Israel strikes again!

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I don't see a problem with what Israel is doing and I don't see peace in the Middle East happening anytime soon

[Vern Gagne 0]

Kind of depressing to see Israel actually going after Terrorists, while our President has our military engaged in a mess.

Come on Mike. Reguardless of opinions on the War. It doesn't take a blind man to see that Iraq has know become the center point on the War on Terror.

[NoCalMike 0]

Kind of depressing to see Israel actually going after Terrorists, while our President has our military engaged in a mess.

Come on Mike. Reguardless of opinions on the War. It doesn't take a blind man to see that Iraq has know become the center point on the War on Terror.

Well yes I know, but is that supposed to be some sort of excuse for how Bush went about this like you are saying, "well eventually the terrorists would find their way to where our troops were at"

[Guest GreatOne]

Yeah, draw the terrorists to where they'll fight so you can see them, what a dumb strategy..................

[Justice 0]

Kind of depressing to see Israel actually going after Terrorists, while our President has our military engaged in a mess.

NoCal, if the terrorists were on our own soil, we wouldn't HAVE to invade another country. Sadly, that isn't the case, hence the difference.

oh ok, so THAT is why we invaded...........IRAQ!?!

Because Saddam didn't financially support terrorists, didn't have training camps in his country, didn't call for American interests to be attacked, didn't try to assassinate a former President...

 

Whatever happened to the left giving two shits about human rights?

-=Mike

I dunno there is about 1100 human's rights that no longer exist because of this mess in Iraq, not to mention the innocent civilian lives that are written off and not reported by the news.

Yeah, because pulling numbers out of your ass is really the way to win the argument. Are you trying to say that Saddam was better on Human Rights than we are? Is that your honest opinion there?

[Highland 0]

Yeah, draw the terrorists to where they'll fight so you can see them, what a dumb strategy..................

No, but drawing new enemies out of the woodwork is a dumb strategy.

[Styles 0]

Betttter watch out.....cause I'm the Assasin.....ok, no one remembers that Iron Maiden song accept me, but it's what I thought of when I read this.

 

Israel just needs to off one more Hamas leader and we all get free Fallafals

[Guest GreatOne]

Betttter watch out.....cause I'm the Assasin.....ok, no one remembers that Iron Maiden song accept me, but it's what I thought of when I read this.

(Raises hand) *coughcough*

 

Actually that song probably would have gotten more love if it were on Seventh Son or Fear Of The Dark.

[NoCalMike 0]

Yeah, draw the terrorists to where they'll fight so you can see them, what a dumb strategy..................

Yes, surely the Iraqi citizens were all prepped and prepared and briefed. Hey guys, we are gonna start bombing your country, in hopes that TERRORISTS CROSS OVER THE BORDER SO WE CAN FIGHT THEM IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS.......

Are you fucking kidding me?

[NoCalMike 0]

Kind of depressing to see Israel actually going after Terrorists, while our President has our military engaged in a mess.

NoCal, if the terrorists were on our own soil, we wouldn't HAVE to invade another country. Sadly, that isn't the case, hence the difference.

oh ok, so THAT is why we invaded...........IRAQ!?!

Because Saddam didn't financially support terrorists, didn't have training camps in his country, didn't call for American interests to be attacked, didn't try to assassinate a former President...

 

Whatever happened to the left giving two shits about human rights?

-=Mike

I dunno there is about 1100 human's rights that no longer exist because of this mess in Iraq, not to mention the innocent civilian lives that are written off and not reported by the news.

Yeah, because pulling numbers out of your ass is really the way to win the argument. Are you trying to say that Saddam was better on Human Rights than we are? Is that your honest opinion there?

Of course not, but I hope you aren't being silly enough to suggest our government gives two shits about human rights abroad.

[Justice 0]

Kind of depressing to see Israel actually going after Terrorists, while our President has our military engaged in a mess.

