US Jews support Israel, don't speak up

[Behind the Aegis]

US Jews are strong supporters of Israel but usually tend to refrain from defending Israel publicly. This is one of the main conclusions of a new poll that surveyed the views of American Jews.

The poll was commissioned by The Israel Project, a pro-Israel public advocacy group and was conducted by pollster Frank Luntz.

Among the 800 American Jews that took part in the survey, 82% said they support Israel, most of them characterizing themselves as strong supporters. Analyzing the supporters, Luntz found that backing Israel is stronger among older Jews, among those who belong to the Conservative movement and among Jews who attended Jewish day schools and visited Israel.

While the support for Israel seemed solid, pollster Luntz warned from "disturbing signs that support could shift in the wrong direction". He noted that one in five American Jews does not support Israel in questions concerning its conflict with the Palestinians. "Every day people are dying and in this conflict I would like to see 90% backing Israel", he added.

...more... http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475665720&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[rpannier]

1. So basically...

they're concerned because American Jews do not march lockstep behind everything their government does. I don't see this as a problem. I strongly support the United States and I'm proud to be an American (I live in Asia and I never hide from the fact that I am an American), but that does not mean I support everything America does.

added:
I read the article and some of the postings. I found this on younger and liberal Jews:
11. American "Jews"
Benjamin Norbert - USA
12/02/2005 04:57
I also think most liberal American "Jews" are not only bad sons and daughters of the Jewish people, but also bad Americans, what with their being in the lead of various misguided leftist-liberal causes. It's no wonder conservatism is correlated with support for Israel. And Jews who support today's Democratic party are neither good Jews, nor good Americans. Evangelical Christians are far more reliable allies than most of today's post-Modern, post-Jewish, post-patriotic American "Jews"

Thank you Mr. Nortbert. You have once again proven that when Conservatives have nothing useful to say they question the Patriotism of the left.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. read it again.

They are concerned because Jews don't feel they can publicly declare they support Israel because we will be branded traitors (or freepers, here). Over 70% of Jews vote democratically, and are very supportive of equal rights, but we also know that supporting Israel, not its government, per se, will brand us as traitors and unpatriotic.

[still_one]

7. hey, I am Jewish, and I support Israel

I support an independent Palestinian state, I am NOT afraid to express my views of Israel, or critisize it for that matter, but the most important thing is that I am an American, and what comes in the best interest of Americia is my concern. Our involvement in Iraq IS NOT in the best interest of America, and we should get OUT

Over 70% of the Jews in America voted for Kerry. knowing luntz he probably skewed the poll by interviewing the 30% that didn't vote for Kerry

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Hey..guess what...I am a Jew too!

So try this, fellow Jew...go to a Rethug stronghold or a leftist site and say you support Israel. Make sure you report back and have pics of the bruises!

Guess what? I agree with you that the illegal war in Iraq is bad for the US. It is also bad for Israel, but you wouldn't know that because it is made to look like that Israel supported it. Scapegoat?

I am American and proud to be one. But, I am also proud to be a Jew and I will not tear apart the one place that was created as a refuge for us. Because, fellow Jew, supportive of this administration or not, you'd be on the same cattle car as me!

[still_one]

15. what you refer to appliesmostly to the extreme right and the extreme left

in this country. That is the one thing those groups have in common, they hate Jews.

What concerns me is that PNAC, project for a new american century, helped push us into this insane war, and the only thing people will remember is that 50% of PNAC is made up of extreme right wing Jews, but conviently forget that rumsfeild, cheney, and others who implemented the war are NOT Jewish, and also part of PNAC.

I have no doubt that the Jews will be used as a scape goat on this, in spite of the fact that most Jews do NOT support the war in Iraq or this administration, and that has nothing to do with being for or against Israel as luntz would like to make the correlation

[Coastie for Truth]

54. Complete agreement ----

[Darranar]

61. There is no anti-Semitic "extreme left" in this country.

There is anti-Semitism in the extreme left, as there is in every other political movement.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Yes...and it is most disgusting in the left.

Holocaust revisionism, Israel is always wrong, everything an Israeli politician does is a "ploy," and the only 'good' Israeli is one who defames and diminishes Israel...funny that...they can say that shit like that in Israel. I wonder what happens to Muslims or Arabs who vehemently disagree with their governments?

[Darranar]

70. If mindless "our arbitrarily defined ethnic group is better than theirs"

nonsense is the point you are trying to make, I am not going to argue with you about it; it would be pointless.

Who do you think is guilty of defaming and diminishing Israel? What, practically, does one defame and diminish when one defames and dimishes the abstract entity of "Israel"? Similarly, what is the "Israel" that you think parts of the Left accuse of always being wrong? The government? The people? The culture? The policy towards the Palestinians?

[Behind the Aegis]

74. do you retract your original statement?

I was pointing out what I have seen. It was not meant that ALL people on the left engage in those activities.

[Darranar]

79. No, I don't.

Because there is nothing "extreme leftist" about anti-Semitism. Nor are the anti-Semites on the left particularly "extreme" politically, for the most part, at least as far as leftist politics goes.

The assumption is far too often made that once a person leaves mainstream political positions and becomes an "extremist," immediately they take in a whole host of evil views, which must be condemned at every opportunity.

The general "extreme left" position on Israel/Palestine is that the conflict is manufactured by the bourgeois classes of Israel, Palestine, and the other players in the region, and that Israeli and Palestinian proletarian unity, leading to a socialist revolution, is the only ultimate solution. Explanations depending on non-economic factors are false intepretations seeking to explain away social phenomena while ignoring the central factors leading to them. Nationalism of any sort - Zionism or Palestinian nationalism, and their representatives - is a reactionary obstruction to real progress, which can only take place through socialist revolution.

Suicide bombings viewed in this context are contemptible atrocities that divide the working class, and are condemned as such. Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, is despised as divisive and reactionary, and aggressively condemned.

Undoubtedly there are anti-Semites on the extreme left, but the extreme left is hardly even close to the most anti-Semitic of political tendencies in this country, even keeping to left-of-center political tendencies.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. Good to hear.

"Because there is nothing "extreme leftist" about anti-Semitism."

I didn't say that, now did I? Nor did you say anything like that.

"Nor are the anti-Semites on the left particularly "extreme" politically, for the most part, at least as far as leftist politics goes."

I didn't say or agree to this either.

What I did agree too was..."There is anti-Semitism in the extreme left, as there is in every other political movement."

I went on to say that is "most disgusting" when it comes from the left, not because they are "better" anti-Semites, but because those on the left are usually equated with liberalism and multiculturalism. Therefore, when someone on the left is a racist/anti-Semite, it is even more offensive to me.

"Undoubtedly there are anti-Semites on the extreme left, but the extreme left is hardly even close to the most anti-Semitic of political tendencies in this country, even keeping to left-of-center political tendencies."

You make sure to remember that first part! Make sure you are the first to tell people here and at other sites, that, yes, anti-Semites are in action, EVEN ON THE LEFT! As for the second part of your clause, the extreme left is not the most anti-Semitic, that would be the extreme right, but when does it really matter which is the better hater? Being a little racist is like being a little pregnant!

[Wordie]

72. When comments like these are posted about the left on leftist sites,

then what should anyone expect??? And to take the response one would inevitably get as evidence that one was right in the first place is not reasonable, imho. When people on the left are painted with such a broad brush, OF COURSE there is going to be a negative reaction.

Do really you see any criticism of Israel as "defaming and diminishing" as you put it? Can't you see that maybe goes a bit too far? I love my own country; I consider my criticisms of my own country a form of patriotism. A democracy requires dissent, doesn't it?

