Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAmerica is changing its mind on Israel: How Netanyahu is alienating his most essential ally
(Salon) The current violence in Israel-Palestineimmediately following the debate about the Iran arms deal, which revealed growing fissures in American support of Israelhas brought the conflict into the foreground of U.S. political discourse. The absence of any serious mention of Israel-Palestine during the first Democratic presidential debate thus speaks volumes. It tells us that even as polls show more and more of the Democratic base shifting its support away from Israel, the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are reluctant to talk about Israel. It will be interesting to see if they shift their stances at all in the next few months, given the stakes that are emerging. Recent polls have shown that Latinos, a critical constituency, are lending their sympathy to the Palestinians. They join the young, progressives, Blacks, and Asian Americans. This is not only the perception of supporters of Palestinian rights, this point of view is shared by advocates of Israel as well.
Everything seems in play, and that calls for our attention. Heres what is unfolding on the American political scene:
To begin with, lets look at the reactions of the U.S. State Department regarding the escalation of violence in Israel-Palestine. On October 13, Secretary of State John Kerry declared Whats happening is that, unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody And theres been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because theres a frustration that is growing.
Upon being accused of laying the blame for the violence on the building of settlements, the State Department rushed to back off from the October 13 statement:
State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters that Kerry had not been trying to affix blame for the recent violence during a Tuesday evening address at Harvard University, when the secretary told his audience that theres been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years and theres an increase in the violence because theres this frustration thats growing. The two ideas, Kirby suggested, were not meant to be interpreted causally.
Right. Its hard to believe anyone bought that spin. What this flip-flop indicates is precisely the fluid state of our political discourse on Israel-Palestine. ...............(more)
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/25/america_is_changing_its_mind_on_israel_how_netanyahu_is_alienating_his_most_essential_ally/
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Supporting Israel is a rightwing cause now.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The percentage of Democrats siding with Israel over the Palestinians is about 10 points higher today than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s.
It climbed from the mid 30's (in the 90s) to the high 40s/low 50s and has stayed at or around that level since 2006.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)What's really telling is how much support of Israel has become a rightwing cause, even a litmus test for Republicans.
Republicans are vastly more supportive of Israel than Democrats are.
Because Israel shares the Republicans' values, not ours.
Supporting Israel is something old, white conservatives do.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/the-israel-project-american-hispanics-are-the-most-hostile-toward-israel-1.412851
In a media briefing in New York to mark the resignation of TIPs founder, Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the groups Executive Director for the Americas, Allan Elsner, said that Israel is more popular among older Americans, Republicans, conservatives and Evangelicals and less popular among liberal elites, African-Americans and Democrats. Elsner said that the Israel Project was focusing its efforts on groups where we have a problem.
Of course, the spin on it from team Israel is racist bigotry.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)You can use Wikipedia to find the answer if you want.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Israeli
(4,139 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Nice job!
Israeli
(4,139 posts).....mention 1991 to any Israeli and the first thing that pops into ones mind is scuds and gas masks .
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But I do agree with you, it was not a difficult question.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)into Israel's wanton brutality towards Palestinians.
During the first intifada, without a wall there to sanitize things, the IDF routinely beat the shit out of Palestinian children for the entire world to see, including the US. Israel piled up quite a large body count.
Speaking of stuff one could use Wikipedia to look up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The percentages before and after that year were lower and stayed consistently in the high 30s/low 40s through the remainder of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Today the percentages on the side of Israel is about 10 points higher among Democrats (high 40s).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in adopting the Neocon view that it's Christians and Jews vs Muslims in a clash of civilizations.
It's not a coincidence that pro-Israel and pro-war are highly correlated positions for politicians to take. Jerry Nadler is a very lonely exception in that regard.
Flashback to 2007, at the 'bipartisan' AIPAC conference.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/11314-pelosi-is-booed-at-aipac
The boos, mixed with polite applause, contrasted starkly with the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.
