Many supporters of Israel are skeptical of anyone who is not sufficiently cynical about the prospects of peace; the idea is that it's only realistic to be cynical. There was, reportedly, much murmuring about Obama's attack on cynicism and what it portends for Israel, particularly when coupled with his earlier recognition of Palestinian suffering.

Interesting that Obama's audience would assume he was talking about Israeli cynicism. Why not Palestinian cynicism? Cynicism on both sides is the enemy of peace.

Brad - There you go again. It's all the Palestinians fault. If the Palestinians were not cynical, the Israelis would be happy and dancing and everything would be magically better.

I believe your assessment of the Palestinians is widely off the mark. I believe 80% of them just want the yoke of Israeli occupation off their necks. The Palestinians were quiet and submissive from 1967 to 1987 - what did they gain from that? Nothing! So in 1987 we had the first Infitada that eventually led to Oslo. This agreement was built with peaceful intentions but was flawed from the start because of it's incremental implementation. When the Wye River accords were signed establishing Areas A, B, and C, the settlement activity exploded. I know - I was there. The Palestinians I knew back then could see the handwriting on the wall - Oslo was nothing more than a gambit for reservations.

We can argue all day long about the relative merits of each sides activities but one thing is clear - Israel for its own good MUST solve this problem soon as it is corroding it's very soul. As time passes and the occupation is not ended, Israel's standing in the world, economically, politically, religiously, militarily and socially will continue to erode. It's Israels responsibility to take the lead since they have the most to lose.

To MJ - never give up your optomism and your fight. My depression and cynicism will never solve this conflict. Our only hope is people like
YOU!

I hope this isn't a cynical ploy to give the perception that the Palestinians are cynical and only the Israelis are earnest.

According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research:

85% of Palestinians support the Gaza ceasefire and support extending the agreement to the West Bank.

62% believe the Hamas government should conduct peace negotiations with the Israelis.

58% support mutual recognition - both Israel and Palestine would recognize each other's right to exist.

66% of Palestinians favoured a political settlement resulting in two states.

81% favoured negotiated agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis. (71% of Hamas supporters favoured negotiations.)

Perhaps your conclusions are based on your own cynical perception of Palestinians because they don't reflect reality.

Brad: From whose research did you obtain your data? Do you have a link to the poll?

Your figures are in stark contrast to those found by a recent (December 2006) opinion survey of Israelis and Palestinians, conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) in Ramallah.

The joint poll examined a range of optional tracks for the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian political process including the Roadmap, the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and an interim plan postponing the settlement of the refugees issue to the future. We also examined the Israeli leadership's degrees of freedom to begin negotiations with various configurations of a Palestinian government.

The findings indicate strong preference in both publics for the comprehensive settlement option with 58% of the Israelis and 81% of the Palestinians supporting this track compared to only 30% of the Israelis and 16% of the Palestinians supporting an interim track.

...End of Conflict

In the Palestinian public 62% support and 34% oppose a compromise on ending the conflict that would state that when the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side. The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. An identical question received in June the support of 58% and the opposition of 40%.

In the Israeli public 68% support and 30% oppose this component in the final status framework. In June 2006, 70% of the Israelis supported it while 27% opposed it.

The poll was quite extensive, and is part of a ongoing project to sample Israeli/Palestinian opinion on matters of peace. There have been a number of polls conducted jointly by these two organizations, which are published, along with additional polls, in an index of polls on the PCPSR website. There is polling data dating as far back as 1993. They also offer information about their methodology, and in general appear to be quite transparent.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

How about that Hamas is still calling for the destruction of Israel rather than complay with these poll numbers?

As for the rest of the Arabs they ar so scared of their own people and of Iran they dare not say that Israel is never going to take back all of the Palestinian refugees, especially as defined by the Palestinians.

The Arab use of Israel and Jews as a scapegoat has been 50 years of cynicism.

Not to see this realism is to live in a faith based reality such as Bush and to leave reality behind.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

That is really nice, Scott. Thanks.

On March 17, 2007 - 12:02pm LEL66 said:

"Estrich says that the pro-Israel Right was offended when Obama said that cynicism about the chances of achieving peace is dangerous"
------------------
I would say that the danger lies in making concessions and withdrawing from territory that then is used to launch rockets at Israel.

Can't they launch rockets and hit Israelis from where they are now?

Estrich says that the pro-Israel Right was offended when Obama said that cynicism about the chances of achieving peace is dangerous.

The pro-Bush Right is offended because I said the chances of achieving a peaceful Democracy in Iraq are almost nil.

This brings to mind that book they talked about on Maher last friday, "The Secret."

Like if you just believe in something, or can visualize it, it'll happen.

While it's true being 100% convinced something won't happen ensures that it won't happen, there's a certain arrogance in the conceit. For instance, as it was brought up on the real time show, it lets the people responsible for economic disparity off the hook for poverty. People are poor cause they just can't believe they'll ever be rich.

Apparently, Obama believes the conflict exists because people just can't imagine anything different.

If his goal is peace, that's not good problem solving skills and will only offend both of the parties involved.

If his goal is to impress wide eyed optimists, mission accomplished.

Israel is calling for the destruction of Hamas, so it doesn't surprise me that Hamas is returning the sentiment in kind.

