For all the people outraged at Hillary for her recent support of Israel,

[mtnsnake]

where it was pointed out in another thread that she supports Israel in its defense of itself....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1662661&mesg_id=1662661

...please inform us what Democratic candidate or potential candidate is NOT on board with her when it comes to standing up for Israel and denouncing Hezbollah in the same manner that she is.

Names?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I can multitask my criticism, thanks.

No one issue will make me vote or not vote for someone, but I've not been happy with pretty much ANYONE in response to this issue, and I never have been.

[liberalhistorian]

2. Unfortunately, in the current political

climate, speaking out against Israel's actions is political suicide. Frustrating and infuriating, I know, but that's the way it is. And few politicians have the courage to stand up for something if it's going to cost them politically.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Current?

That's how it's always been.

[mtnsnake]

9. "Politically" it works both ways, so let's at least give her credit for

having the guts to make her position CLEAR, whether or not we agree with her.

Part of the point of me starting this thread is to show that most of our Democratic spokespeople don't have the guts to come out loud and clear in public on the issues that are vitally important as they're happening. At least we know where Hillary Clinton stands, and I for one, don't completely disagree with her on this particular stance of hers with Israel, but where do our other heavyweights stand on this? Are they watching to see what the polls say before they speak out?

[JackNewtown]

40. This is no courageous stand

She knows that the vast majority of the American public backs the Bush/Olmert position on this.

[mmonk]

4. Farce.

I know I'm not criticizing her for her support of Israel (nor any other candidate). I criticize rah rah statements in the middle of a seige of Lebanon that could escalate and is a little controversial.

[burythehatchet]

Well stated. Opportunism as its best/worst

[Perky]

8. She is from New York for Cripes sakes

Any one who does not understand the important of the Jewish vote in NY and why Hilary appear Rah-Rah, is not smart enough to be posting on DU.

NY Politics and Judaism are as intricately interwoven as the Irish are in Boston. I learned that in the 8th grade civics class.

[mmonk]

10. Easy on the insults. My post is a true and a reasonable

explanation of my answer to a question posed.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. To be fair, American Presidents have tended to be more balanced

Bush being a big exception; but while Congress and most political candidates are completely in the pocket of AIPAC, many of them *DO* see both sides of the issue and won't speak out or vote against pro-Israel resolutions because they know doing so would be political suicide.

For example, while Bill Clinton clearly had a pro-Israel lean, he was very strenuous in diplomatic efforts and nearly forged an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement; he nevertheless was much more balanced as President than he was a candidate, when he was VERY pro-Israel. All we can do is hope that by electing someone who is obviously smart, intellectually curious, and can think critically (unlike Bush) they will act in a more fair way once elected.

[JackNewtown]

41. liberalpramatist

You lived up to your name with that good post. :thumbsup:

[CuteNFuzzy]

6. support for Israel is not the problem

The problem is the blind eye turned towards the constant killing of innocent civilians. As if it's not really happening, and as if Israel doesn't really target civilians or has any goal of harming or punishing them. The view that Israel is only defending itself and only responds to an act of aggression against them, is false.

[Perky]

12. They were attacked, they have the right to go after the group

that attacked them. The fact that Hezbollah is deeply embedded in civilain areas is unfortunate but how many innocent Isrealis has Hezbollah killed in the last twenty years?

Who chooses to call as nauseum for the anhiliation of Israel and who refuses to negotiate anything?

Israel has never instigated an attack but they do respond when pushed. The Destruction of Hezbollah is fine by me.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

21. When I read this kind of post, it makes me SO ANGRY

that I could easily say things that I don't really mean and would regret.

The fact is that none of the actions taken in the Middle East can be seen in isolation. It's a complicated place and memories are long. Hezbollah claims that Israel has been kidnapping civilians from southern Lebanon. I don't know that for a fact and YOU don't know that. But even apart from that, Israel has killed its share of civilians over the years, including tens of thousands when they occuped Lebanon. Do you think people forget it when their entire family has been wiped out? And as for not wanting to negotiate, why did Sharon refuse to discuss any peace with Abbas? Why has Israel continued building settlements on land they agreed to abandon?

I don't support Hezbollah in this, but I don't support Israel either. There's plenty of blame to go around. This is tit-for-tat violence and personal vendettas that go back decades. To say that only the Arabs initiate the violence and that Israel NEVER initiates the violence just shows that what you're all about is loving Israel no matter what they do and no matter what the past involves. And it's thinking like yours, on both sides, that has brought the endless killing and keeps it going.

[no_to_war_economy]

30. can I get an amen

gawd i wish there were more of you here at DU

[sendero]

32. I'll repeat myself once again..

... there are no "good guys" in the ME conflict, a pox on both their houses.

[Cybergata]

36. Thank you for saying what I haven't found the words to say.

I'm totally at a loss about what is happening. I keep reading as much as I can, trying to see both sides, but I'm still at a loss for words & understanding. Every since Israel build that horrid wall, I've been asking what is going on. I once was a stanch supporter, but that is in the past. Their actions recently have made me question that support.