Fortunately, the pro-Israel crowd failed in their attempt to foment a war with Iran recently.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Bear in mind that there is also a group called J Street. AIPAC is not the only game in town for Democrats who support Israel. Also remember that much of the pro-Israel crowd supported the deal with Iran. President Obama, whom I quoted below, in fact worked to make that deal a reality in order to prevent such a war. He explicitly talked about why the deal was, in fact, good for Israel (as well as the rest of the world) and has said that was one of his reasons for promoting it. J Street, the progressive pro-Israel group, rallied lawmakers to support the deal.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who do not consider it pro-Israel because it is left of center and generally pro-peace.
http://time.com/84395/j-street-aipac-israel-zionism-2/
The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, comprising 50 voting members of varying size, voted to deny J Street membership. Of the 42 groups represented at the vote, 17 supported J Streets membership, 22 opposed and three abstained, the New York Times reports, citing people present because the actual count was private. J Street needed 34 votes to join.
The dovish group has ruffled feathers since its inception six years ago, when it sought to be an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group that has dominated debate of Israeli issues in Washington. Billing itself as both pro-Israel and pro-peace, J Street has taken stances that are critical of Israeli government policy toward Palestinians and out of line with the typically lockstep stances of major American Jewish groups. J Street has, for example, backed the Obama Administrations nuclear talks with Iran and opposed Israels 2008 military incursion into Gaza.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Sounds like J Street is supported by about half of those organizations (the more Democratic and left-leaning ones) and opposed by the other half (the more conservative/Republican ones).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)The Conference includes groups like American Friends of Likud and Religious Zionists of America (along with other conservative groups).
The Conference also includes groups like Ameinu (whose motto is "Liberal Values, Progressive Israel" , Americans for Peace Now, and the Union for Reform Judaism and others.
Just as there is great variety among Democrats (as evidenced by the Hillary-Bernie arguments that can be found on this board), there is also great variety among supporters of Israel (which includes right-wingers but also includes people like Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren).
To pretend that this is not the case is simply dishonest. Again, I do not begrudge you the right to disagree with Elizabeth Warren on this issue, but I don't think you can deny that she is an honest and principled individual who is very clearly a member of the liberal wing of the Democratic party.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There's no pro-Palestine lobby. There aren't any major pro-Palestine donors like Haim Saban or Shelly Adelson.
So, once one decides to take the expedient route, one applies the appropriate liberalese mumbo-jumbo to make it appear principled.
The formula is something like [bipartisan boilerplate on shared values] + [liberal spin on bipartisan boilerplate on shared values] + [bipartisan boilerplate lipservice on two-state solution] + [bipartisan hedge/equivocation on two-state solution based on security].
Obama's position can be said to be principled only because it's been such a dismal failure as applied in policy that he wouldn't pick a position so untenable based on expedience. His espousing of liberal values re: Israelaccomplished only one thing: making Barack Obama one of the most despised figures inside Israel, convincing the non-Arab public that he's allied with Hamas and Iran.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I would respectfully encourage you to at least consider that possibility
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Their reasons are harder to determine.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He has given several speeches where he outlines exactly why he has such feelings about Israel.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Which is why his diplomatic policy w/r/t Israel and Palestine has been a complete failure.
Bush accomplished the same amount--nothing--with significantly fewer costs by simply not trying and keeping his distance.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He views Israel both as family and as a foreign country.
He has expressed similar sentiments about other close US allies such as the United Kingdom.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I come here today to reaffirm one of the oldest, one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known. It's long been said that the United States and the United Kingdom share a special relationship. And since we also share an especially active press corps, that relationship is often analyzed and overanalyzed for the slightest hint of stress or strain.
Of course, all relationships have their ups and downs. Admittedly, ours got off on the wrong foot with a small scrape about tea and taxes. There may also have been some hurt feelings when the White House was set on fire during the War of 1812. But fortunately, it's been smooth sailing ever since.
The reason for this close friendship doesn't just have to do with our shared history, our shared heritage; our ties of language and culture; or even the strong partnership between our governments. Our relationship is special because of the values and beliefs that have united our people through the ages.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2011/05/nations-rights-world-united
.