The U.S. machinations in the area are the height of cynicism - they encouraged and facilitated Hamas participation in the electoral process and then refused to recognize them as a legitimate representative of the people. One author claimed that Olmert and Bush did so to give cover to Israel to abandon the peace process
in order that Israel could impose borders unilaterally and annex big sections of the West Bank.

The fact that Israel indeed will refuse the right of return of the Palestinian refugees is rather cynical - it also completely undermines their claim of the only democracy in the Mid East, but that is the subject for another thread.

The problem of the Mid East isn't one of cynicism, it is the notion that one side suffered more than the other, that neither side will recognize the suffering of the other, and neither side will ever forgive the other side.

It isn't that we forget history that condemns us to repeat it, it's that we cannot forgive history that condemns us to its endless repetition.

What the Mid East is, is an old married couple who hate each other, but won't divorce because they can't decide how to divide the property, and the fact that tormenting each other is their raison d'etre for living.

I see this through an analogy;

Supposed I had a home, maybe on a little piece of ground, 2 or 3 acres with a few fruit trees and a vegetable patch. And lets say I lived there for 25/30 years, and its where I raised my family, maybe I have one or two children still at home.

Then one day a stranger comes along and forces me out of my home and off my land, forces me to to take my family and go off and rebuild all that it took us all those years to build. All the while that stranger takes over my house and land as his own.

Is this what happened in Israel/Palestine?

"I am so uncynical it hurts."

MJ: oheb shalom

It's a good kind of hurt.

What could be more cynical, when all the piety and half-understood metaphysics are stripped away, than "supporting" Israel because the triumph and subsequent destruction of the Jews are necessary in order for Jeebus to come back and carry me off to heaven?
A good chunk of the "pro-Israel" right is quite literally opposed to peace because it's an impediment to "Rapture". If you think I'm exaggerating, just remember all the postings on Xian websites when the war flared up in southern Lebanon last year. Were I a more talented google monkey, I'd post links.

The neocons worked the fear spin after 911 to conflate every threat (real or imagined) to Israel as a threat to the US.

I'd like to see a candidate reframe the discussion by persistently turning the discussion back to what is good for Americans, what keeps us safe, what helps our economy, what minimizes our commitment of military and financial resources.

That may well be strong support for Israel and more involvement in the Mideast than I'd like to see, but I believe Americans can't make rational decisions without a relentless focus on what is good for us.

I have a hunch that if we focus on what is good for the American people, we'd be a lot more likely to follow a policy that is good for the Canadian people and in the long run it would be best for the Israeli people because no government can pursue policies counter to its own interests for long. The neocon zealots are already generating a backlash and cynicism can just as easily turn against Israel. After all, most Americans have supported Israel for idealistic reasons. Take away the idealism and most of us have no reason to support Israel at all.

Sometimes conflict does exist because people can't imagine living any other way. I can think of numerous historical anecdotes that would make this true. Everytime civilization undergoes a paradigm shift, there is conflict - the shift from agricultural to industrial economies created huge conflict in the world, just as one example. This kind of conflict is very evident in the Middle East where a yearning for a return to fundamentalism is manifest. Those who traditionally exercised control over society and families are losing that control, of course unrest will grow.

Obama is following a great tradition in creating a vision and articulating that vision, like JFK inaugural speech, or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or Roosevelt's fireside chats, he's hoping he can change people's vision of the future as a cynical, sucking eddy of despair to one of hope and challenge. If only Bush had seized that opportunity after 9.11 - he might have been able to unite the world in acheiving some measure of justice and happiness for all people.

(And no, I don't believe just wishing for something makes it appear.)

As part of Slacktivist's series on Left Behind, just yesterday Fred was talking about the fear of peacemakers. The fundies that read and believe Left Behind fear any leader that talks about peace. Why? Because they've been told that the antichrist will appear as a peacemaker. If you follow somebody who's upfront about wanting war, you don't have to be worried about being tricked into following the antichrist.

So sad that deluded people allow fairy tales to control their lives. Reading Slacktivist's series is eye-opening.

Why AIPAC's cynicism? Because that's how they hide their dirty little secret, which is that, in their view, sooner or later Palestinians will have to go. (Not entirely sure how you do that, but some of us were once expelled from Spain, so I know it's been done before.)

AIPAC might be stupid but they're not *that* stupid. They know that a two-state solution will soon become unfeasible. (Too many settlers to unsettle and too many holes in the Swiss cheese.) A binational state is a nice topic for blogs but it's DOA. Gideon Levy had a nice piece recently explaining how everyone, from Bibi to Kadima, is working hard on a binational solution. He was not being cynical: only ironic.

So it'll be Botha's South Africa or Isabella's Spain. AIPAC is backing Isabella.

Of course the Likudnik jerks prefer cynicism. That's their whole argument. "You can't negotiate with those people." As if there were more than one kind of people.

Re: AIPAC might be stupid but they're not *that* stupid.

Ever heard of group think? Yes, a group of intelligent people can be very, very stupid. To wit, how it will eventuate that "Palestinians will have to go"?

Tell what you want about Isabela, but she had the means to expell Jews and Moors. Israel does not.