NoCal, if the terrorists were on our own soil, we wouldn't HAVE to invade another country. Sadly, that isn't the case, hence the difference.

oh ok, so THAT is why we invaded...........IRAQ!?!

Because Saddam didn't financially support terrorists, didn't have training camps in his country, didn't call for American interests to be attacked, didn't try to assassinate a former President...

 

Whatever happened to the left giving two shits about human rights?

-=Mike

I dunno there is about 1100 human's rights that no longer exist because of this mess in Iraq, not to mention the innocent civilian lives that are written off and not reported by the news.

Yeah, because pulling numbers out of your ass is really the way to win the argument. Are you trying to say that Saddam was better on Human Rights than we are? Is that your honest opinion there?

Of course not, but I hope you aren't being silly enough to suggest our government gives two shits about human rights abroad.

I think we care about it more than many, many other countries in the world today. Far more than many of your buddies in Europe, at least.

 

And again, where the hell is this figure coming from? Did you seriously just pull it out of your ass or what, because I honestly can't believe we are denying 1100 different human rights (Hell, are there that many specific ones, or are you getting to stupid ones like 'Denying people the right to play NBA 2K5' or something?).

[NoCalMike 0]

Kind of depressing to see Israel actually going after Terrorists, while our President has our military engaged in a mess.

NoCal, if the terrorists were on our own soil, we wouldn't HAVE to invade another country. Sadly, that isn't the case, hence the difference.

oh ok, so THAT is why we invaded...........IRAQ!?!

Because Saddam didn't financially support terrorists, didn't have training camps in his country, didn't call for American interests to be attacked, didn't try to assassinate a former President...

 

Whatever happened to the left giving two shits about human rights?

-=Mike

I dunno there is about 1100 human's rights that no longer exist because of this mess in Iraq, not to mention the innocent civilian lives that are written off and not reported by the news.

Yeah, because pulling numbers out of your ass is really the way to win the argument. Are you trying to say that Saddam was better on Human Rights than we are? Is that your honest opinion there?

Of course not, but I hope you aren't being silly enough to suggest our government gives two shits about human rights abroad.

I think we care about it more than many, many other countries in the world today. Far more than many of your buddies in Europe, at least.

 

And again, where the hell is this figure coming from? Did you seriously just pull it out of your ass or what, because I honestly can't believe we are denying 1100 different human rights (Hell, are there that many specific ones, or are you getting to stupid ones like 'Denying people the right to play NBA 2K5' or something?).

MY european buddies?

 

and the 1100 I was talking about was the soldiers that have died in the name of this mess, whose human rights have been destroyed, and the rest, whatever number I used was Iraqi civilians that are dying, innocently.

 

I understand we aren't the WORST offenders of human rights atrocities, far from it indeed of course. However I can tell you that the american contractor situation is a good example of how we are pissing off iraqi civilians.

[Guest MikeSC]

What terrorists did Saddam fund?

He gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers' family (about $25,000 a pop). Saddam funded more than a few Palestinian organizations.

And somehow I don't think the famalies of the 15,000 dead Iraqi's would claim a human rights movement were taking place. Nor the prisoners of Abu Gharib.

The families of the people who have been unearthed in the MASS GRAVES might disagree with you.

 

But, using your logic, we shouldn't have done anything to stop the Holocaust, since we might have had to kill some Germans in the process.

 

Moral equivalence is the only stead-fast principle in liberal ideology.

I dunno there is about 1100 human's rights that no longer exist because of this mess in Iraq, not to mention the innocent civilian lives that are written off and not reported by the news.

Which is STILL drawfed by the people Saddam killed randomly during his reign.

 

You aren't seeing MASS GRAVES due to American actions.

Yes, and america gave chemical weapons to Saddam.

And we stopped when we learned of his atrocities against the Kurds.

 

MEANWHILE, one of our "allies" whose approval is needed to make actions "legitimate" continued to sell to him, in spite of all that.