Crunchy Frog
(26,578 posts)And maybe Santa Claus is real too.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It was at 35 in 2004. It is at 48 today.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/22/remarks-president-jewish-american-heritage-month
And Ive said this before: It would be a moral failing on the part of the U.S. government and the American people, it would be a moral failing on my part if we did not stand up firmly, steadfastly not just on behalf of Israels right to exist, but its right to thrive and prosper. (Applause.) Because it would ignore the history that brought the state of Israel about. It would ignore the struggle thats taken place through millennia to try to affirm the kinds of values that say everybody has a place, everybody has rights, everybody is a child of God. (Applause.)
As many of you know, Ive visited the houses hit by rocket fire in Sderot. Ive been to Yad Vashem and made that solemn vow: Never forget. Never again. When someone threatens Israels citizens or its very right to exist, Israelis necessarily that seriously. And so do I. Today, the military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries is stronger than ever. Our support of the Iron Domes rocket system has saved Israeli lives. And I can say that no U.S. President, no administration has done more to ensure that Israel can protect itself than this one.
Supporting Israel is something that black liberal Democrats do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama plays the same game most liberal supporters of Israel do, citing a bunch of platitudes that have nothing to do with Netanyahu-era Israel, acting as if this is 1965, not 2015, in order to overcome the cognitive dissonance of identifying as a liberal while supporting a rightwing, racist country (the Israeli state is racist because the voters there are racist).
Supporting Israel while purporting to champion
is like politicians who vote for war and the death penalty and to take away health care from poor people, then claiming to be "pro-life."
Obama is talking about Israel as it once was and never will be again.
It's not a coincidence that this incoherence on his part has lead to an Israel/Palestine policy that is a complete failure. All Obama has achieved with regard to the I/P dispute is to convince both sides to not trust him and to not respect him.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Like many Democrats, I agree with him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he thinks this is 1965 or even 1975.
his I/P policy is also rather patronizing. Not his place to tell Israelis what their values are or what's good for them. He's not Israeli, not even Jewish.
He treats them like a friend instead of an ally. He doesn't keep it professional.
Bush's I/P policy was actually more consistent and defensible--"we say we support a two-state solution, but we're not going to pretend that we give a shit about either the Palestinians or Israel's future viability."
The next president will revert to that approach, not even pretending to provide more than lip service to the I/P dispute--"yeah yeah, the Palestinians are suffering injustice, so are a lot of people. Israel's future is its own business, not ours. Not our job to protect Israel from itself."
Obama is the last American president who will even pretend to give a shit about the two-state solution. US formal policy will still be two-state solution, but it's mere boilerplate at this point, since that window has already closed. Nothing to be gained, especially from the view of US domestic politics, to tilt at that windmill."
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The U.S.-Israel Relationship and Middle East Peace
Since its founding more than 60 years ago, Israel and the United States have been steadfast, trusted, and reliable allies. I unequivocally support the right of a Jewish, democratic state of Israel to exist, and to be safe and secure. The U.S.-Israel relationship is rooted in shared values and common interests, based on a commitment to liberty, pluralism, and the rule of law. These values transcend time, and they are the basis of our unbreakable bond.
To me, it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel, and I am committed to ensuring its long-term security by maintaining its qualitative military edge. Israel must be able to defend itself from the serious threats it faces from terrorist organizations to hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.
http://origin.elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy
Elizabeth Warren is certainly no Republican. Would you not agree that she is a liberal Democrat?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)about Israeli values.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They are liberal Democrats who support Israel.
You certainly can disagree with them if you want, but they are definitely not conservatives.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)some Fox News viewers are liberals, etc.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They are by no means exceptions among elected Democrats as far as their views on Israel is concerned.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)instead of primarying them.
It's not like there's any votes to be had by talking about the Palestinians as human beings.
There's very, very little Israel could do to lose support on Capitol Hill. All they need to do is say "we want a peaceful resolution, but everything is the Palestinians' fault" and about 90% of Congress would just nod their heads dutifully.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Obama is not running for anything, and he made these remarks just a few months ago.
It is so bizarre that you cannot even fathom the possibility that these might be their actual opinions.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)As he has unfortunately proven by shooting himself in the foot.
As someone who views her role as a national one, Warren is not inclined to rock the boat if it might detract from her core issues.
King_David
(14,851 posts)and his very consistent and real support of Israel .