J. McCutchen

Much respect due Estrich for a stand-up article which reinforces my decision to support Obama. Now off the rally in Oakland...4 pm

Deutcher's analogy is excellent for the people involved in general, his recognizing a debt to the Arabs was a positive addition. I tried to take it down to the individual; Imagine my analogy happening to you.

Either way shows how some people can be pissed off for ages.

"...a two-state solution will soon become unfeasible. (Too many settlers to unsettle and too many holes in the Swiss cheese.)"

I recently asked Uri Avnery about this. This was his response (e-mail):

Settlements can be removed, territories can be exchanged. If there is a will, there is more than one way. It's the will that counts.

He also said, "Despair is the enemy." Message: don't try to tell that old bird it's time to give up! It's gut check time.

Agreed.

They're not that stupid that they can't see that their logic dictates an Isabella solution.

But they're too stupid to realize this can't work.

I agree on both points. But when he says "It's the will that counts," I think he is talking about the popular will on both sides. At some point, it may be hoped, the will of the people will overrun their politicians and make peace happen.

And don't forget the wall. That will have to be torn down if a viable state is to be created.
How many hours, no, make that minutes, would an Israeli prime minister survive your (1,2) + taking down the wall (oops, sorry, fence, ur, tennis net.. . whatever that is)?

Exactly, which is why anything she writes about should be questioned.

Of course, the wall has already been ordered taken down by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. It's past discussing. Peace will mean that all parties must comply with international law, and that would have to include the issue of the wall.

Will the Palestinians ever agree that Israel has the right to exist wherever it claims it has the right to exist...

I think that's an important point. Some authors think that the Jews brought on their suffering during WWII because of their need to dominate.

And, was Israel founded by leaders who were full of anxiety and mistrust because of what happened to a society identified by a religion?

Estrich is the one that put Dukakis in the tank.

I wonder how she got to become a FOX regular. Her judgement may be suspect.

J. McCutchen

The United States has given Israel $51.3 billion in military grants since 1949, most of it after 1974 – more than any other country in the post-1945 era. Israel has also received $11.2 billion in loans for military equipment, plus $31 billion in economic grants, not to mention loan guarantees or joint military projects. But major conditions on these military grants have meant that 74 percent of it has remained in the U.S. to purchase American arms. Since it creates jobs and profits in many districts, Congress is more than ready to respond to the cajoling of the Israel lobby. This vast sum has both enabled and forced Israel to prepare to fight an American-style war. But the US since 1950 has failed to win any of its big wars. In early 2005 the new chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, Dan Halutz, embarked on the most extensive reorganization in the history of IDF. Halutz is an Air Force general and enamored with the doctrines that justify the ultra-modern equipment the Americans showered upon the Israelis. Attack helicopters, unmanned aircraft, advanced long-range intelligence and communications, and the like were at the top of his agenda. His was merely a variation of Donald Rumsfeld’s "shock and awe" concepts. The 34-day war in Lebanon, starting July 12 last year, was a disastrous turning point for Israel

Israel's Last Chance
Act Like a Normal Nation or Else

Kolko's article discusses another War Clouds Gather Over the Golan Martin van Creveld

I'm curious: What percentage of American Jews know that the Palestinians are victims of this grave injustices? Do 90% of them know it or are they like the poll of US soldiers in Iraq that my daughter showed me this afternoon where 90% think they're in Iraq because of Saddam's "role" in 9/11?

I agree that Estrich is what specialists call "imperfect narrator", but here she managed to make a good observation.

Undeniable fact is that Cheney got the biggest ovation and that Clinton is preferred over Obama by AIPAC crowd. And what is the difference between Clinton and Obama (who is not on record of kissing a Palestinian)? Estrich's explanation seem to be on the spot.

I'm not trying to "flyspeck Estrich or Rosenberg". What I am pointing out here, is Estrich proclaims a growing rightwing group of Jews, who have turned against Obama because of his plea for hope instead of cynicism and offers an anecdote - a father and a son who supports Clinton being "offended" at a candidate who asks them to reject cynicism as that "growing trend".

Out of 6000 delegates, two people "are offended" and now it is a "growing rightwing group who have turned away from Obama." (I have to say that in the four articles I found on this topic, three had quoted the Silvers which doesn't seem to be the growing wing of a party as much as two big mouthers with an urge to self-aggrandizement.)

Of course this story will grow exponentially with every retelling by some lazy oped writer until one morning just before the election, an article will appear and say "Sen Obama at his last appearance at AIPAC conference was attacked by an immense group of AIPAC reps and forced to flee for his own safety." Calling himself the leader of the rather disorganized mob, Jesse Silver stated, "all Jews become unhinged at the use of the word "cynic, a more mature man would have used phrases such as 'you know who I mean' or 'those other guys' or even just winked in their direction, but no, this guy just had to say it - the c-word." "It just goes to show you how immature Obama is,' said Silver, 'that he continues to believe he can say anything he wants even if it is the truth. Here at AIPAC we believe that people can say anything he wants as long as it is what we want to hear."

The analogy is untrue. Zionism predates WWII.

"Some authors think that the Jews brought on their suffering during WWII because of their need to dominate."--mcs

Somewhere in whatever hell they are lying Hitler, Goebbels abd Eichmann are smiling. The Big Lie has come to the internet age.

mcs, if you believe those authors or are unwilling to condemn them, then please go to the Holocaust Museum website, http://www.ushmm.org/ or even better go to the museum, and learn the real reasons for the Jews' sufferring betwen 1939 (actuually 1933) and 1945.