[Behind the Aegis]

73. try again

Did I say any? No, I didn't. So before you start complaining about my "broad-brush," step away from yours. BTW...I didn't say it was all leftists or even all people on the left. I said it is more disgusting because the left is supposed to represent open ideas and reason, not broad-sided attacks. However, I find it more interesting that I was agreeing with that poster and s/he took it as a painting every one on the left a certain way, as opposed to what I was actually doing, pointing out the most disgusting things I have seen by those who are supposedly 'left.'

[Wordie]

75. "..go to a Rethug stronghold or a leftist site and say you support Israel"

Make sure you report back and have pics of the bruises!<unsnip>

That's what you said. That comprises all leftist sites, as far as I can see. That is entirely a broadbrush statement.

As a person on the left who wishes to be able to have an open discussion of Israel, I find such characterizations problematical.

[Behind the Aegis]

76. vocab...

To me, there is a difference in a "leftist" and a person on the "left" or a liberal. Interestingly enough, that comment was in another post, not the one you were responding to, so I didn't get the reference. This clears it up.

on edit: I don't see DU as a leftist site, it is a Democratic, and often liberal, but not leftist (although, it does attract some).

[Wordie]

77. You see DU as only "often" liberal??? What is is the rest of the time, RW?

I think you are way off base if you don't think that DU is primarily a left-wing site. (And "liberal" is not a bad word, either.) Comments posted that misconstrue what DU is all about are likely to be objected to, along with comments disparaging to liberals or leftists.

Here's a statement from "About DU" by the administrators. You can find it on the DU homepage, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.(emphasis mine)

And here is the definition for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leftist&db=*

left·ism also Left·ism
n.

1. The ideology of the political left.
2. Belief in or support of the tenets of the political left.

leftist adj. & n.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

leftist

adj : believing in or supporting tenets of the political left n : a person who belongs to the political left

# often Left

1. The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.
2. The opinion of those advocating such measures.

[Behind the Aegis]

78. reading...

It is more often, than not, a liberal site. However, there are quite a few moderate posters and positions. And, I never said "liberal" was a bad word. I should have been more clear: ultra-leftists. Better? I see myself as a liberal.

Try reading harder. I never said it wasn't a "left-wing" site, I said it is not "leftist." There is a spectrum with the left. Or do you it is a monolithic entity? It appears you see it a monolithic thing, very black and white, with no shades of gray!

[Wordie]

82. When new definitions for words are created it causes difficulties.

In this case, distinctions that don't exist are also being created. You said: Try reading harder. I never said it wasn't a "left-wing" site, I said it is not "leftist."

"Left-wing" vs "leftist"??? Does anyone see those two terms as substantially different? Well, they aren't.

To whit, the dictionary definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=left

Left

1. The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.
2. The opinion of those advocating such measures.

leftist.
left·ism also Left·ism Audio pronunciation of "leftist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lftzm)
n.

1. The ideology of the political left.
2. Belief in or support of the tenets of the political left.

I come here because I wish to discuss issues of the day with like-minded persons, namely those left-wingers/leftists of whom you complain so regularly. You are making characterizations which are extremely offensive. I object to disparaging remarks against "leftist" sites. I maintain that DU is a "leftist" site and I find your comments problematical.

Edited to add:
And, I would also like to stress that none of this means that I have any problem with moderates, necessarily. As long as they also do not make broad sweeping statements disparaging "liberals" or "left-wingers" or "leftists," we will get along fine.

[Behind the Aegis]

97. nuance

Is there a difference between "right-wing" and conservative? Oh course. But, because they don't have similar appellations, it is not as confusing, as when discussing the left-wing.

You say: "I come here because I wish to discuss issues of the day with like-minded persons, namely those left-wingers/leftists of whom you complain so regularly." You obviously know very little about me. I have almost 5000 posts in little over a year. The majority of my posts are not in this forum. Your disparaging remark that I complain about posters here "so regularly," is as divorced from reality as saying that all 'pro-Israelis' are Islamaphobic.

You can object to comments about sites all you want. Me? I prefer to object to disparaging remarks made against people and groups of people. For someone that is so worried about being "misinterpreted," you seem to have no worry about do the same to others. Go back and read the start of this sub-thread (starting with Darranar's comment). Read what I actually wrote, then read what you actually wrote. Open to browsers and read them side by side, and you will that you misrepresented what I said and took issue with things I did not say or claim.

[Wordie]

100. I'll quote here what was offensive in your statements:

You painted the left thusly:
<snip>
...it is most disgusting in the left.

Holocaust revisionism, Israel is always wrong, everything an Israeli politician does is a "ploy," and the only 'good' Israeli is one who defames and diminishes Israel...<unsnip>

Do you really think, to take your most inflammatory example, that these things are common in the left? That seem simply absurd to me. When you make comments like this it sets up a climate where people become increasingly hesitant to post comments critical of Israel here, for fear of being painted with the words you've so freely apply to people on the left.

This is a broad brush painting of those of us on the left who may not agree with Israel in a highly inflammatory and derogatory manner. Yet you say <snip>Me? I prefer to object to disparaging remarks made against people and groups of people.<unsnip>

Well, your remarks are disparaging, and are against a whole group of people (those on the left), and I am objecting. I believe your comments about the left constitute a logical tautology. Here is some info about logical tautologies from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology
<snip>
Subtlety

Controversies arise because sometimes a logical tautology can be quite subtle. Suppose that a news analyst were to make the following statement:

All mainstream U.S. Senators agree that the House bill is unacceptable.

This would seem to be a meaningful statement. But suppose further that he were also to reveal his opinion that "Senator K disagrees, and has therefore shown himself to be outside of the mainstream." In this case, the analyst's definition of "mainstream" requires opposition to the House bill. Therefore his original statement was a tautology.<unsnip>

THIS PART IS IMPORTANT: I'M REACHING OUT TO YOU HERE...
I'd also like to add that it does appear to me, from other comments you have made, that it is negative experiences with real anti-semitism in your past that may have lead you to see things in this way. But I would like to respectfully suggest that you are generalizing those experiences to a great number of other people who don't deserve the label.

You may not be aware how offensive your own comments are to those who in no way are anti-semitic, but DO question Israeli policies, and ARE members of the left. If I made similar generalized statements about "the jews" I know you would be offended. Please consider this and make modify your approach a bit, so we all can feel comfortable posting here.

[Behind the Aegis]

101. misrepresented AGAIN!

"...it is most disgusting in the left." Notice the word is "in" and not "on." This indicates problems IN said group, not the group itself!

"Do you really think, to take your most inflammatory example, that there is a high number (or any!) "holocaust revisionists" in the left? That seem simply absurd to me. When you make comments like this it sets up a climate where people become increasingly hesitant to post comments critical of Israel here, for fear of being painted with the words you've already applied to people on the left."

Did I say there was high number of ANYTHING? NO! I gave examples of what I have seen at places that are or claim to be "left" or "liberal" sites! What is absurd is that because you haven't seen it, it must not be true. I suggest you contact Lithos in a PM and ask him if there have been cases here (he also knows about many other sites, as well) of posters posting revisionist material. And as for a climate of people being afraid of criticism Israel because I posted examples of real problems, I have to call BULLSHIT!

on edit: bolding issue

2nd edit: Isn't it ironic that the article is about Jews being afraid to discuss Israel is a positive light, and yet you are claiming you cannot do the opposite?

I pointed out REAL problems I have seen at liberal sites. I never said it reflects everyone who is a liberal, or even the liberal agenda! The only one trying to make this about the entire "left" is you. Not every anti-Israeli post is anti-Semitic, but to pretend that some anti-Israeli posts are not based in anti-Semitic rhetoric, is just plain luncacy (see the thread about David Duke here in the I/P forum).

[Scurrilous]

94. delete

[manic expression]

80. ...

When Israel does what it is doing to Palestinians, it is WRONG. Period. Most of what the Israeli politicians do are ploys.