[CuteNFuzzy]

37. aint no life nowhere

This post is perfectly stated

[WI_DEM]

7. None and one big reason is that the Jewish vote is one of the

most reliable Democratic voting blocs in elections.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Reliable, but unbelievably small.

They only make up 2.2% of the population. In Hillary's case, they make up 8.7% of New York, so one might be able to understand why she'd take such a position, but as a national foreign policy, it's very difficult to understand why exactly such an enormously pro-Israel position is taken.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

[k_jerome]

39. yeah, why do we support They? nt

[JackNewtown]

42. Most US Jews are moderate

Most US Jews have views similar to Americans for Peace Now, not AIPAC. AIPAC is more right-wing than the general US Jewish population. Politicians are responding to AIPAC's $$$, not votes. They don't gain many votes from backing Olmert/Bush wholeheartedly. If they took a position similar to, let's say, the EU position they would still retain the votes of the vast majority of Jews, assuming they are Democrats. Want more evidence that it isn't votes that are the key here? Look at Republicans. Jews consistently vote Democratic. Repubicans gained no votes by Bush wholeheartedly backing Sharon. What they can gain is AIPAC $$$$ at no cost. There is no real Arab lobby. Backing AIPAC is basically getting money at no cost. If it were really about votes for Republicans they would be balanced since that would get them Muslim votes (the Muslim population is roughly the same size as the Jewish population). They would lose valuable AIPAC $$$$, though.

[JackNewtown]

46. As Bush and Rove discovered in 2004

Bush and the repukes racistly thought that by rubber stamping everything Sharon did that many American Jews would flock to Bush and his party. Not only was that view demeaning toward American Jews, the old "dual loyalty" canard was implicit in it. What happened on Election Day? Bush's gain among Jews was about the same as his gain among the general population. I think his gain was 5% among Jews vs. 3% nationally. That extra 2% may not even have been due to his Israel policy. While Bush lost both New York and New Jersey in 2004, he gained a lot of ground in those states relative to 2000 and NY and NJ are two states with a substantial percentage of the national Jewish population so their shift probably accounts for the extra 2%.

[symbolman]

11. How about taking a stand for PEACE

and demanding that ALL of them cut the shit OUT or get their asses smacked by the whole world?

The killing of INNOCENTS by both is a WAR CRIME. Thanks to Bush's ignoring of the Geneva Convention it's no longer even brought up.

To promote the Bush "doctrine" is to PUSH INSANITY.

You don't burn down the whole town when someone steals your kid, you call the COPS - any and all of these WarMongering Pigs in our govt should have teams trained and ready to strike at THE Terrorists appropriately..

This is cowboy crap, and to be honest real Cowboys didn't kill everyone in town, most of the time the Town Killed THEM if they were out of control or called in a Posse.

PEACE is now a four letter word.

[seemslikeadream]

18. How about "And I do not plan to cooperate with evil at any point"

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/031...

This quote comes from a speech Dr. King gave on January 14, 1968. He had visited Joan Baez and her mother in jail and he gave the speech outside the Santa Rita jail in California afterwards.

“And I do not plan to cooperate with evil at any point. Somebody said to me not too long ago,

“ ‘Dr. King don’t you think you are hurting your leadership by taking a stand against the war in Viet Nam? Aren’t people who once respected you going to loose respect for you? And aren’t you hurting the budget of your organization?’

“And I had to look at that person and say,

"get a clue Democratic senators and representitives" SLaD says


“‘I am sorry sir, you don’t know me. I am not a consensus leader. And I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a genuine leader is not a of consensus but a molder of consensus.’

“On some positions cowardice asks the question, ‘is it safe?’

“Expediency asks the question, ‘is it is politic?’

“Vanity asks the question, ‘is it is popular?’

“But conscience asks the question, ‘is it right?’

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. And that is where I stand today and that is where I hope you will continue to stand so that we can speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters all over the world and righteousness like a mighty stream. And we will speed up the day when men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and nations will not rise up against nations neither they will not start a war anymore and I close by saying as we sing in the old Negro spiritual,

“I ain’t going to study war no more.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and Singer Joan Baez in a Special On Civil Disobedience: Baez Recalls When King Visited Her in Prison, and We Play a Rare Recording of King's Remarks to Supporters Outside the Prison

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. In response to your inserted remarks.

There's an enormous difference between working on the inside and working on the outside. It's a lot easier for Dr. King to make statements like that than it would be for Dr. Dean because of the responsibilities of the positions they hold. It's a distinction not to be ignored.

[symbolman]

31. Beautiful!

Thank you for sharing that.. man do we need another leader like HIM, now more than ever :)

[mtnsnake]

13. No names yet, eh. Funny about that...

selective criticism at its finest by the people who love to jump all over Hillary for her stance when the rest of the Democratic bunch have either no differing stance or NO stance period.

[Hardrada]

14. The more is the pity.

We need to get at the causes of the instability in the ME and seek international solutions. Someone said a zero state solution would be best. Perhaps a state for all religions and under an international mandate. I think military solutions are no solutions at all. In any case simple demographics will work against Israel's interests now and in perpetuity. So it seems only logical to seek some middle way.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. I find it ironic that Hillary is being pilloried, but not Feingold

Their position is identical.