Mr. Rosenberg, since I am not at all confident that the Times will print my reply letter to the Editor responding to your latest press release today--one that took the form of Nicholas Kristof's column-- I will set forth my reply here. In my letter I asked if Kristof knows the name, address and phone number of the Palestinian Sadat--the bold leader who will recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security and who, unlike the feckless Abbas, has the power to make a peace agreement endure. Do you or Prof. Estrich have that contact information? If so, please share that with us so I can forward it immediately to Prime Minister Olmert, Deputy Prime Minister Peres, and Foreign Minister Livni. I have no doubt that they will invite the Palestinian Sadat to Jerusalem as quickly as Prime Minister Begin did the Egyptian Sadat in 1977.

Every day or two you wage rhetorical war against some posters here like me, AIPAC, and various "rightwing types" (I'm sure Sen. Obama, Sen. Dodd, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Nita Lowey and me will be amused to be considered "rightwing types"--we, and millions more, are all passionate Democrats who share basic agreement with AIPAC's principal positions, even if we somtimes disagree about particular tactics of the Israel's government). I and the people who share my views want to see a lasting two-state solution but do not habitually blame Israel first.

Just once I would like to see you write a blog addressed to those who think Hamas is doing the right thing by not putting an end to the shelling of Sderot, and not releasing Cp. Shalit, and refusing to forthrightly and openly recognize Israel and refusing to unequivocally and explicitly agree to the previous accords. If you really think Israel will competely vacate the West Bank before those things happen, you are deluded.

MJ can answer for himself but, on Obama, both MJ and Kristof make it clear that they consider Obama to be the one national politician who does not buy into the Aipac line.
That is why Aipac is directing its donors to give to Clinton. As to why MJ should "write a blog addressed to those who think Hamas is doing the right thing by not putting an end to the shelling of Sderot, and not releasing Cp. Shalit, and refusing to forthrightly and openly recognize Israel and refusing to unequivocally and explicitly agree to the previous accords." Why should he? MJ speaks for those of us who want negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian government to end all acts of violence by both sides, to exchange all prisoners, and achieve full mutual recognition and normalization between Israel and the Palestinians,"
The burden of proof is on the Aipac crowd which wants the violence to continue. They are the ones who had their convention keynoted by Pastor Hagee and VP Cheney and Boner who said Israel must fight to the death.
They are the ones who gave these thugs standing ovations.
If you are a Democrat, you should quit Aipac, a GOP organization that cheers Cheney and heckles Pelosi.

I like the anaolgy by Isaac Deutscher who compared Jewish immigrants to Israel to people jumping out of a burning building

I do not like this analogy because it is false. There was no building burning that Jews needed to jump, they simply jumped. There were no Arabs passing by even the non-burning building. They were at home living peacefully  with their families far from any building that Jewish immigrants to Israel willfully  abandoned.

What Jewish immigrants did was analogous to simply walking into  Arab homes and forcefully evicting  the current occupants of a home with the government of the USA acting as sheriff. And now offering them one room in the 30 room home they owned for peace?

Jewish immigrants lives were not imperiled. As Deutsher's analogy suggests. Jewish immigration  to Israel was totally and willfully voluntary. No life-threatening circumstance existed at the time.

More importantly,to continue the analogy,  there were unoccupied homes in America that those Jewish immigrants could have moved to after abandoning the building.. Instead they chose to confiscate someone else's property and imperil Arab families. Based on the false premise of a 'right to exist' that fundamentally denied other human beings the 'right to exist' in their own homes.

That burning building analogy is an outrageous denial and excuse for destroying other lives and  stealing others property due to a NON-EXISTENT life threatening circumstance at the time of immigration.

Is there a link for the Kristof article or is it behind the wall?

A fantasy? Who knows. I dont' blame them for this visualization or the desire to escape what they experienced, it matters not that the war was over, the anti semiticism they experienced pre Nazi was still there, and the idea of a homeland looked grand.

Get real. O it matters that the war was over Just as it mattered that slavery ended. And it mattered that the holocaust  ended and lynching abated in America. Those ends are not insignificant. However, If blacks could live next to KKK members right here in America, and Indians on federal plantations , oops reservations...then Jews could have learned to 'live with' anti-semiticism, real or imagined in Europe or America. Please. You best believe it is a fantasy and total denial of the facts.

Irish wanted to escape the hate of the English, blacks want to escape the hate of the whites, Iraqis want to escape the hate of insurgents, no doubt Jews wanted to escape the hate they experienced.

Yeah? And where are all the country's at that were specifically created for them to escape the hatred? Based on some specious ideal of a 'right to exist'? Where did the Irish and Jews immigrate to and the blacks remain?

AMERICA!!!! 

Or maybe this is just a case of the blacks and Irish simply being the only folks unable to make the US government give them reparations and land for the hatred they had to endure? 

Let's all get a piece of the fantasy and start visualizing that. Real amends for hundreds of years of hatred sanctioned by the US government and institutionalized by law and a failure of due process.

To hell with the ME, let's start building this grand idea of a homeland by re-directing Israel foreign  aid to American citizens. Billions and billions of dollars in aid for all that hatred.