What happens to Muslim or Arab dissenters? There are many Arab/Islamic countries that are repressive, but so what? That's like saying that since most Chinese people live under a repressive government, it is a.) characteristic of Chinese culture and/or b.) OK to occupy parts of China.

I think you are forgetting that the Arab and Muslim world was the ONLY place Jews weren't getting persecuted during the Middle Ages. Doesn't that deserve at least SOME acknowledgment?

[Behind the Aegis]

96. Fascinating.

You say: "When Israel does what it is doing to Palestinians, it is WRONG. Period." Then, you say; "There are many Arab/Islamic countries that are repressive, but so what?" So, basically, only when Israelis are oppressive..."it is WRONG. Period." Yet when Arabs are doing it the response is "so what?" That about right?

You make a false analogy of China. Palestine is not occupied because of an oppressive government. And, you missed the point completely about dissent.

[manic expression]

103. Umm....

Those were on completely different points.

Israel is occupying and murdering Palestinians. When it does that, Israel is wrong. Period. When Arab countries do the same, it is wrong. However, we're talking about Israel (look at the forum we're in).

The Arab countries comment was on your assertion that Arabs cannot speak freely. However, the simple fact that there are repressive governments in the region is no reason to say that one disgustingly repressive country (Israel) is better than others (or brand an entire people as adverse to free speech).

Actually, Palestine IS occupied BY an oppressive government -- Israel. However, you made an allusion to the fact that Arabs don't speak freely (not true at all) in relation to Israel. Why would you ever bring that up?

[Wordie]

58. I don't know Luntz, but it does appear he is biased...

<snip>
...Luntz warned from "disturbing signs that support could shift in the wrong direction". He noted that one in five American Jews does not support Israel in questions concerning its conflict with the Palestinians. "Every day people are dying and in this conflict I would like to see 90% backing Israel", he added.<unsnip>

A good pollster is not supposed to have a horse in the race. Such a bias can color the questions, for instance, and lead to bad and inaccurate results.

[6th Borough]

60. ...Well, he is an RNC consultant. /EOM

[barb162]

84. Those RNC consultants are damned good, aren't they?

Got a tongue-tied simian elected TWICE as prez

[rpannier]

10. I read that thing four times...

and I read the posted responses to the article and I'm not reading it as you are. I am reading it as Mr. Luntz being disturbed that only 1/5 American Jews support Israel in the Palestinian conflict. I am also reading it as Mr. Luntz sounding a call to get parents to teach their children about Israel before 10 years old so they will be more supportive.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. the understanding.

I don't care what his personal feelings are. I care that most Jews don't feel comfortable enough to support Israel because of repercussions. I don't care that Luntz wants to bias children, it won't happen. I care that those of us you are supportive of Israel have to watch ourselves, lest we be branded traitors to the US. We run for public office, we know that our religion will concern the public because we, of course, value Israel over our own nation.

I was one of the 70% that voted for Kerry. I am American and fucking proud of it, even if we have an asswipe in office. But, I am also proud of my Jewish heritage and will not deny it because the religious right or the leftists are threatened by the "Jewish/Zionist" scourge. However, I am not in the majority!

[rpannier]

14. Point taken

I'm not disputing you on that issue. There are many reasons why the US should support Israel. Our relationship with Israel has been rocky at times (Brian Pollard being the most glaring example), but they are the exception to the rule. I'm not a huge fan of Ariel Sharon, but I have been pleasantly surprised by many things he has done.
I agree with you, there are those on the left who bristle at the word Zion like you're talking about the Nazi's, Kim Jong-il or Pol Pot.
As a personal note, you and I have crossed paths on DU. I only know that because I remember your Icon. We were the lone supporters for the Wall that Israel is building to protect its people from suicide bombers. I quoted an exceedingly liberal commentator from MBC here in Korea who said, "If the Palestinians had an un-protected rally in the downtown, the odds that Israel or Israeli's would attack it is very small. But, if Israeli's held an unprotected rally, the odds are very high, almost 100%, it would be attacked by some Arab group."
I only mention this because I don't want to leave you with the impression that I am anti-Israel. I am not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Sharon's party say the barrier's going to form a border between the states

A senior ally of Ariel Sharon has given the most explicit indication yet that the Israeli Prime Minister envisages the 425-mile separation barrier as the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

Government spokesmen frequently claim that the barrier was built solely for security reasons and could be removed or rerouted.

But the Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, who is helping prepare the programme of Mr Sharon's new Kadima party, told a legal conference in Caesarea: "One does not have to be a genius to see that the fence will have implications for the future border. This is not the reason it was built, but it could have political implications."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article330677.ece

Is 'landgrab' one word, two, or hyphenated? I think we'll have to use it a lot in the future.

[Jim Sagle]

69. Thank you for obsessing.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rpannier]

20. So it was Israel that cooked the intelligence

and forced the US and the UK to go to war in Iraq. So...you're saying it wasn't about oil, it wasn't about scrubbie wanting to push an immoral agenda. That the US really didn't want to go to war in Iraq. It was ALL about Israel and how it manipulated the intelligence. I see. Interesting hypothesis.
And, while we're on the subject of Israel... Bullying the middle east? I would like to make the point that there is plenty of blame to go around. I mean, it was the Arab states that invaded Israel in 68, the famed 7 Day War, and it wasn't Israel that launched the Arab-Israeli War of 72, nor was it Israel that killed the Olympic athletes in Munich. It's also not Israelis that have been walking onto buses and into crowded public places and blowing themselves up, along with children, the elderly, etc. I was critical of Israel's bombing of the Iraqi Plant in 82, Sharon should have been tried and convicted for the murder of civilians in the refugee camp in Lebanon and there is a slew of other crimes I can level at Israel.
But, come on. Get real. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a black and white issue. Their are atrocities that have been commited by both sides.

[still_one]

21. Israel didn't force the US/UK to invade iraq

cheney, rumsfeld, rice, and others have no affiliation with Israel, in fact most of their contacts are big oil and saudi arabia, and their intent was to control the oil in Iraq, and setup a permanent base

you indicate the Israel is the bully in the middle east, then you obviously are blind, or have no idea about history

[Behind the Aegis]

27. I didn't see the deleted comment.

However, still_one, can i assume this was a hateful post directed at those who support Israel? Perhaps this was what Luntz was talking about?

On a side note: You and I don't agree on some things...but wouldn't be interesting to conduct our own poll? Maybe we could re-enact this poll?

[still_one]

35. your assumption was correct

but it had nothing to do with what the Luntz poll was about, rather it expressed one persons narrow minded predjudice

Though you and I may NOT agree on some things, I would also bet that we agree on more things then we disagree on.

I also prefer to think more optomistically about people

If this poll was reenacted on DU it would even be more inaccurate than the Luntz poll, but an interesting suggestions nevertheless


Peace

[Coastie for Truth]

55. Again - complete agreement--

cheney, rumsfeld, rice, and others have no affiliation with Israel, in fact most of their contacts are big oil and saudi arabia, and their intent was to control the oil in Iraq, and setup a permanent base

But it so much easier for people who drive SUV's from the remote exurbs and get their news from sound bites and snippets of questionable veracity and parentage.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. thanks

BTW...It is Jonathan Pollard, not Brian. :)

Like you, I have been surprised (and shocked) by Sharon's actions. As hated as he is, NO other Israeli leader has accomplished what he has. He is no saint, and never will be, but he well may be the one that leads to a new Palestinian nation!

I didn't know we had "crossed paths" before. I just changed my icon a few weeks ago. But, I am glad that you can see things in a broad perspective.