Well yes I know, but is that supposed to be some sort of excuse for how Bush went about this like you are saying, "well eventually the terrorists would find their way to where our troops were at"

And, yet again, the "left doesn't give two shits about human rights" point of mine is made.

Of course not, but I hope you aren't being silly enough to suggest our government gives two shits about human rights abroad.

I'll say it --- we're one of the ONLY ones who do.

 

Just compare our response to the crisis in, say, the Sudan to the responses of almost every other country.

and the 1100 I was talking about was the soldiers that have died in the name of this mess, whose human rights have been destroyed, and the rest, whatever number I used was Iraqi civilians that are dying, innocently.

We killed our own soldiers? Wow. Let me guess, we're to blame for the beheadings, too.

 

Nice to see that ending one of the more brutal tyrannical regimes is of no import to you. Then again, your side has never really completely condemned what the USSR did.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

A Nice point from Charles Krauthammer:

Sacrificing Israel

 

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A25

 

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.

 

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it. He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

 

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

 

The answer is obvious: Israel.

 

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

 

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in "Foreign Policy for a Democratic President," a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry.

 

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq."

 

So in a "new bargain with our allies" America "re-engages" in the "peace process" in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another -- in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.

 

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that.

 

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israeli policy? After all, isn't Bush the first president ever to commit the United States to an independent Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat.

 

To reengage in a "peace process" while the violence continues and while Arafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle East policy. That policy -- isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right to defend itself both by attacking the terrorist infrastructure and by building a defensive fence -- has succeeded in defeating the intifada and producing an astonishing 84 percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties.

 

John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community of nations." There is no issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. In July, the U.N. General Assembly declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone.

 

You want to appease the "international community"? Sacrifice Israel. Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of "peace." Apply relentless pressure on Israel to make concessions to a Palestinian leadership that has proved (at Camp David in 2000) it will never make peace.

 

The allies will appreciate that. Then turn around and say to them: We're doing our part (against Israel), now you do yours (in Iraq). If Kerry is elected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

[Styles 0]

Mike, I read that article in the Post too, and I think it's dead on. Kerry would sell out Israel in an instant, because it is the one legitimate bargaining chip avaliable to appease "the world community". Chalk up another reason I hope Bush is still around for another term...

[2GOLD 0]

We sell out Israel, we start a World War. Cause Israel will go on the offensive on the entire Middle East.

 

We better not be stupid enough to let Israel go at it alone. They have a very itchy trigger finger as it is and the last thing we need is Israel thinking, "we are now all alone, it's us verus all of them".

 

Even Kerry couldn't not see that if we abandon Israel that a full out slaughter will begin. Either against Israel or by Israel. It's opening Pandora's box to let them go.

[Guest MikeSC]

And Kerry's own people's comments don't help his cause:

Kerry Will "Put More Pressure on Israel"

According to his own foreign policy adviser.

by William Kristol

10/25/2004 1:00:00 PM

 

Unfortunately, they forgot to tell the man who is perhaps Kerry's top foreign policy adviser and surrogate, Richard Holbrooke. Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor Friday night, Holbrooke warned of a possible "Iran-type clerical dictatorship" in Iraq: This would be "very dangerous for Israel, the U.S. and the world." Then Holbrooke segued into an account of how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: "He [Kerry] has said already he would start intense talks with the allies . . . and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all."

 

"He'd put more pressure on Israel." Holbrooke, perhaps Kerry's top foreign policy spokesman, confirms Krauthammer's prediction. So there is a real difference between Bush and Kerry on Israel. Isn't there, Sen. Kerry?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/832kszfc.asp

I'm too lazy to find the transcript from somebody other than Weekly Standard, but those are Holbrook's statements and he would most likely be Sec. of State if Kerry wins.

 

So, a Kerry WH would support Saudi Arabia and Syria over Israel.

 

And, still, Jews vote Democratic overwhelmingly.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

And, still, Jews vote Democratic overwhelmingly.