I agree, everyone  deserves that type of grand idea right here in the homeland of America. Americans richly  deserve that peacefulness right here in the good 'ol USA.

I think you are on to something John, let's visualize building a better homeland right here in  America for a change. Let's turn our focus to America and what is best for her.

thanks

Emet18 - It's all so simple in your mind, if the Palestinians just do what Israel wants then everything will be okay. But the question is okay for whom?

1. What Israel is the Palestinian government suppossed to recognize? Does it include East Jerusalem? Ariel? Ma'ale Adumim? Maskiyyot? If the Palestinians say, Israel has a right to exist ONLY within the UN partition is that good enough? Will Israel recognize the country of Palestine at the same time? Or will we take our sweet time and say we'll discuss it?

2 - Will Israel honor previous agreements or is that only for the Palestinian side? Holding the Palestinian tax money is definitely against previous agreements. The settlement expansion is definitely against previous agreements. If the Palestinians recognize Israel, do you really believe that the settlement enterprise will grind to a halt? You are very naive if you think so.

3 - Hamas is holding Shalit, which is bad and I hope he is released soon. However, Israel has 12000 Palestinians in custody - do they get released? Are all of them criminals? I've seen the IDF arrest Palestinians for nothing more than refusal to not be insolent.

4. You state you want to see a 2 state solution but do not want to habitually blame Israel first. Okay, but does AIPAC or you EVER blame Israel for anything?

5. Since you are obviously very involved with Israel, I'm sure you have given some thought to ultimately how the land is divided to allow for 2 states. Can you give us your thoughts of which of any settlements stay? How about East Jerusalem? Who controls the Jordan Valley? Who controls the ingress and egress to Gaza and the West Bank?

I'm genuinely interested in how you think the Likud/AIPAC approach is going to solve the Palestinian conflict rather than continue it for the next millenium.

Many thanks, Mark.

Congratulations M.J. You made the Times!

Where is the evidence to support your claim that AIPAC is directing donors to give to Clinton instead of Obama?

We went from TWO people expressing their views to an entire lobby against Obama and for Clinton. Do you not understand the damage being done to Clinton (and Obama) with this unsubstantiated claim? Or do you understand the damage being done and your goal is to help it along?

It is quite obvious that Rosenberg has already decided his candidate is Obama, but this kind of regular misinformation, rumour mongering and unsourced "facts" are in effect hurting BOTH their campaigns and creating a climate of mistrust and doubt. This kind of propagandizing by rumour always comes back to bite democrats in the ass and it's going to come back and bite Rosenberg's lobby in the ass, because he's burning bridges he should be helping to build - it is stupid, stupid, stupid to go after Clinton on this issue with misinformation and rumours - first of all it is dumb to try and damage someone you might need to help your cause in the future, which should be apparent to anyone, and secondly whether the rumours are proved to be false or not, most people believe that where there is smoke there is fire.

Both Clinton and Obama are for a two state solution, both support the Clinton parameters as do the majority of Palestinians and both will lean on the Israelis to negotiate. You may want to destroy AIPAC, but be smart about it, and don't take a democrat who might well be our candidate in '08 down with them.

If your goal is to make AIPAC irrelevant or marginalize their influence, then the strategy to use is one where they are left with NO candidate to support and no candidate who supports their minority view.

Bev, I certainly never said that AIPAC is supporting Clinton over Obama. They will go for the Republican, almost surely. As to my personal choice, it's pretty early. I do like Obama's courage in not pandering to AIPAC. That is gutsy.

You clearly know nothing about Jewish history or US immipgration policy or even the experience of other minorities in this country. Do you know the history of Black nationalism in this country or the founding of the state of Liberia by former enslaved Africans who did not want to live with racism?

Your later rants demonstrate to me that you are not particularly interested in a healthy discussion.

By the way, Deutscher was an anti-Zionist until WW2.

Get real. O it matters that the war was over Just as it mattered that slavery ended. And it mattered that the holocaust ended and lynching abated in America.

Slavery may have ended, the Civil War may have ended, but the crimes against the blacks at this time, in the south, didn't
end by any stretch of the imagination. Lynchings, beatings, etc.
continued.

"During Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), the Knights of the White Camellia, and other terrorist organizations murdered thousands of blacks and some whites in order to prevent them from voting and participating in public life. The KKK was founded in the winter of 1865 to 1866 by a former Confederate general to stop both blacks and Northerners from carrying out their government and social reforms."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html

Yeah? And where are all the country's at that were specifically created for them to escape the hatred? Based on some specious ideal of a 'right to exist'? Where did the Irish and Jews immigrate to and the blacks remain?

AMERICA!!!!

I seem to remember a shipload, the S/S St Louis, of German Jews back in 1939 being denied entry by Cuba and the United States, and it was left to other countries to accept these refugees, who, sad to say got caught up in the Nazi sweep when Hitler took some of these European countries.

I think you are on to something John, let's visualize building a better homeland right here in America for a change. Let's turn our focus to America and what is best for her.

I've been trying to do that for 50 years, but people have to constantly fight those demons they took to their bosom early in life; hate, prejudice, intolerance, greed, pride, and maybe one or two others. Fortunately, in my case, with age its gotten easier to leave them behind.