Us Democratic Party members ,like half of us in this group, are perfectly in line with that thinking- in 2015.
( I wasn't even alive in 1965)
You just made up that nonsense.
There is no Democratic Party rep who espouses the anti Israel OTT rhetoric as you have here - in 2015.
?v=1435252877
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The rest are pretty obviously rightwingers (get all of their news from rightwing sources, deem every leftwing publication out of bounds explicit racism against Arabs and Palestinians, make Tea Party arguments against Obama's policies, etc).
There has been explicit endorsement not only of apartheid, but of ethnic cleansing. By people who call themselves liberal Democrats on this forum.
See, for example, this piece explicitly advocating genocide via ethnic cleansing, posted and supported by 'liberal' supporters of Israel:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=65930
Complete with 'liberal' supporters of Israel calling people who oppose apartheid or genocide "Arab-apologists."
Democratic elites do support Israel, but that support has nothing to do with liberal principles, but rather a combination of pandering and identity politics.
Maybe I'm wrong and there are some people who are liberals on every issue but Israel, but turn into seething wannabe genocidalists when it comes to the Palestinans.
King_David
(14,851 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)actively advocating on behalf of apartheid or ethnic cleansing means a person does not share the values of the Democratic party, and they should not be included or made to feel welcome, and is certainly a more powerful flaw than not liking Israel
King_David
(14,851 posts)is completely opposite of and Democratic Party principal on the topic.
In fact there's a few very nasty extremist right wing sites that wrote daily about Israel that would be indistinguishable from what at least one poster and probably more than one.... Posts here on Israel on a daily basis.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I'm much closer to Keith Ellison than I am to Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I read all your posts elsewhere and agree with most but not sure what happened to your view here ...
I could never support the homophobic right wing socially backwards government of the PA or Hamas and a one state would be complete loss of Gay liberty and rights .
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who are liberal elsewhere carry water for Israel's rightwingers.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I could never support the homophobic right wing socially backwards government of the PA or Hamas and a one state would be complete loss of Gay liberty and rights .
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who somehow never manage to agree with Obama when he disagrees with Netanyahu.
King_David
(14,851 posts)And Netenyahu... Are 100% more socially progressive especially wrt Gay rights and Women's rights than any of the Homophobic anti Women governments of the 2 Palestinian statlets or any other government in that area....
So why would any liberal support any of them?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Homophobic and Mysoginistic to the max....my friends don't wanna be hanged or killed or burned for being gay AKA the one state solution.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)damn settlements. Because they are why the one-state solution looms.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)All you like on this issue but calling me a right winger is nothing but unmitigated bullshit. I'm pro choice, pro gay rights, think every republican running for president is an imbecile and would never consider voting for any of them. You are the one out of step with the Democratic Party on his issue and it's time for you to accept that reality. And spare me tHe genocidal bullshit. Genocide would lead to a decline in numbers - not the huge annual increase that are the reality. Time for you to accept you are a tiny minority of not only Americans but Democrats on the issue of Israel. I know it pains you but ignoring reality is nobody's problem but your own.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to bash President Obama as 'naive' in order to promote war with Iran.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043628
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043626
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043634
Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman
Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President
Board of Governors (in formation)
◾The Viscountess Bearsted
◾Baroness Caroline Cox
◾Alan Dershowitz
◾The Lord Finkelstein OBE
◾Jack Fowler
◾Robert Immerman
◾Lawrence Kadish
◾Ingeborg Rennert
◾Rebecca Sugar
◾Merryl Tisch
Amir Taheri, Chairman, Europe Board of Governors
Board of Governors, Gatestone Europe
◾Chairman, Amir Taheri
◾Anne-Elisabeth Moutet
Board of Advisors (in formation)
◾Ahmed Charai
◾Rev. Dr. Petr Heldt
◾M. Zuhdi Jasser
◾Richard Kemp
◾Michael Mukasey
◾Elie Wiesel
◾R. James Woolsey
If you had read the link I posted, it was a person claiming to be a liberal posting an article from a rightwing extremist hate site explicitly calling for Israel to do to the Palestinians what Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic did to the Bosnians.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)Omitting it likely shows where the actual spin/bigotry is.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Most Americans have heard of only two Palestinians--Sirhan Sirhan and Yasser Arafat.