As for thinking you are anti-Israeli, I wouldn't care if you were. I have met many who were. I just don't like those who are anti-Semitic. The running "gag" here is that you can't post anti-Israeli things without being branded an anti-Semite. If that were really the case, almost ever 'pro-Israeli' person here would be an anti-Semite! I no more support every action of the Israeli government than I do of the American government. And, I assure you, I am not anti-American! The real problem is that if you are "pro"-Israeli it must mean you are anti-Arab or Islamaphobic. That is as untrue as a pro-Palestinian being automatically anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. We both know that is not true.

[rayofreason]

43. Support the wall

You are not alone in supporting the wall. I support it was well, and the reason in exactly because of the point you made:

"If the Palestinians had an un-protected rally in the downtown, the odds that Israel or Israeli's would attack it is very small. But, if Israeli's held an unprotected rally, the odds are very high, almost 100%, it would be attacked by some Arab group."

While I agree that there are border implications of the fence, and it the end the border should be negotiated, I see nothing wrong with building a barrier that blocks people who wish to murder civilians from reaching their targets. Some bristle at this idea because, deep down, they believe that Palestinian Muslims have a right to kill Israeli Jews. I reject that, and reject attempts to erase Israel or the Jewish presence in the region that goes back millenia.

Until Muslims accept that there will be a non-Muslim entity in their midst, there can be no peace. Israel and its people will not just lay down and be murdered, nor should they. And the Palestinians must accept that the only way to their own self determination in a state is to accept the self determination of the Israelis in the state of Israel. There many who support a Palestinian state, myself included. However, it cannot be a state dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. There's nothing in that article about being branded traitors

It says nothing about the reasons they don't talk about Israel. It could be because they don't find it interests people. It could be because they're ashamed of the support they have for Israel. Or it could be, as you suggest but have shown no evidence for, that they think they be called traitors.

Given the overwhelming support in the USA for Israel, as opposed to its government, I think your fears are baseless.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. no there isn't.

That only happens here.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. baseless fears?

"you, frank luntz and ralph reed will make for happy company i'm sure."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=38477&mesg_id=38514

[Coastie for Truth]

68. Maybe its because they are sick of confronting

radically pro-Palestinian pseudo Progressive loudmouths who are convinced by the blogs they read that "Israel is always wrong - ALWAYS - ALWAYS - and the Palestinians are always right - ALWAYS - ALWAYS right -- and the ME situation is a "Zero Sum Game" demanding a clear winner and a clear loser - and that israel must be the loser.

That (il)logic sometimes shows up on Progressive Web sites, too.

And they are sick and tired of the pseudo Progressive conflation of "Zionist" and "PNACer" and "NeoCon" and of the (un)conscious link to Larry Franklin and Jonathan Pollard -- and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

[Jim Sagle]

71. Thanks for the reassuring words.

:beer:

[still_one]

4. keep in mind that luntz is a neocon repuke pollester

it is NOT even worth the paper it is printed on

He was notorious on nbc for his push polls

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Perhaps.

But, I am guessing it is not far from the truth.

[still_one]

2. the king of push polls frank luntz

In fact in you last paragraph putz, er I mean luntz injects his own personal opinion, "...I would like to see 90% backing Israel he added.

I also have major problems with the Jerusuleum post, where Richard Perle is part of

who in the frick is luntz to say "disturbing signs that support could shift in the wrong direction"? No legistimate pollester who doesn't have an agenda injects his personal opinion like luntz does

[Behind the Aegis]

5. have all the problems you want.

I find that any one who says they are supportive of Israel is branded a traitor and not a real American.

You are American, correct? You are also a Jew, if I have read correctly. Does your support for the existence of the US mean you support Bush? Do you support the war in Iraq? I bet you don't. I am also betting that many Americans would say you are a traitor. So, why is it so hard for a Jew to know that supporting Israel will be branded a traitor to the "liberal" mindset?

[still_one]

9. well that sure isn't my experience

then again, I am from California, and it appear from your profile that you are from an area of the country that might just feel that way.

Again I don't trust anything that comes from luntz. The crap he pulled in the 2000 and 2004 election showed exactly where he is coming from

[Behind the Aegis]

13. experiences

You are correct in that Luntz may not be correct. I simply presented an article. However, I think I may do my own poll. (I will need a statistician...because like Barbie, I think that "math is hard!")

I am guessing you don't live in a place where they can "Jew you down" on a car. I am guessing that you don't live where "someone got kiked." (BTW...that means someone stole something...I didn't know that until last year and I am 36!)

What I do know...I come here, support Israel, and I am a "freeper" and a "Likudist" (which I find funny, because most people saying that don't even know what the fuck that means, because they don't shit about Israel or her government), or I am a "traitor" who loves Israel more than the US. I love my mom and my dad. Should I have to choose? it doesn't mean I always find either correct, but it also doesn't mean that my love for them is diminished.

[still_one]

17. no, but when I was growing up in the midwest I experienced it firsthand

Jews couldn't live in certain neighborhoods, and were excluded from certain clubs. I was called "Christ killer", Jewboy, and a wealth of other obsenities, and involved in fights over it, but things have changed.

When you say you , "...come here, support Israel, and are called a freeper and a likudist, ... trator etc.", I do NOT believe that represents the mainstream, but a few outside of the bell curve, and you will always find individuals outside of the bell curve

The problem with people today is that they are NOT critical thinkers. They drink the koolaide. Look at the limbaugh group? Do most of his listeners even bother to see if what he says is accurate?

I take no source, right or left, at face value

[dutchdemocrat]

32. Gödel, Escher, Bach

I am also betting that many Americans Israelis would say you are a traitor. So, why is it so hard for a Jew to know that supporting not supporting Israel will be branded a traitor to the "liberal" Israeli mindset?

Gödel, Escher, Bach

See comment here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1960712&mesg_id=1960804

[ClintonTyree]

8. Anything that Frank Luntz is connected with.......

would be pure, unadulterated propaganda. Anyone not familiar with Luntz should do a little research into his background.
As far as American Jews supporting Israel, to what degree does Luntz think American Jews owe allegiance to Israel? To what degree does America itself owe allegiance to Israel? America's relationship with Israel needs to be reviewed but Mr. Luntz may not be happy with the results of that review.

[Mend]

22. Would you speak about the 30% of Jewish people, who by

voting for bush because they think he is better for Israel, also have voted for the erosion of church and state, the possible end of legalized abortion, an anti-gay agenda, the genocide of the poor in New Orleans, the absence of a meaningful health care plan, the trashing of the environment, and the list goes on. It is hard for a liberal like me, who always felt that Jewish Americans would try other ways to help Israel besides PNAC, to understand how they can participate in destroying our democracy here.

[Chi-Town Exile]

38. Traditionally, those 30% used to be "Liberals"

However, the hatred directed at Israel by Liberals and "those on the Left" (as Rush et. al would describe us) has driven that 30% over to the dark side.

While it is quite fashionable to trash Israel and anyone that dares to care about Israel while calling themselves a Liberal (Yes, I AM A LIBERAL AND I CARE ABOUT ISRAEL) the current popularity of wrapping one's self in the Palestinian flag while calling yourself a Progressive has succeeded in driving a very traditional base of the Democratic Party and Progressive causes in general over to the other side.

While there are many people on this board that don't care about losing Jews to the Republicans, the unfortunate truth is that Jews are socially conscious and those that are quite successful are quite generous with donations to the political party of their choice.

As a Jew, I constantly find myself at odds at where I belong. I am in no way a Republican, but I really don't feel comfortable as a Progressive any more because if I dare to say I care about Israel's survival I will automatically be branded a Freeper, Traitor, Likudist or God knows what else.

I know it is difficult for some here to understand but growing up in the sixties on the tail end of the baby boom and post WWII the state of Israel was of major importance to the American Jewish community. Support of Israel held us together. I'm sorry if that offends some people. I will NEVER apologize for supporting Israel.