Hillary is as "far left" as she's ever going to get. If you are pissed off now, how are you going to feel after she makes her right turn when she gets the nomination?

Hillary is already to the right of George Will on the homosexuality issue and probably on the war.

How much further right are we going to go?

Not answering for John but for myself because I face this exact question. Right now, I am focused on ensuring Hillary is NOT the candidate. I

f she ends up being the Democractic Party candidate, I just flat don't know where I will direct votes, energy and money that has been given to the Democratic Party for decades.

I think we have moved out of the realm of rumor when it comes to HOW AIPAC funnels its money. We have seen enough from AIPAC's past behavior to see how it operates and what's required from a candidate to 'secure' those important campaign funds!

Hillary has been far more hawkish and espoused far more anti-palestinian rhetoric (over the long-term) than Obama. Stop ignoring the facts.

And, just look what happened to Howard Dean's presidential campaign, intially run by an ex-president of AIPAC (Steve Grossman):

"...Dean's Israel troubles began at a Sept. 3 campaign event in Santa Fe, N.M. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said that day, "It's not our place to take sides." Then, on Sept. 9, he told the Washington Post that America should be "evenhanded" in its approach to the region.

The media and the Democratic establishment reacted as if Dean had called Yasser Arafat a man of peace. On Sept. 10, 34 Democratic members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, wrote Dean an open letter. "American foreign policy has been -- and must continue to be -- based on unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror ..." they wrote. "It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be 'evenhanded' on these fundamental issues ... This is not a time to be sending mixed messages; on the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement."

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that Dean had badly damaged his own campaign. "Sources in the Jewish community say that Dean has wrecked his chances of getting significant contributions from Jews ..." the paper wrote. "Many believe Dean's statement will drive more Jews toward Lieberman and Kerry, enabling Kerry to take the lead again."
Howard Dean's Israel problem

Towing the AIPAC line is how the candidates get the big bucks, some suggesting "In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources...":

"AIPAC's trade secrets. Here are two notables:

AIPAC President Friedman: "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship--so it's clear where they stand on the subject."

"Members of Congress, staffers and administration officials have come to rely on AIPACs memos. They are VERY busy people and they know that they can count on AIPAC for clear-eyed analysis.. We present this information in concise form to elected officials. The information and analyses are impeccable--after all our reputation is at stake. This results in policy and legislation that make up Israel's lifeline."

Again, I think it interesting (blatant) that both Hillary's and Edward's speeches to a pro-Israel or Israeli crowd are remarkedly AIPAC toned. Obama's speeches also have a familiar ring, but more nuanced maybe...? which is what all the fuss is about -- No?

Unfortunately, those who wish to hide and gloss over Hillary's (& other highly influencial and powerful democratic party politicans) AIPAC connections only inflict more damage on the the Democratic Party.

Yes, I know who said it - Mark Weinberg. What I am pointing out is that the strategy of posing Clinton as AIPAC's candidate and Obama as opposing AIPAC is not only factually incorrect, but exactly the wrong move to make. First of all, Obama didn't stand up to AIPAC and in fact issued a statement in which he clarified his claim that Palestinians "suffered the most", a comment he made before the conference. Secondly, the comment he made at the reception was nothing more than a platitude that Obama uses in almost all his stump speeches and isn't exactly a "gutsy" move on Obama's part as much as it is a demonstration of his ability to stay on message. That two people took umbrage at it, indicates nothing and it does not in anyway indicate that AIPAC is directing voters to donate to Clinton.

It seems to me that the only way to marginalize AIPAC is to capitalize on the average American's weariness of war and the status quo in the Middle East and represents only a minority opinion of American Jews and promote your own lobby as the one with the overwhelming support of ALL Americans and the overwhelming support of ALL the candidates and the only viable solution to the problem.

If what you claim is true, that American Jews as a majority vote for democrats then AIPAC will be left with the warmongering, status quo republican candidate. Over and over the message pushed by democrats is that they are for a two state solution, they want to solve the problem not add to it, and all democratic candidates are for a two state solution. Public sentiment is tipping your way, and the way to win is to make sure that your lobby has all the democratic candidates in your boat. It would be dumb to alienate any candidate at this point - overtly or covertly.

I have no idea as to what you are talking about - my point is that Obama's innocuous remark seems to have upset two or three people at the most, who are spreading the rumour that Obama thinks Israelis are "cynical". All Estrich is doing is promoting this gossip, without any evidence whatsoever. What will be remembered is that Obama thinks Israelis are cynical, not the context in which he used the phrase.

There is no point in alienating any group of voters at this point and this kind of criticism is harmful to Obama, not helpful. Promoting the message that Obama is critical of Israel and Israelis is counterproductive and will alienate American Jews, it won't rally them to his campaign.

What is "growing" is that more American Jews want peace and a two state solution, however, like all people in this world, they're going to have a visceral reaction to anyone "criticizing" Israel - the only thing it will achieve is to get their backs up - think about this - it's okay for your neighbor to tell you what a little shit his kid is being, but if you say it, it'll piss him off. It's the same concept.

Where has Clinton II shown support for a two-state solution? Furthermore, what has she said about Israel continuing to build settlements on palestianian land? Palestinian occupied land that's required to secure a two-state solution?

