-service to religion count for too much. People like Netanyahu and Ronald Reagan are about as religious as Marilyn Manson.

No one is "pro-abortion" it's just ludicrous to accuse anyone of that. I know women who have gone through it, they are literally and emotionally scarred for life. But I will agree with you that the Democrats have it all wrong vis a vis abortion. Instead of letting everyone waste their time talking about abortion legislation, they should only say they're for reducing the number of abortions, period. That's what the Catholic Democrat Nassau County executive promised to do and not only did he do it, but he squelched the attacks on him by the Archbishop when he asked the Church to join in his crusade to get the numbers down, law or no law. By the way, abortions went down under the Clinton administration.

What the next nominees for president form both parties should say, over and over again is the following, (and they can steal this for all I care):

"For the last 16 years, Americans have been portrayed in the news media, the Internet, and in Hollywood as a divided, angry people. This is utter nonsense. Only those who stand to gain some fleeting economic or political ground would stoop to promoting this lie. Almost every American believes in full religious freedom, full civil rights to people of all sexual orientation, and absolute fairness to every immigrant who comes here legally and follows our laws. I stand here today to say that I will represent and listen to that overwhelming majority of Americans, and only those Americans no matter what Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh say."

I guarantee you the candidate that says that above statement first and pounds that message home in the weeks following will win over so much of the 20% swing vote that the election won't be close. Why won't it happen? Because while 90% of America agrees with that statement, the people bankrolling our candidates do not. Unless both parties learn how to use the Internet or some other fundraising tool, the Dem nominee will be too afraid of offending Barbra Steissand and the GOP guy will be too afraid of offending Ralph Reed. Too bad these guys don't want to win.

And so it goes...

Oh, and as for dividing Jerusalem, well that was Ehud Barak's idea. And he's gone, and unlike Shimon Peres, he's not coming back.

Jake,

True... I don't know anyone personally that has experienced an abortion. Thank Hashem!!

However, I am fully capable of reading statements, as well as the next person, and it should be clear to anyone that the Democrat leadership holds abortion sacred.

Jake, you are way off-target regarding my example. My comment refers to how the person feels about G-D in the public square. Not that he/she is religious personally in their own life.

Democrats, with their G-D hating allies, the ACLU, etc. are doing everything they can to remove G-D from America.

BTW, everything I have read about Reagan, including from his son, Michael, suggest that he was a religious man. I can't judge his heart, anymore than you can, or should, however, I know he didn't try to to overturn faith in America.

So what you are essentially saying Lance is that we should deny the rights oppurtunities and freedoms we have enjoyed for so long ourselves whic enabled us to thrive in this country from others?
Not a chance.

BTW one of the reasons abortions went down under clinton was because of the funding into things liek planned parenthood and educational programs like it, which the holier-than-thou-choose-my-religious-laws-when-its -politically-convinient conservatives are so strongly against.

"I know he didn't try to to overturn faith in America."

Is there someone trying to do that now ?

TC,

I have no idea as to what rights you think I am trying to curtail.

It seems to me when your "buddies" the ACLU....and the other wingnuts that make up the majority of your party, make it pratically a crime for a person or company to say "Merry Christmas".....may I suggest it is your crowd that is trying to take my rights from me.

And while I am at it.....here is a statement from your glorious leader....Howard "Yearrrrrrrrrrrgh" Dean:

Dean's outburst
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claims to be reaching out to red-state voters, but yesterday, he suggested that opponents of homosexual "marriage" are bigots.
Mr. Dean was responding to news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to bring to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual "marriage."
"At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party's failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue," said Mr. Dean, using the abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.
"It is not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible," Mr. Dean said.

''nuff said.

Brad:

Thanks so much for your comment and most of all for your honesty. There are not too many Democrats who will admit that National Defense is not as important as homosexual marriage to the core of the Democratic constituency. But we both know that is the truth.

(It could be that National Defense is not as high a priority for most Democrats as Gay Rights, but I highly doubt it. and certainly in my hiearchy they are not even close. I have my views on the subject of Gay Marriage but its waaaaaay down on the list of my priorities, which is probably due to my not being gay(thank Hashem)

Which leaves the issue of how does one fight the war on terror if the defense budget is slashed when Dems are in power?

(It depends on which democrat would be in charge
but to use the Clinton analogy, to not lower total military budget expenses in the wake of the victory in the cold war would be a huge waste of a)victory and b)money which could be used for other important things. Im all for spending money on the military, but I want it spent wisely (something the military is not known for, though all the servicemen should be blessed and watched over by the Aibishter) My point is that I dont think(i could be wrong but still I dont think) that the Democrats would decrease military funding in a way that would be dangerous, but since there has not been a democratic president or majority in the house or senate more or less since 9/11 it's just conjecture on my part. In fact in my extremely amateur opinion, the only viable presidential candidate from the democratic party is going to be some1 who is considered at least as reliable as the republican candidate on national defense.