I have my issues with Hillary, but this is what she's always believed about Israel, and it's what almost every American politician believes about Israel. Frankly, while Israel is being heavy-handed and deserves criticism, Hezbollah is a terrorist group whose stated amibition is to destroy Israel. The over-the-top rhetoric on DU about this issue irritates me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Excellent point.

Just because he is Jewish, that shouldn't change matters one bit, and if it does, that makes him unfit to be President right there. It should also be noted that there are many Jews, here AND in Israel (more in Israel than in the U.S.) that oppose Israel's actions, so merely being Jewish shouldn't just give him a free pass here.

But Feingold zealots don't care about consistency, just like the Kucinich zealots before them. Facts matter even less.

[mtnsnake]

23. And you make another excellent point

But Feingold zealots don't care about consistency, just like the Kucinich zealots before them. Facts matter even less.

Amen, Vash.

The thing is, I don't mind at all that someone criticizes Clinton for her remarks about Israel defending itself. It's the way they single her out for doing so, when the reality is that they can't name any other Democrats who beg to differ with Hillary, at least not at this stage. Maybe there are some Democrats who would like to spank Israel, but how about they stand up in public and let their opinions be told. Their silence is deafening. At least we know where Clinton stands.

[mtnsnake]

20. Exactly. Right or wrong, when it comes to her, it's DU selective criticism

at its finest.

Notice in the other thread how it took 65 responses aimed at Hillary...and someone putting their foot in their mouth by saying that Hillary should learn a lesson in integrity from Feingold...before someone else pointed out that Feingold's views on Israel's defense were the same as Hillary's.

How soon they'll forget that, though!

[JackNewtown]

44. I agree with that

As I said earlier, virtually ever member of Congress will vote the same way on the resolution backing Olmert/Bush. I don't think she should be singled out. Plus, as some here have noted, she is the Senator from New York. She has to represent New Yorkers and obviously New York has more pro-Israel people than Nebraska or Alabama. She is doing her job. Feingold, on the other hand, has more political wiggle room because of the state he is from. If one of the two should be singled out it should be Feingold.

[mmonk]

35. The post was specific.

First, the post was about Clinton, not Feingold. Second, presidents in the past have sought to diffuse volatile situations and worked for middle east solutions while also supporting Israel and weren't scared to call for restraint at the same time.

[eridani]

38. Where did you get the idea that Feingold wasn't being pilloried?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1646783

[JackNewtown]

43. US politician's views of Israel

Do you really think virtually every American member of Congress and every prez, VP, really believe the same thing about Israel, that virtually everything it does should be supported? Or do many of them, perhaps most, take that position due to political convenience?

Keep an eye out on the vote on the Senate resolution supporting the Olmert/Bush position. I bet over 90 Senators will back Olmert/Bush. Is that really a reflection of their true views?

Politically, there is nothing to lose and something to gain by being zealously in favor of whatever the Israeli government does and politically there is nothing to gain and something to lose by even having a view that is semi-balanced on the conflict. Remember the firestorm when Howard Dean dared to suggest the US have an even-handed Israel/Palestine policy???

[blogslut]

22. You mistake my outrage

I told you that in the last thread. I'm done with her because she's cloaked herself in neocon talking points and wears the halo of republican lite. She insults all of us by assuming that the only way she can win is by becoming something she is not. Her statement about the Israel/Lebanon conflict was nothing but a play on emotions and the assumption that Israel is somehow promoting American values - that's neocon talk. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

[mtnsnake]

24. To you she's promoting American values. To her it was an analogy she made

Sorry if I'm mistaking your outrage, but how do you know for sure you're not mistaking her objective? Israel is our ally, not Hezbollah, and Clinton made a strong analogy to try and make people understand where they're coming from on this.

[blogslut]

25. War is not my American value

However, her statement is but one in a long line of inanities that have come from her mouth since she decided to join the go-alongers. I'm over her.

[mtnsnake]

27. Mine either, but still there are no names provided here of other Dems who

disagree with Senator Clinton. Instead, there are only those who are jumping on board with her. Someone in another thread mentioned that Ted Kennedy issued a statement that parallels Feingold's, who someone else said parallels Clinton.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that posters here are all too conveniently selective.

[blogslut]

28. Yes, I know

I'm just not going to be backed into a corner on a subject I know nothing about. I support Israel's right to be Israel. I support Palestine's right to be Palestine. I don't support the fact that they can't share land.

[mtnsnake]

33. Those are good sentiments

and I wish both those countries could figure it out. Make that ALL countries should be able to figure it out without killing each other.

Well said, blogslut, and I'm sure most everyone feels the same.

[LoZoccolo]

26. It seems like you still haven't been given any names.

I'm not for sure on that though because I have so many people on ignore.

[mtnsnake]

34. No, but I'm sure there's a lot of frantic searching going on

So far, all anyone's come up with are other Dems who AGREE with her and Feingold on their Israel stances.

I'm not for sure on that though because I have so many people on ignore.

LOL!

[JackNewtown]

45. Which says, something doesn't it?

[blindpig]

47. You're right.

They're all complicit. Shame, shame, shame.