Also, you are aware we do have some pro-Israel/pro-war Dems in the Democratic Party, high profile one's that are currently working on Hillary's campaign (e.g. Rahm Emanuel), making it far easier for some American Jewry that have a pro-liberal, anti-palestinian, even pro-war stance when it comes to Iran and Iraq to vote for the Democrat over the Republican...

So, imo "the only way to marginalize AIPAC is to" to show how AIPAC is within and influencing party policy.

I suppose it may be that some people may be somewhat cynical about the prospects of peace when the fight among the Palestinians is not about whether Israel should be permitted to exist but whether it should be destroyed and replaced by a religious Islamic state or destroyed and replaced by a secular Arab nationalist state.

Or maybe the cynicism flows from the Four "No's" of Khartoum, the founding document of Arab Rejectionism, on which Fatah is founded. No peace, no negotiation, no recognition, no territorial compromise.

Or maybe they are cynical about the prospects of peace because of the Palestinian Covenant which calls for the destruction of Israel and remains the foundation document of the PLO, now called the PA.

Or it could be that people are cynical about the prospects of peace because of ongoing incitement of Palestinians to hatred of Israel by their leaders, media, and clergy.

Maybe there is some cynicism because of the continuing glorification of suicide bombers among the Palestinians.

Or it may be be that some people have become cynical about the prospects of peace because of the Palestinian textbooks and other publications which ....

Kessler's history lesson:

I suppose it may be that some people may be somewhat cynical about the prospects of peace when the fight among the Palestinians is not about whether Israel should be permitted to exist but whether it should be destroyed and replaced by a religious Islamic state or destroyed and replaced by a secular Arab nationalist state. THE PLO ACCEPTED ISRAEL in 1988 AND HAS CONSISTENTLY FAVORED THE TWO STATE SOLUTION SINCE.

Or maybe the cynicism flows from the Four "No's" of Khartoum, the founding document of Arab Rejectionism, on which Fatah is founded. No peace, no negotiation, no recognition, no territorial compromise. THEY WERE 3 NO'S AND THEY WERE STATED IN 1967 BY THE ARAB LEAGUE, NOT INCLUDING THE PLO WHICH WAS IN ITS INFANCY.

Or maybe they are cynical about the prospects of peace because of the Palestinian Covenant which calls for the destruction of Israel and remains the foundation document of the PLO, now called the PA. THE COVENANT WAS AMENDED IN GAZA IN THE PRESENCE OF PRES. CLINTON in 1995. ALL SUCH LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED AND SO CERTIFIED BY CLINTON.

Or it could be that people are cynical about the prospects of peace because of ongoing incitement of Palestinians to hatred of Israel by their leaders, media, and clergy. OR BY SIMILAR INCITEMENT ON THE ISRAELI SIDE SUCH AS THE PRESENCE IN THE GOV'T OF MINISTER AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN WHO FAVORS THE FORCED REMOVAL OF ALL ARABS FROM ISRAEL AND THE WEST BANK.

Maybe there is some cynicism because of the continuing glorification of suicide bombers among the Palestinians. OR OF BARUCH GOLDSTEIN WHOSE GRAVE IN HEBRON IS A SHRINE. OR OF YIGAL AMIR WHO KILLED RABIN AND IS, ACCORDING TO THE POLLS

Or it may be be that some people have become cynical about the prospects of peace because of the Palestinian textbooks and other publications which .... OR THE ISRAELI TEXTBOOKS WHICH SHOW THE ENTIRE AREA OF PALESTINE AS BELONGING TO ISRAEL. WHEN THE CURRENT EDUCATION MINISTER SAID SHE WOULD CHANGE THAT, SHE WAS THREATENED WITH DEATH.

"AIPAC (and all other PAC's whose purposes are America SECOND) should be banned as foreign subversive organizations."

Please go back, SeeDee to whatever institutions passed for your woeful education and read the Federalist Papers. AIPAC, CAIR, the Polish-American Congress, the Sons of Italy and every other interest group comprised of loyal Americans--what Hamilton and the boys called "factions"--are the greatest bulwark against the tyranny of Stalinists like you who see a Jewish conspiracy behind every exercise of First Amemndment rights.

Then ask Senator Feingold, whose score on civil liberties is as close to perfect as you can get, whether he agrees that AIPAC should be banned. He would tell politely you to go____yourself.

You must be referring to a different AIPAC than the one where Hilary Clinton was applauded, where Obama was applauded, where John Edwards was mobbed at the AIPAC reception he attended in New York. Idiots like you just can't stand the fact that there many Democrats who are members of AIPAC and hundereds of liberal Democrats in Congress who agree with AIPAC's main positions that Israel needs strong U.S. diplomatic backing, economic aid and military aid.

Would I have picked Hagee to give the benediction at AIPAC's Conference? No, but for every Hagee there I can name thousands of liberal Democrats.

yes, I've read books on the halocaust but I never see much information about why it happened other than the reductionism that hilter was crazy and that's why it happened.

oddly, I've never seen as many pictures of the nuking of japan, slaughter of the native americans, the opium war in china, the burning of children in vietnam, Israel's aparteid, etc...

the halocaust is simply one of the many cruel wars.

some claim that the halocaust had a lot of victims, so it's important... but what about the Iraq war? It's estimated that over 4,000,000 iraqis have been displaced, hurt or killed...