However, by saying I support Israel, it does not mean that I support EVERYTHING Israel does.

It is no different to me than saying I will NEVER apologize for supporting the United States. However, I do not support the current administration or the atrocities that are being committed in Iraq in our name as Americans.

Flame away ...

[Mend]

40. Support for Israel and being a Democrat are not mutually

exclusive unless you believe that the only way to help Israel is to go in and mow down the rest of the Middle East, i.e., PNAC.

[Chi-Town Exile]

45. That's your opinion ... but from where I'm sitting

it looks like that pretty much is the case.

For the record, your comments prove my point.

[Coastie for Truth]

57. Your comments - make me proud to be a Volunteer at

one of Bill Frist's HCA Hospitals.

[Colorado Blue]

87. I'm not going to flame because I think you're correct. I know

some of those 30% and they are traditional liberals, intellectuals - the sort of people the Democratic Party has always relied upon and their social values haven't changed.

But - they've come to regard the Left as antisemitic and as you've pointed out, can't cope with the anti-Israel sentiments. So they've found themselves voting Republican, albeit reluctantly.

There's another aspect to this: the Democratic party hasn't come up with a good foreign policy, or one that differentiates itself from the Republicans. Many people are uncomfortable with that, and 9/11 reinforced their concerns. Jews in particular relate to the terrorism angle, though I know very few who were rah-rah about Iraq.

[Coastie for Truth]

56. I beg to disagree

I spent many years (13) in a company that had been as "Free of Jews" as the WaffenSS.

My boss was the first Jewish executive in the company - mildly anti-semitic, Republican, bragged about "going to the club" with the other executives (where he was NOT invited into membership) -- and oh yes, he solicited money for Paul Findley - to show he was "one of the boys."

IMHO - he was a selfish "Social climber."

[dutchdemocrat]

23. Some comments at the Jerusalem Post website on article.

1. American "Jews"
Danny - Tel Aviv
12/01/2005 22:55

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I told my American Jewish English teacher that I would trade five hundred American Jews for five American Evangelic Christians on a-n-y given day.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?article_headline=US+Jews+support+Israel%2C+don%27t+speak+up&articleref=1132475665720&author_name=NATHAN+GUTTMAN&id=1126169697986&pagename=JPost/JPTalkback/ShowTalkback&tb_num=1

A very smart observation. Evangelicals are actually more likely to speak up on behalf of Israel than many in the Jewish community. We should accept our allies where we find them.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?article_headline=US+Jews+support+Israel%2C+don%27t+speak+up&articleref=1132475665720&author_name=NATHAN+GUTTMAN&id=1126169699198&pagename=JPost/JPTalkback/ShowTalkback&tb_num=3

Right on! the older generations of American Jews tended to more or less have a Jewish peoplehood consciousness, although even many of them tended to express it more during periods when Israel was favorably preceived by the general U.S. population. As things stand now though -- and especially in view of trends among youger U.S. Jews --- I'm prepared to write them off, except the manifestly Zionist ones. All the others I simply view as a pool from which to "convert" to Zionism. I also think most liberal American "Jews" are not only bad sons and daughters of the Jewish people, but also bad Americans, what with their being in the lead of various misguided leftist-liberal causes. It's no wonder conservatism is correlated with support for Israel. And Jews who support today's Democratic party are neither good Jews, nor good Americans. Evangelical Christians are far more reliable allies than most of today's post-Modern, post-Jewish, post-patriotic American "Jews"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?article_headline=US+Jews+support+Israel%2C+don%27t+speak+up&articleref=1132475665720&author_name=NATHAN+GUTTMAN&id=1126169701118&pagename=JPost/JPTalkback/ShowTalkback&tb_num=11

AIPAC will be in my town for a big conference this month. I've gone before but I'll never go again and they'll never get another dime from me either since they've dropped singing Hatkivah from their program and refused to have someone representative from YESHA speak when they were in New York with Ariel Sharon. They were fawning all over him since he adopted their liberal attitude about throwing evil right -wing Jews out of Gaza. Obsequious is an understatement. Shameful ...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?article_headline=US+Jews+support+Israel%2C+don%27t+speak+up&articleref=1132475665720&author_name=NATHAN+GUTTMAN&id=1126169699494&pagename=JPost/JPTalkback/ShowTalkback&tb_num=5

[Behind the Aegis]

25. your point?

[dutchdemocrat]

26. Not my point

Their point.

For your comment.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. and?

A few people made comments...why did you post them?

[dutchdemocrat]

30. Why not

I think the response of Jpost's readers is relevant. Don't you?

Do you think I have some kind of 'agenda' because I choose to publish a selection of responses to the article you posted that are submitted by the readership of the newspaper in question? I took the time to read all of them, but I felt these four were the most disturbing (I was, frankly, shocked) so I posted them.

Don't try and pigeonhole me - thanks.

I think it's very interesting that hard line RW JP readers would prefer to align themselves to fundamentalist republicans - rather than American, Liberal, Democrat Jews.

[Behind the Aegis]

dupe

[Behind the Aegis]

31. see post #29!

[Ian David]

33. Jews and the Christian right: Is the honeymoon over?

Jews and the Christian right: Is the honeymoon over?

Worried by increasingly strident evangelical rhetoric, Jewish leaders have finally dared to criticize conservative Christians. Will an alliance held together only by a shared support for Israel survive?

By Michelle Goldberg

Throughout the last five years, as the Christian right has assumed ever greater power and prominence in America, the organized Jewish community has been remarkably quiescent. Traditionally, Jewish leaders have been among the most vigilant guardians of American secularism, seeing the separation of church and state as key to Jewish equality. But faced with an evangelical president who seemed inviolable and an alliance of convenience with the religious right over Israel, Jewish leaders didn't raise much of an outcry when billions of taxpayer dollars were diverted toward religious charities through Bush's faith-based initiative. They didn't make a fuss when the administration filled the bureaucracy with veterans of groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition. As leaders of the religious right and their allies in the Republican Party trumpeted plans to "take America back," observers detected growing anxiety among ordinary American Jews, but there was little response from organized Jewry.

This month, that started to change. Two major Jewish figures -- Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism -- have taken on the religious right and, by extension, the Republican Party. By doing so, they have enraged some evangelicals and opened a fissure in the larger Jewish community. Some leaders are worried about provoking a conservative backlash and ushering in a new era of anti-Semitism. Others rejoice that someone has finally articulated what so many ordinary American Jews have been thinking. Either way, the culture wars have suddenly taken on an overtly sectarian cast.

More:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/29/foxman/index_np.html

[alfred e bush]

34. i dont think so...

hes what a fundy preacher wrote to me yesterday...when i asked...whats all the israel love about?

As long as America supports Israel, I believe that they will be under God's protection. When America withdraws their support, I a afraid that we will see judgement. That is what happenned to all of the other nations. God blesses those who helps Israel and curses those who do not. The price in the OT for betrayal of Israel was extinction or reduction to a third world country.

i replied....u should let the public know that...

[Ian David]

52. Focus on the Family hints Jews should "make nice" with them "Or Else"

<snip>

Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family's vice president of government and public policy, called Foxman's speech "perplexing." Noting that the evangelical groups Foxman cited are staunch supporters of Israel, Minnery told the Forward, "If you keep bullying your friends, pretty soon you won't have any." He suggested that Foxman is prone to exaggeration. With his effort against "The Passion," Foxman "predicted the sky would fall, and the sky has not fallen," Minnery said.

Minnery also defended his group's domestic agenda as being compatible with civil liberties for Jews and others. "To the extent that America remains Christian, it remains free for non-Christian belief to flourish," he said. "You don't see that in other parts of the world."