-=Mike

Interesting you should mention that. Here's an article from the OMG NEWYORKSLIMES~! but, it hits on that point...

 

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Arab and Jewish Votes

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

 

Published: October 25, 2004

 

Washington — You have to give credit to Arab-Americans, and to the overlapping category of American Muslims, for knowing what side they are on in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - and for voting for those they believe would address their concerns.

 

Four years ago, they voted almost two to one for George W. Bush, thinking he would act like his father. Today, according to the Zogby poll, American Muslim voters are going 10 to 1 in the opposite political direction - for John Kerry over Bush. Not only do they see Bush's Patriot Act as discriminatory, most of these Americans dislike the president's unwavering support of Israel - including his backing of Ariel Sharon's security fence and the diplomatic isolation of Yasir Arafat.

 

This stunning reversal of opinion within a growing voting bloc is having an impact. For example, about a half million Arab-Americans live in Michigan, according to the Arab American Institute; most have turned strongly anti-Bush. That's why pollsters are counting Michigan, with its 17 electoral votes, as "leaning toward Kerry."

 

What about the other voting group that has a special interest in ending the war launched against Israelis after Yasir Arafat turned down the offer brokered by President Clinton?

 

Jewish American voters who differ with their Arab and Muslim compatriots, one might logically conclude, would seriously consider supporting the candidate who many Israelis believe has been their best friend in the White House.

 

But such logic is misleading. Four years ago, candidate Bush received 20 percent of the "Jewish vote," about halfway between the low point for a Republican candidate (5 percent for Goldwater) and the high point (39 percent for Reagan). Today, it appears that Bush is getting only slightly more than the 20 percent of last time.

 

Despite the fact that this president has firmly backed Israel's vigorous self-defense - and time and again vetoed or denounced lopsided U.N. votes to ostracize Israel - 8 out of 10 Jewish American voters will still vote as a bloc to oust him.

 

Why? To hold the bloc's usual support, Kerry has me-tooed every policy decision Bush has made affecting Israel - finding old armistice lines "unrealistic," keeping Jerusalem undivided, favoring Arafat's isolation. Though at first he told an Arab-American audience that Israel's security fence was "a barrier to peace," Kerry changed his mind to comport with Bush's support of Ariel Sharon's plan.

 

Kerry can legitimately point to dozens of pro-Israel votes. But the essence of his foreign policy - to rely on alliances with France, Germany, Russia and the U.N. to combat terror and enforce the peace - requires accommodation with the central demand of these Arab-influenced entities to lean heavily on Israel to make the very concessions Kerry now says he's against. No Kerry heat on Israel, no grand new global alliance.

 

One answer to the "why?'' posed above is that most Jewish Americans quite properly base their vote on issues like social justice, civil liberty, economic fairness and not primarily on what may be good for Israel. That's been especially true when democratic Israel, like the U.S., has had a close hawk-dove split.

 

But now, the great majority of Israelis and Americans are behind Sharon's decision to pull 7,000 settlers out of Gaza. Because a zealous Jewish minority opposes giving up an inch of revered land, Israel is under great internal strain. Some rabbis are urging soldiers to disobey orders, tearing at the fabric of a Jewish state. Israel needs an ally, not a broker.

 

Kerry has lately echoed Bush's support of Sharon's daring plan of unilateral disengagement. But it is Bush who has the four-year record of standing up for Israel's right of self-defense. He has earned the trust of Israelis at a time when they most need a stalwart ally to make this plan succeed - and to help turn Palestine into a peaceful neighboring state.

 

Most Arab-Americans and U.S. Muslims, as is their right, disparage Sharon's plan. But in getting out of Gaza, the national interests of the U.S. and Israel are in accord.

 

As one who has all his life been a political minority within an ethnic minority, I hope that other longtime supporters of Israel will - at this moment of its political trial - allow themselves to give a little added weight in their voting decisions to candidates most likely to help gain a secure peace in the Middle East.