But the answer, again, as we both know, is that the Dems are far more concerned with global warming than fighting the Jihadists and will retreat into some form of isolationism.
(again i hope not, and i dont think so, but its possible. But, I happen to be very concerned with global warming and the environment so im gonna go with the candidate that I think will be strongest in all areas)
Afterall, 9-11, according to all the Liberal blogs I read, was our fault: we are too powerful, we are too arrogant, we are imperialists, we are out to steal oil, we are supporters of the Zionists, yadda, yadda, yadda, and of course for this, we deserved to be punished by poor Third World oppressed revolutionaries.

(This is true. The liberal blog-osphere tends to be on the edge of things(putting it mildly) I think they for the most part they dont represent normative democratic thought. And the Dean failure as a candidate showed that. When it came to the general primary, most democrats were at odds with the opinions of the loberal bloggers hawking his candidacy.
Anywhoo, back to reality.

So at least our differences are clear, and that is invaluable. For as I have said time and again. More than anything I seek clarity.

What are my values?
What are your values?

And then let the undecided choose.

So, let's move on to your notion that the Northern corridor is not lacking in supporters of Israel. Well, this is true. To an extent.

INTERPOLATION:
I have no idea what Hilary Clinton believes in, beyond Hilary Clinton--do you?
END INTERPOLATION:

But that does leave the rest of the country, a rather big country. And as in all things political the Arabs are working quite hard on changing the Northern corridor. They have done quite well elsewhere with the Democratic party. Why would it be different in the North? Rapidly changing Demographics and shifting economic patterns speak powerfully to politicians who crave power. Have you strolled in Bay Ridge lately? If you wear a yarmulke, don't. You'll get the stuffing knocked out of you in no time at all. That district is lost and many more will follow.

It is good and noble of you to urge Dems to dump a congressman who voted against the anti-Terrorism bill. However this sounds, and please forgive me if this comes across as patronizing, just plain naive. The Democratic base is, if not plain hostile to Israel, at least squarely in favor of an "even-handed middle-eastern policy." Which translates into giving Hamas a free hand in slaughtering innocent Jews.
( i disagree with ut analysis of what the democratic base is, and I hope im right and ur not, but its certainly possible)
Let us not forget that at the last Democratic National Convention, Michael Moore, a man who has publicly stated that Israel has no right to exist, was given a standing ovation, and then a seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, a man who has done and continues to do incalcuable damage to the state of Israel.
(try to track down the Michael Moore quote, my recollection was that it was a fabrication, but i could be mistaken. i think shmuely boteach wrote an article where he said that he discussed it with Moore and Moore denied it. its just for accuracy's sake, im not trying to make a point.)
In short, by insisting on the primacy of the radical secular leftist program of the Democratic party, Jews in the Democratic party are essentially sacrificing Israel's security -- not to mention seriously compromising America's war on terror.

There is one reason Arab Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democrtas, Brad. And believe me, it's not because the Imams are wild about gay marriage. It's because the Democrats are the party most pliable and most willing to give up Israel to the powerful Arab lobby, which translates into the Jihadists.
If you can't see this elemental truth, well then, I really don't know what else to say.
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment and for your frankness and honesty. They are rare traits and truly appreciated. I hope to hear from you again.
( my impression is that the reason that Arabs vote democratic(overwhelmiongly but not entirely) was bc the democrats are the party most concerned with civil rights, and for Arabs in America, be they jihadi's(who i hope there arent any of)or strong supporters of Eretz Yisroel and its divine right to exist, that is their primary concern. they have seen movies like the siege and heard stories about Japanese DP camp in WWII, and feel that the best interest of their own civil rights lie with the dems. Now I happen to be very concerned with civil rights as well,(not that the Republican party isnt, but I think ull agree that they are less so) so this is a sentiment i sympathize with. Are there any Arabs who vote dem bc they think they are closer in perspective to their own personal anti-semitism? im sure there are, maybe even a lot of Arabs like that, but for the over whelming majority the democratic party and its representives disagree vehemently with their sentiments. To use two examples, one of the greatest losses for Israel was when Tom Daschle lost his seat to a Republican. Daschle was one of the strongest defenders of Israel in the senate from a constiuency that has almost zero Jews. Now the new republican Thume Im sure is also pro-Israel, but i doubt in the same strength as Daschle was, and even if he is it'll take him a long time to reach the strength of having minority or majority leader as your advocate. Another example is Rep. Jim Inhofe. Perhaps the most eloquent and inspirational defender of Israel in Washington. It was worth having him there just for his speeches defending Israel. Id be shocked if I agreed with more than 1 percent of the things that came out of his mouth besides his defenses of Israel. Do i like the fact that he was in the house? absolutely. do iwant him as MY representative? no way. just to sum up,Id like to think that the Democrats as a whole are equal in their support of Israel, and even if they r not(and I agree its probably wishful thinking on my part) the percentages are close enough that Id be willing to vote for them bc their domestic policies are in my opinion so much better than the Reublican ones. If u think that the Republican ones are better, so by all means vote republican, but im still gonna stick to the dems, who i feel overwhelmingly support ISrael as well.