More:
http://www.forward.com/articles/6856

[Colorado Blue]

90. I think Foxman is right. EOM

[Coastie for Truth]

62. Sorta right for kinda the wrong reasons and analysis

Most minorities are like the "canary in the coal mine" -- and when a regime goes after its minorities (racial, religious, gender orientation, physical condition, age) it's like the Reverend Neimoller said --

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Rank them in any order - Gays, African-Americans, Jews, Trade Unionists (like Air Traffic Controllers), Poor, Elderly, etc. The ranking doesn't matter -- it's the PacMan process.

Something the "Reagan Democrats" never realized until Reagan came for Air Traffic Controllers and the Copper Miners.

[Chi-Town Exile]

36. Great article. Thanks for the link. nt

[David__77]

37. 20% are right.

And many more are in the right place in their hearts, but feel compelled to defend Israel no matter what its policies.

[Chi-Town Exile]

39. I think this sums it up pretty well...

From the Salon article:

"In fact, neither is true. Jews in America aren't endangered, but the power of the religious right has clearly reached a point where a great many feel exceedingly nervous. The fear is not of pogroms or outright discrimination; rather, it's of the disappearance of the secular civic culture that allowed Jews to feel like full citizens of America rather than a tolerated minority."


As for me, frankly, I don't feel comfortable on either side of the equation ... the Right has always hated Jews and the Left has become a haven for Anti-Semites that cloak themselves in the Palestinian flag and constantly whine that their comments about Jews and Judaism in general aren't Anti-Semitic and only represent Anti-Semitic rhetoric in the mind of overly sensitive Jews. Classic Anti-Semitism and those that whine about it most ... well, to paraphrase the quotation, "Methinks the Lady doth protest too much."

[Mend]

41. I am not an anti-semite and I have no arab/palestinian sympathies

it is pretty simple in my house: I don't want MY kids drafted and sent to fight an awful war in the Middle East to make Israel safer and to get oil. You can have my tax money but not my children.

[Chi-Town Exile]

46. You jump to some ridiculous conclusions.

Because I state that I support Israel it means that I want your children to go die for oil?

WTF?!

If you believe that the Bush administration's misadventures into Iraq were based solely on making Israel safer ... than you have your head planted firmly up your behind.

Cheney ... Bush ... OIL?! Ring any bells?

Unfortunately, if you believe that Israel is any safer now, than you have fallen prey to Republican talking points.

Those terrorists we are creating today in Iraq are tomorrow's suicide bombers in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

[Mend]

49. I don't believe that Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Joe Lieberman,

and other pro-war Jewish leaders went there for the oil. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems there is an Israeli agenda to this war as well.

[Coastie for Truth]

63. Do some digging

alternative, renewable, clean, and green - in one capacity or another - environmental/safety regulator, engineer, executive, consultant - for 30 plue years out of a 40 plus year career -- and it's right there in PNAC at , and I would commend to your attention

[Coastie for Truth]

53. It is not to make Israel safer - it is for OIL - Only for oil.

Your append

"I don't want MY kids drafted and sent to fight an awful war in the Middle East to make Israel safer and to get oil. "

is half right ("I don't want MY kids drafted and sent to fight an awful war in the Middle East ... to get oil.) and half wrong (I don't want MY kids drafted and sent to fight an awful war in the Middle East to make Israel safer .... )

As a Progressive you really should go beyond sound bites and snippets and blogs.

Even PNAC admits its all about oil --- - is a big Adobe Acrobat File.

And take a click over to --- and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=266|DU: Peak Oil Group>, and if you really want to dig (which is not a trait of these knee-jerk blame Israel for our Iraqi trouble) -

1. Michael Klare, "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict With a New Introduction by the Author"
2. Michael Klare, "Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum"
3. Jim Kunstler, "The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream " (DVD)
4. Jim Kunstler, "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century"
5. Ken Deffeyes, "Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak"
6. Ken Deffeyes, "Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage"
7. Matt Simmons, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy"
8. F. William Engdahl, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order"
9. Anthony Evans "An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact"
10. Craig Unger "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties"
11.

I have only been in the alternative, renewable, clean, and green energy business for 30 plus years of my 40 plus year career.

And, I don't want my grandkids "drafted and sent to fight an awful war in the Middle East to make Israel safer and to get oil." -- and the ONLY that's going to happen is if we wean ourselves away from ME oil.

[Colorado Blue]

88. If there is (another) awful war in the Middle East it will be for

one simple reason: so y'all can keep driving your car, consuming all the petrochemicals and refinery by-products that run the global economy.

This is a region of geostrategic significance. Israel is a pawn in this game, not the queen.

[Ian David]

44. You've left out a third category...

Those who have legitimate grievances against some of Israel's policies, yet unknowingly parrot the talking points and language of anti-semitism without actually having anti-semitic feelings.

There are anti-semitic people out there who take the old blood-libels and stereotypes and "retrofit" them into forms that are palatable to well-intentioned people. Those people innocently repeat the talking points back, not realizing they might as well be quoting from "The Protocols."

So, there are people of good will repeating anti-semitic talking-points and rhetoric without realizing where it comes from or what it really means.

[Chi-Town Exile]

47. Excellent excellent point.

Unfortunately, those talking points just seethe with hatred even when people are well-intentioned.

I must be honest. As a Jew, I feel quite unwelcome on this message board.

[Ian David]

50. I've got 33 people on my ignore list. How many are on yours? n/t

[Charlie Brown]

51. I apologize on behalf of other progressives

I agree, there is way too much hostility on this board and elsewhere toward anything pro-Israel.

Israel has as much right to protect its security as any other country, and the needs of its citizens should be taken into account.

This kind of "Your only a true Democrat if . . . ." degrades our unity and credibility.

Those of us who condemn the thugs and murderers who set off bombs in Iraq get a similar cold response around here.

[Colorado Blue]

89. You're not alone. It's kept many of us up all night, really

wondering what is happening, if this is a sign we should pack our bags or what, or if it's a fringe phenomenon.

I'm no kid, and antisemitism has always been around, just under the surface. But frequently, I've seen it surface here, on a liberal, "progressive" website, in as naked a fashion as on any reactionary rightwing site. And other "progressive" sites are worse. At least here the mods are responsive to the worst of the bigotry. But that doesn't stop the sentiments. And trying to use reason, history, encyclopedia links, logical argument - none of it seems to work.

Since the ADL has, quite courageously I think, called the rightwing Christians on their bias, I think a lot of us are beginning to feel squeezed on both sides.

[Wordie]

59. Funny, it appears to me that the opposite is true. The anti-semitic crowd

at times uses valid information for bad purposes, and then somehow the information itself becomes tainted, and if any other person mentions it, they become branded anti-semitic, whether they are or not. Its a guilt by association sort of thing. Information is information; it may be inconvenient, but it is not in itself anti-semitic.

And I have frequently had the experience on this board of having someone react emotionally to something that I had not said, so convinced were they that I must be anti-semitic because I support Palestinians and don't support many Israeli policies. They appeared to me to be reading things into my comments based on their beliefs, not what I was really saying.

[Wordie]

81. Please provide some examples, in which someone "parroted" anti-semitism

I suspect what you may actually be talking about is people who happen to touch upon some issue, a criticism of Israel, that the anti-semitic people use also. Does a valid criticism of Israel become tainted just because an anti-semitic person uses it? Is the criticism forevermore off-limits for discussion, just because some other biased person, unbeknowsnt to the poster, previously applied the criticism???

Or, is it important for those concerned about anti-semitism to take care in who they label? Such labels, applied for less than accurate reasons, can cause suffering just as the anti-semitism the label attempts to stamp out does.

You said:
There are anti-semitic people out there who take the old blood-libels and stereotypes and "retrofit" them into forms that are palatable to well-intentioned people. Those people innocently repeat the talking points back, not realizing they might as well be quoting from "The Protocols."