[bob_barron 0]

And, still, Jews vote Democratic overwhelmingly.

 

I'm voting for Bush- no one in my Jewish family is though. Some are voting for Nader

[Guest MikeSC]

And, still, Jews vote Democratic overwhelmingly.

 

I'm voting for Bush- no one in my Jewish family is though. Some are voting for Nader

I don't get why they get the love. They respect anti-Semites (Jesse Jackson is a power broker in the party and we know HIS views on NYC; we won't even go into the utterances about the Jewish people by the civil rights groups).

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

And, still, Jews vote Democratic overwhelmingly.

 

I'm voting for Bush- no one in my Jewish family is though. Some are voting for Nader

I don't get why they get the love. They respect anti-Semites (Jesse Jackson is a power broker in the party and we know HIS views on NYC; we won't even go into the utterances about the Jewish people by the civil rights groups).

-=Mike

While searching for an answer I found an excellent 2 part column by Dennis Prager theorizing why Jews and blacks vote Democrat:

 

Why Jews and blacks vote Democrat, Part I

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: January 21, 2003

1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

 

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

 

The odds are that you have wondered at one time or another why the great majority of Jews and nearly all blacks vote Democrat. There are, after all, no other ethnic or racial groups that so overwhelmingly and consistently vote either Republican or Democrat.

 

Moreover, given Jewish values and given blacks' views on a host of important social issues, there is really no compelling reason for blacks and Jews to vote Democrat.

 

Let us begin with the Jews. Judaism, like every great religion, is essentially conservative: Judaism demands obedience to a judging God and to a moral code set forth thousands of years ago. That is why the more orthodox a Jew is religiously, the less likely he is to be a liberal politically; and the more likely he is to vote Republican. Furthermore, the dominant Jewish issue, the security and survival of the Jewish state, is also unlikely to orient a Jew politically leftward. Even sociologically, Jews voting instinctively Democratic makes little sense. Jews, more than many, consider it shameful to rely on others for welfare, raise their children to believe in hard work, and benefit from a merit-based society. Indeed, even those Jews who vote Democratic usually lead rather conservative lives.

 

As for blacks, their virtually unanimous voting for the Democratic Party makes even less sense. For one thing, most blacks tend to have socially conservative views (considerably more so than their fellow Democrats). Blacks tend to be religious, have traditional views on homosexuality and abortion, and believe in school vouchers, a policy strongly opposed by the party nearly all of them vote for. Moreover, while the Democratic Party has brilliantly portrayed itself as the party that made civil rights possible, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the landmark civil-rights bills than Democrats.

 

None of this is meant to suggest that there are no Democratic Party positions that appeal to blacks and Jews. The great majority of blacks apparently do support affirmative action, a position entirely identified with the Democratic Party. And the majority of Jews do support larger government and higher tax rates, fundamental Democratic positions.

 

But if each party's policy positions were the sole determinants of Jews' and blacks' voting habits, the two groups should evenly divide their votes between the two parties.

 

Clearly then, it is not Democratic Party positions that explain why so many Jews and blacks vote Democrat. Something deeper must be at work.

 

That something is fear in the case of Jews and anger in the case of blacks. And both the Jews' fears and the blacks' anger are a result of their respective collective memories.

 

The Jewish memory in question is of Christian anti-Semitism and the Nazi Holocaust. Even Jews who know little about either Jewish or Christian history know by high-school age that for nearly 2,000 years, Jewish communities suffered from anti-Semitic persecution at the hands of Christians, that Christians massacred Jews during the Crusades, that there was a Spanish Inquisition, and that the Holocaust came from Nazism, a far-right doctrine.

 

Because of this deeply ingrained memory associating Jewish suffering with Christianity and the far right, most Jews have a primal fear of Christianity (and even of religion generally, including Judaism) and of conservatives. Jews therefore vote for the party that opposes the party associated with anything even remotely connected with public religion or the right.