Brad,

Only speaking for myself....maybe some Democrats are individually pro Israel.

However, let me state for the gazillionth time...
My critique is with the INSTITUTION of the Democrat party.

There is empirical evidence....article after article...that points out how the party is anti Israel....anti Jew...anti Christian...on and on and on.

If you want to ignore that....what can I do?

Its like a person who just wont believe they need to lose weight....all the evidence is there...high blood pressure....unhealthy cholesterol, etc...but the patient just wont do anything about it.

Until the heart attack comes....or other serious life threatening ailment....then...maybe....

Unfortunately, most american Jews are the patient in denial....

Its quite sad.

Look at me, I have a computer.
I can also copy and paste today's news:

Dean to Blair: Blast Israel boycott
Howard Dean urged Tony Blair to speak out against a British boycott of Israeli academics.

The leader of the Democratic National Committee told the British prime minister in a letter that the boycott approved Monday by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education threatens peacemaking.

Dean urged Blair “to bring your substantial influence to bear in rallying your party and your people to speak out unequivocally against” the boycott.

Ah Gee, Town Crier.

It's nice to see that you are playing by the liberal rules of debate.

Which state: when said liberal doesn't like corresponding argument, and has run out of coherent things to say, resort to insults and put downs.

TC, I will let you go play with the Kos Kidz. I think they are much more to your thinking and style.

I was not the one who denegrated the thread with yehaaaaaaaargahas

Town Crier:

You seem impressed by the fact that Dean opposes the academic boycott because it "threatens peacemaking"?! How about opposing it because it is simply wrong. Or because it is a crude attempt by closet anti-Semites to delegitimize the Jewish state. (This reminds me of, le-havdil, the Palestinian "intellectuals" who for a short while publicly condemned suicide bombings--but only because they harm the Palestinian national cause.) In the past Dean has been called to task by pro-Israel advocates for calling for a more evenhanded approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. His most recent statement—which I thank you for bringing to my attention—only confirms what his apologists have been trying to deny.

Israel needs committed friends, not even-handed referees. (My personal favorite is Rudy Giuliani, who ejected Arafat from Lincoln Center. I could not imagine any Democrat doing that.)

Hmm, it's "Seraphic Debating Club".

To have "support for Israel" means to hold opinions most Jews agree on (e.g., Zionism is not racism), but it also means holding opinions most Jews will dispute (e.g., the concept of "land for peace"). And I bet most or all of those 151 Democratic Congressmen agree on the former opinion, but would be quick to dispute the latter.

Two facts, however, have permanently narrowed my opinion of what "support for Israel" can possibly mean or not mean. Two acts of war, that is: the so-called "Al-Aqsa Intifada" (an escalation of the ongoing Palestinian jihad), and the 9/11 attacks (an escalation of the ongoing
> Wahabi jihad). So I have two opinions that are now non-negotiable: no compromise with terror, and usher in liberal revolution in predominantly Muslim countries.

Remember the important phrase from the Bush Doctrine, "You're either with us or against us"? It was a warning to states and individuals that sponsor terrorism to give it up or -- as the UN said to Saddam (Res. 1441) -- "suffer serious consequences."

Personally, I think of those words as also being directed toward the Administration's domestic, mostly Democratic, opponents. "You're either with us or against us." It's a stern political line in the sand, and it's a moral one.

This, I think, is why so many Republicans feel not just confident about but obligated in calling certain Democrats "unpatriotic" or "defeatist" or "traitors." (Latest example: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) over his rush to judgment in the Haditha, Iraq civilian killings.)

(I doubt this settles anything once and for all, just trying to get my thoughts clear before wrassling this thread any further, pard'ner.)

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Why did you not tell your friend that there are more than 2 political parties. It's true that the democrats have thier agenda, but so do the republicans. The republicans brought us into a war that we have no busienss being in. Iraq NEVER invaded the USA, NEVER attacked us in ANY WAY. Where as afghanistan (taliban) is responsible for the murder of 1000's of americans(both military, and civilian) With the republican party, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. What has the republicans done about social security? health care? NOT A DARN THING!!! BUT, they have pumped billions of dollars into a country that we just destroyed. There are AMERICANS that are starving, AMERICANS that are un-educated, AMERICANS that are homeless. The iraqi people will never welcome us with open arms, will never look at us, and feel all warm, and fuzzy. You see, history has a bad habbit of repeating itself. Iraq wil, one day, have a ruler just like saddam (or worse). We supported iraq during thier war with iran, and now, they're using all that support against us. I am in iraq right now! I have seen things that I hoped I woud never have to see. Bush may be YOUR president, but he's not mine