Please give examples, as this is an important issue, that needs to be hashed out, if we are to be able to communicate at all. My prediction is that the things you come up with will not be found to be anti-semitic at their core, but rather it will just be a case of some anti-semitic person having used the point, in a completely different context. Information, in and of itself, is not "anti-semitic."

And while you're at it, could you define the term, "blood-libel"? I have heard it repeatedly in this forum, but I've never known it's precise meaning. Thanks.

[Lithos]

83. Wordie

I will answer this, but with the following caveat.

For someone who holds such a strong opinion about what is anti-Semitic and what isn't, these questions you ask indicate an extreme lack of understanding of the history and causation behind the roots of anti-Semitism. To be blunt, such a strong stance over this issue is extremely insensitive to many here. However, the reasoning about why material from anti-Semitic sites is not allowed for general citation is similar to that of why material from any hate site is not allowed except in certain, well identified contexts.

To answer your question about repeating what is said from anti-Semitic sites and documents. First, much of today's anti-Semitism being couched under the tenets of historical revisionism - ie, people who are currently trying to craft a pseudo-history thru deliberate lies and distortions with the sole intent of pushing a bigoted agenda. This includes people such as Willis Carto, Ernst Zundel, and David Irving among others. There have been numerous court battles which have shown the lies perpetrated by revisionism.

Any material that is unique to sites allied with these theories which harbor this material is not considered trustworthy or usable. If you think something is real, then you should be easily able to find it with an acceptable provenance that leads to a source with gravitas and authority.

Your question about whether repeating this somehow legitimizes the site is interesting. Hitler himself said something akin to: "a lie is believed because of the insolent inflexibility with which it is propagated." By repeating and linking to material from such sources, you are in turn promoting and strengthening their agendas. To do so willingly is abetting the act of hate they are wishing to propagate.

The main business these people are in is to try and obfuscate the real facts in order to promote their agendas and as such are actively trying whatever it takes to get people to deseminate their views.

As for older documents such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or Henry Ford's "The International Jew" (derived from the Protocols), the language and memes they promote are still in action today. See for example.

As for blood-libel, it is an accusation that the Jews some how are involved in a sacrifice of children as part of their rituals. It is old and often used as an excuse to incite violence against Jews. The idea that Jews "murdered" Jesus. is also wrapped into this. Blood-libel forms one of the core elements of the Protocols of Zion.

There was an Iranian TV movie called "The Blue Eyes of Zara" which is a modern version of blood-libel where the story had the Israelis purposefully kill a Palestinian girl for the sole purpose of extracting her eyes as a donor.

Other Arab media sources also are promoting similar elements of hate based on the Protocols. While there are other aspects which I'm not going to go into, the issue that it exists is true and that they are being for the express purpose of inciting hatred against Israel thru anti-Semitic screeds.

Blood-Libel, the protocols of Zion and other related tracts have formed the ideology behind a hatred which has resulted in the deaths and deportations of millions of Jews thruout the span of history from the early days of Christianity, into Medieval Europe (the first pograms), the Reformation (Spanish Inquisition, etc.), and the rise of modern Nationalism (Russian Pograms, Nazism, Stalinism, Arab Independence, etc.)

If this isn't enough, consider this. Would you be comfortable with someone trying to promote a viewpoint on US politics by trying to post material from David Duke or a KKK site and claim it is somehow factual? Even if they were to directly and correctly cite the US constitution, would you consider it appropriate to link there or to the Library of Congress?

I believe this answers everything you raised.

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator

[Wordie]

92. Whoa, Lithos, we are talking about very different things.

You seem to think that I have questioned why material from anti-semitic sites should not be posted here, and I did not in any way ask any such question! And surely, nobody on DU posts such horrid stuff. I've never seen it.

I am very uncomfortable with why you seem have the idea that I was suggesting that such sites should be acceptable.

I am too tired to respond further, but had to write at least this much, as it is very disturbing that your post seems to also misconstrue my meaning. I will deal with this tomorrow.

[Lithos]

104. See your inbox

L-

[Moloch]

42. This is a biased poll.....

I wonder if he phrased the questions "does Israel have the right to exist" and the like. Of course, most Jewish people support that stand and so do I but that doesn't mean I support Israel's policies especially toward the Palestinians. Note that the pollster describes "disturbing signs that support could shift in the wrong direction" concerning policies with the Palestinians. I'm not familiar with the Jerusalem Post but I don't think reputable newspapers should be printing the results of such a biased poll.

[barb162]

85. You don't know if the poll is biased unless you have seen it

I have been trying to find it and haven't found it yet. Also unless you know his methodology, his sample size formula, if he applied the right formula, how he formulated his questions, etc., you can't say if it is or isn't biased.

Why do you automatically assume it is biased?

This story has been in a number of papers besides the Jerusalem Post

[Al-CIAda]

48. Oh goodie, more AIPAC spy/PNAC propaganda! -nt

[Darranar]

64. Yeah, okay, that clears things up.

80% of American Jews "support," whatever that means, "Israel," whatever that means. So 80% of American Jews accept a position on the political spectrum from, say, left-wing Tikkun members to radical rightist neoconservatives. Only 20% could potentially fall into the anti-Zionist camp.

Early indoctrination into the typical propaganda helps guarantee more lockstep thinking later on:

Frank Luntz found in the survey he conducted that if young Jews are exposed to information on Israel before they turn 10 years old, they tend to hold positive views on Israel, while those who learn on Israel in high school or college, usually develop negative views.

"Information on Israel," that is, propaganda about Israel, most effectively delivered before Jewish children can think effectively for themselves. Yeah, let's help it on. We wouldn't want to have free-thinkers, would we? Especially not free-thinkers in favor of radical concepts like Palestinian self-determination. Let's crack down at an early age to prevent such a travesty.

:eyes:

[Coastie for Truth]

65. That way for a lot of things

1. Politics- You raise a kid in a home where news and politics are regularly discussed every night at dinner, where the family gets serious news magazines, where the family regularly posts political signs on their yards and political bumper stickers on their cars, where the kids go to party and union outings, rallies and barbecues, where election day is a family outing, and where your council member and assembly member are family friends .....

I used to go to Democratic Party picnics, and UNION picnics before kindergarten.

2. Religion - I lived a block away from a k-8 RC School, and I was in the Cub Scout Pack and Boy Scout Troop that they sponsored. Tell me...

3. Atheism - Soviet Style - "Information on Religion," or as the Commissars said, propaganda about religion, most effectively witheld from children until the age of majority was an attempt to destroy religion.

Early indoctrination works (you don't an MS in Early Childhood Education for that one - just talk to my sister or my ex)

[Colorado Blue]

91. Oh baloney. I don't think that's what's going on here. I do

think that people are uncomfortable with expressing either their Jewishness or their support for Israel, and the reasons for that are amply discussed in this thread.

One of them is the sort of attitude, with respect, that you're expressing. It gets OLD. It's assuming and expressing a sort of moral superiority that is one of the things the Left LOVES to cloak itself in, with little justification - especially Leftists who see everything in terms of the Socialist dialectic and apparently have no concept that other points of view have value as well.

There is plenty of propaganda going around these days and a vast amount of it isn't exactly proIsraeli.

[Darranar]

93. I did not mean to criticize Behind the Aegis or any other poster

in this thread, nor do I wish to criticize the legitimate points he or anyone else is trying to make.

I am criticizing Frank Luntz and his hatred for dissent and fear of free thought. "Disturbing signs that support could shift in the wrong direction"? 80% apparently isn't enough for him, he wants 90% chanting the meaningless phrase, however it is to be interpreted.