Certainly Americans have not gotten fonder of Arabs over the past decade.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Ask most Americans to name famous Arabs and I would imagine they would mostly name terrorists and dictators.
shira
(30,109 posts)Absolutely no sympathy for dead Palestinians in Syria, apartheid conditions for Palestinians in Lebanon, and no civil rights under Hamas.
In fact, I'd say the radical leftwing haters of Israel hate Palestinians FAR, FAR more than Americans in general.
I highly doubt Americans in general would deliberately ignore Palestinian conditions in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza just because they hate Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)I argue they care more about Palestinians than any Israel-hating, Hamas supporting zombie pretending to be pro-Palestinian.
Americans who "don't give a shit" aren't depraved enough to be indifferent to what Hamas is doing to Palestinians in Gaza, or about the apartheid going on vs. Palestinians in Lebanon, or thousands of dead Palestinians in Syria.
I can't think of people who hate Palestinians more than that, can you? The Israel hating Zombies are indifferent to all that due to their hatred of "Zionists". This is obvious to any clear-thinking person.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)What you really meant was that it's team Hamas that has to spin the support statistics as racist bigotry.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)don't like Israel.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)You appear to be claiming that racist ignorance/bigotry is behind the low levels of support for the Palestinians - even when talking about Democrats.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Available historical data suggest that a negative image of Arabs existed before the September 11 attacks. A March 1993 Gallup poll, conducted shortly after a terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, showed that just 39% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Arabs, while 32% had an unfavorable opinion and 29% had no opinion. An ABC News poll, conducted during the Persian Gulf crisis in February 1991, found that 43% of Americans said they had a high opinion of Arabs while 41% said they had a low opinion. In that poll, majorities of Americans said the following terms applied to Arabs: "religious" (81%), "terrorists" (59%), "violent" (58%) and "religious fanatics" (56%).
A July 1993 Gallup poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans believed that there were "too many" immigrants from Arab countries entering the United States, while just 6% thought there were too few and 24% thought the number was about right. The poll was conducted at a time when most Americans thought immigration on the whole should be decreased. Still, Arab countries topped the list of areas from which Americans said "too many" immigrants were coming to this country, followed closely by Latin American and Asian countries, with African and European countries well behind. Sixty percent of respondents in an April 1998 New York Times poll agreed that "Arab-Americans are more loyal to Arab countries than to the United States," while 26% disagreed.
In 1995, following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, many Americans believed that Arab terrorist groups were responsible before the investigation uncovered Timothy McVeigh as the perpetrator of the crime. Nevertheless, six in 10 Americans thought media coverage of the bombing had been fair to Muslims and Arabs, while 28% thought it was unfair.
Arab-bashing is also a pretty popular sport amongst politicians, and has been for some time.
6chars
(3,967 posts)just think how deep the support is overall!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Find me anybody running for office while favoring the Palestinians over the Israelis. Never happen.That graph above gels the true tale. It's like the moral majority being convinced everybody MUST agree with them silently. Both groups are just obnoxiously loud very small minorities.
King_David
(14,851 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)He has been a big supporter of boycotting Israel for a while now.
shira
(30,109 posts)....against innocents.
Therefore, he's a hero to the Global Progressive Israel-hating Left.
I'm really sick of these Hamas apologists.
marmar
(77,053 posts)Intellectual dishonesty on steroids.
shira
(30,109 posts)[font color = "red"]"To put the matter as starkly as possible: from the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism an illiterate conservative superstitious Muslim Palestinian peasant who supports Hamas is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically)."
And here is Judith Butler - a professor at Berkeley and one of the most influential academics on the planet drawing the political conclusions: Hamas and Hezbollah... are social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/11243168/Blaming-Israel-for-Palestinian-violence-is-racist-it-denies-that-Arabs-are-moral-agents.html
I couldn't make this up if I tried...
King_David
(14,851 posts)How do their Gay citizens feel about that statement I wonder?
shira
(30,109 posts)......on everything I/P, as it pertains to the so-called anti-Imperialist, Global Progressive Left?
It doesn't get more fascist rightwing than that.