My heart has never wanted to partake in "preferential mourning..."

If Israel, because of their Jewish population, really learned something, the country wouldn't be forcing abject poverty onto their neighbors by sanctions and by bombing them into the stoneage.

Emet says: "I'm also confident that no matter how much people like you rant on sites like this, AIPAC's positions will continue to be supported by the vast majority of elected officials in both parties. We have the votes. You don't."

YOU DO have the votes, bought and paid for. How many supporters would Aipac have if we had full public financing of campaigns? 10? 50?
Keep bragging about your control of Congress. I like it. It just proves my point: Aipac blackmails Congress into supporting policies that are bad for America and which will be fatal for Israel. For Emet, it's all a game in which Aipac beats those of us who are not organized (or who choose not) to blackmail Congress.
But think about it. Walt-Mearsheimer, Carter, and now Kristof. And a terrified Aipac saying how its 1938 and the Nazis are coming. If you are winning, Emet, why is your crowd so scared?
Why are Dershowitz and Krauthammer (the two ugliest men in America) ranting and raving about Nazis and Ahmedinejad? Why are you, Emet, so scared?
I'll tell you why. Because you read the handwriting on the wall. Americans are waking up and the next Democrat in the White House (unless its bought and paid for Hillary) will push Israel out of the West Bank and send the settlers packing. And Israel will be safe and secure and whiners like you will be crying into your beer at the AIPAC ("We Miss Cheney") convention.

As I said, my first choice is Gore, then Edwards

Emet18 - I see you took the easy way out and declined to give your opinion. For someone who is scared to go on the record, you seem awfully confident that nothing in Israel, the USA, Europe, the Arab countries and the rest of the world is going to change to Israel's disadvatage over the next 50-60 years.

Israel's future is in her own hands and I think she has a case of palsey. Remember, I'm Jewish with a few dozen relatives living in Israel and the West Bank. It is my neices and nephews future that I am concerned with. The intensity of stress in the mideast is building and may soon explode like a volcano. One of these times, Israel's technological and military advantages might be blunted. Have you read Martin Van Cleveld lately? Simply put the present situation cannot continue without resolution. In 10-15 years I fear it will all end VERY badly for Israel.

Yes, all of TWO people commented on Obama's comment. Neither you nor Estrich has any idea at all of what AIPAC thinks about Obama. You cannot predict a trend from the comments of two people, especially when those two people have misrepresented what Obama said, and have ulterior motives for doing so.

You know, sometimes people are so pigheaded that they cannot see beyond their own views. It's stupid to repeat this story as evidence of anything, and it's stupid to alienate voters the majority of whom support Israel, Jew and non-Jew.

You agree with Obama and you can't see that in the long run this kind of misrepresentation of what he said will harm his campaign. Estrich in her own stupidity and ignorance is repeating something taken out of context, which means nothing, but will give voters the idea that Obama is critical of Israel and Jews.

I did not mischaracterize what Estrich said. She gave readers the impression that a trend is emerging that American Jews don't like Obama, and that is about as dumb as anyone can get at this point in the race.

Now keep pounding the meme that Obama is critical of Israel and Jews and see how fast the guy falls. Voters aren't going to associate that remark with AIPAC - most voters have never heard of AIPAC - but most voters DO support Israel and if you keep pushing the line that Obama is critical of Israel, you're going to turn them away.

Stop looking at the trees and concentrate on the forest - to get Obama elected he has to appeal to ALL the voters, not just you or me. (Besides which, his remark wasn't critical of Israel, Israelis, Jews or anyone else. You're making it more important than it was. "And murmurs went through the crowd?" There weren't that many people in the reception room when he made the comment. People were coming and going all night, there wasn't a huge "crowd", it wasn't a major speech, it was a meetandgreet. The comment about Palestinian suffering was made BEFORE the conference, not during the conference.)

I would be grateful for some links on these 'peace' proposals from Hillary.

Rahm who was extremely quick to endorse Hillary has always been extremely close to the Clintons, so of course he's going to be working on her behalf behind the scenes or otherwise... The guy lives and breathes political power brokering, and fundraising and has made it clear where his loyalities lie i.e. not with his fellow Illinois Senator Obama.

We already have the Jewish vote apparently, however, now we have to find out why...? Might it be 'because' we currently have an extremely anti-palestinian and pro-war Democratic caucas at the moment? -- Policies which I don't think are healthy, or are in our (Democratic Party) best 'foreign policy' interest -=- do you?

Obviously, depending how each candidate "will lean on the Israelis to push it" (whatever IT is) is a meme that appears important to the Jewish voter? A meme we can no longer ignore. (NB: this question often not asked of the Jewish voter in polls - here not in Israel).

It's not a matter of "the majority of Americans support Israel" it really boils down to HOW FAR are Americans willing to support Israel, especially now when Israel's and the US interests are NOT one in the same. Obama is not against Israel, it would appear it is you that is implying that meme? Obama I believe strongly supports an end to the conflict that heavily involves Israel, however from my stand point he's just not as blinkered as Hillary, and is not selling out so quickly... I hope all American Jewish voters see that, especially the Democrats and join MJ's lobby as opposed to AIPAC? If not, then I goes back to my original question, why does the American Jewish community really vote Democratic?

I'm with Bev.