As Coastie for Truth pointed out, early indoctrination always tends to be effective, whatever the rational basis for it, and the implicit advocacy of such methods as far as support for Israel goes disturbs me quite considerably. By what right should they claim that they hold a monopoly on truth, that their opinion is the right opinion, and therefore they have the right to imprint it upon the minds of others?

Why should we teach Jewish children to blindly support Israel? Why shuld we protect them from knowledge of al-Naqba and other such atrocities, from comprehension of the Palestinian side of the conflict? By sheltering them from this aren't we just contributing to the continuation of the conflict, to the escalation of hatred?

[Colorado Blue]

102. I don't think the issue is "blind support". That obviously is

stupid, regardless of the cause, and in any case as people grow and learn their opinions will moderate or even swing 180 degrees, regardless of early impressions formed by parental, religious or educational values. Witness the mass rebellion frequently demonstrated by young people, which may or may not represent permanent changes in perspective.

As an example, when I was young, affluent white kids from prep schools were out flying the red flag and making fervent speeches about The Revolution. Now they're probably running corporations.

What I think we're discussing here is more subtle. It involves, for one thing, a lack of grounding in history, tradition and culture that can't be learned anywhere else or picked up in a short time, certainly not simply from books and definitely not from professors, etc. Also, peer group pressure is significant and when people are the children of a tiny minority, some 2% of the US population, only about 13 million worldwide, peer group pressure is frequently coming from the other direction - it's anything but supportive, especially when the religious culture of the other two Abrahamic religions is inherently rebelling against and undercutting their parent, Judaism.

Socially and politically, it's difficult to stand up against the casual anti-Jewish sentiment that's so obvious on a daily basis, and which seems to be growing and becoming more vocal once again: the very word "Jew" has pejorative connotations. And this is bound to carry over into perceptions of the Jewish state.

Part of the problem implied by the article and the poll, is a growing distance from the Jewish experience that drove people to create Israel in the first place. That's within the living memory of people in my generation but not necessarily, in those who are a generation younger. For example my grandparents, whom I knew of course, walked out of Russia - the pogroms are no abstraction to me but to people of subsequent generations, they take on the unreality of ancient history. Same with the Holocaust. Soon all the survivors will be dead and all that will be left, will be the shards and bones and scraps of paper in museums. But the revisionist historians won't stop their propaganda. Soon, the revisionism may take on more reality than the truth, without the counterbalancing power of living survivors.

And, assimiliation is robbing American Jews of so much history and culture. How many really are learning about the vast richness of Jewish history, the flavor of European Jewry, of Yiddishkeit which was almost completely destroyed, let alone the traditions of Oriental and African Judaism? All of these are part of modern Israel, all of these people live there now, and this history and culture can't be separated from a knowledge of Israel or an understanding of her place in the world.

If people don't learn this poetry, this music when they're young, when will they learn it?

If Jews don't teach this to other Jews, who will remember and who will understand? People will look at Israel, read propaganda about Khazars and endless conspiracy theories, learn about "zionism" from the Protocols, and see a pariah and not a phoenix.

[Darranar]

109. I am not going to argue with that.

I am not arguing in favor of assimilation but rather against the idea that the Jewish community needs to hold its members to some sort of rigid "pro-Israel" ideology.

That does not mean that Zionism should not be taught to children, nor that it should not be discussed with adults, but rather that Zionism should be taught and discussed in a two-sided manner that takes into account not merely the end of the exile but also the harm done to the indigenous inhabitants.

[Colorado Blue]

113. I believe in a full discussion, obviously. But by "indigenous

inhabitants" - doesn't that also include the Jews? In fact Jewish history is continuous and ancient in this region.

Of course I'm sure you mean to include Jewish people when discussing indigenous inhabitants? What of the damage done to THEM, during the Diaspora, after 1948 across the Middle East, the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by Jordan?

This is important history, yes? But it's completely overwhelmed and subsumed by the history of "indigenous inhabitants", if that discussion only includes Arabs, only refers to the Naqba and not to the corresponding losses by Middle Eastern Jews after 1948.

Also, revisionism concerning the history of Judaism is alarming. Efforts throughout the Muslim world to undermine the location of the Temple, for example, are pervasive and troubling. This ALSO should be discussed and not only among Jews.

[Coastie for Truth]

105. Please elucidate

You posted

As Coastie for Truth pointed out, early indoctrination always tends to be effective, whatever the rational basis for it, and the implicit advocacy of such methods as far as support for Israel goes disturbs me quite considerably. By what right should they claim that they hold a monopoly on truth, that their opinion is the right opinion, and therefore they have the right to imprint it upon the minds of others?

Why should we teach Jewish children to blindly support Israel? Why shuld we protect them from knowledge of al-Naqba and other such atrocities, from comprehension of the Palestinian side of the conflict? By sheltering them from this aren't we just contributing to the continuation of the conflict, to the escalation of hatred?

1. "Honor Thy Father and Mother" - you always learn much from GOOD PARENTS and GOOD GRANDPARENTS and GOOD AUNTS AND UNCLES - See "Sociology for Dummies" and "Anthropology for Dummies". That's the way "values" - like not taking dope or not impregnating minors or not robbing or burglarizing, and being charitable and ethical, etc. get passed down.

2. Your point "the implicit advocacy of such methods as far as support for Israel goes disturbs me quite considerably. By what right should they claim that they hold a monopoly on truth, that their opinion is the right opinion, and therefore they have the right to imprint it upon the minds of others?" is exactly what the "Dictators" followed during the 1930's -- the "Age of Dictators."

3. You also questioned "Why shuld we protect them from knowledge of al-Naqba and other such atrocities, from comprehension of the Palestinian side of the conflict?" Per my response in numbered paragraph 1, if you inculcate a love of learning - you are not "protecting them from knowledge..." but teaching them to read, question, analyze, compare, and contrast. When I was younger those were good Progressive values.

4. You then stated "By sheltering them from this aren't we just contributing to the continuation of the conflict, to the escalation of hatred?" - you are assuming that a good parent shelters. My response is that a good parent builds a foundation, and inculcates progressive values, which may include investigating, reading, digging, researching, questioning, analyzing, comparing, contrasting and drawing conclusions. As a parent - I do not think I have sheltered my kids and I think I have given good Progressive values.

5. My kids have good marriages, are good parents, good contributors in their professions, good Progressives -- and have not followed me blindly (one is, a "skate board past the salad bar Catholic", as compared to a "cafeteria Catholic." None of them did drugs or have any substance abuse problems; and all of them take in stray dogs and cats).

6. I will not ask you about your kids.

[Darranar]

106. Please keep to what I actually said

instead of attacking what you make up about what I said.

[Coastie for Truth]

107. Please keep your critique (#93) of my append (#65)

to what I actually said also.

I really want to understand what you meant (append #93).

[Darranar]

108. You said that early indoctrination works in many circumstances

and I was agreeing with you.

[Coastie for Truth]

110. And we put different value judgments on early indoctrination

(which - as a parent - I called parenting)

[Darranar]

111. The phrase I used was "early indoctrination into the typical propaganda"

the "typical propaganda" being, as was made clear by context, the recurring theme that the Israeli Government acts by necessity when it brutalizes and oppresses innocent people and similar distortions - distortions leading to "support for Israel," the aim advocated.

I do indeed think that such indoctrination would be immoral, as would, say, teaching Palestinians about al-Naqba without mentioning the context of the Holocaust.

[Coastie for Truth]

112. An opinion and a value judgment. (we have reached impasse-NT)

[barb162]

86. I can't find the poll

Did you see it somewhere

[Behind the Aegis]

98. I haven't been able to find it.

I have looked in a variety of places. It is possible it will pop-up some where eventually, but I haven't seen it yet. I will keep checking the ADL site because that would the most mainstream site that show it first, likely.

[barb162]

99. I checked the Israel Project, a few other sites and some papers

but it's not there yet.