 

The black memory in question is of white racism. It seems obvious that many African-Americans carry a residual anger against whites and against America as a result of centuries of slavery and racism. They therefore vote for the party most associated with policies (such as affirmative action) ostensibly designed to fight racism (meaning, always, white racism), and which frequently condemns alleged ongoing white racism. And blacks vote against the party they perceive as denying that America continues to be racist, the party that opposes race-based policies, and the party that celebrates America as if it isn't a racist country.

 

The problem with these memories is not that they are inaccurate; it is that they are no longer accurate. And they therefore paralyze the two groups who hold onto these memories, Jews and blacks.

 

In Part II, we will explain why these memories and perceptions are no longer accurate (and therefore paralyze blacks and Jews from clearly perceiving the present white, Christian and conservative realities), and what, if anything, Republicans, whites and Christians can do about these unfortunate perceptions. For these perceptions are ultimately bad for Jews, bad for blacks and bad for America.

 

Why Jews and blacks vote Democrat – Part II: How memories paralyze

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: January 28, 2003

1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

 

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

 

 

In Part I, I argued that it is not Democratic positions that most entice nearly all blacks and the great majority of Jews to vote Democrat. Rather this lopsided voting is more a function of the two groups' respective memories.

 

As a result of millennia of Christian oppression of them, many Jews still fear religion, particularly Christians and Christianity, even though all the Christian anti-Semitism was European; and as a result of the Nazis, many Jews fear anything labeled "right wing." As for blacks, because of centuries of slavery and racism, many black Americans continue to harbor great anger at whites and at America.

 

If these memories accurately assessed today's white, Christian and right-wing Americans, Jews' and blacks' overwhelming support for the Democrats would surely make sense. Indeed, they would mandate such voting.

 

But these memories do not apply today, and therefore they are having a paralyzing effect on America's Jews and blacks.

 

The fact is that most white Americans have changed; most are no longer racist. Regarding race, most white Americans would probably like nothing more than to forget about race, as they no longer deem either their own whiteness or blacks' blackness to be of particular significance. I know from years of speaking to black callers to my radio show, however, that this is almost impossible for many of them to believe. They ask, in effect, "Are we blacks really supposed to believe that in the course of one generation an entire mindset – that of white racial superiority – has simply disappeared?"

 

The answer is largely, though of course not universally, yes. One reason is that most Americans are decent people. Another is the non-racist education they have received. A third is the unprecedented personal and media exposure to blacks that this generation of whites has received. And a fourth reason is that in order to believe that skin color determines a person's traits or worth, you have to be not only evil, you have to be an ignoramus; and regarding race, most Americans are no longer ignoramuses. They know too many wonderful people of all races.

 

As for Jews' fears of American Christians, they are even less fact-based than blacks' continuing anger at whites. American Christians were never the anti-Semites of Jewish memory. Those were European Christians who persecuted Jews for all those years, precisely the Christians that America's (Christian) founders fled to establish this different society. American Jews' fears of American Christians are therefore simply irrational, especially now when Christian Americans (outside of the National Council of Churches) are the Jews' and Israel's most loyal friends.

 

Memory also explains American Jews' irrational fears of the right. Because the Nazis are widely deemed far rightists (yes, Nazism stood for National Socialism, but no leftists or socialists considered it an ideological ally), Jews continuing to only look rightward for anti-Semitic threats is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because it is like looking only to the right when you cross a two-way street because your grandfather was killed by a car coming from the right. And it is dangerous because since World War II, and at this very moment, the greatest anti-Semitism has come from the left.

 

The result of all these misperceptions on the part of blacks and Jews is that the Democratic Party understands that in order to maintain its overwhelming black and Jewish support, it must abet black anger at whites and abet Jews' fears of Christians and conservatives. And this they do well, to the great detriment of the country.

 

There are signs, however, that this strategy, at least vis-a-vis the Jews, is beginning to fail. Many Jewish Democrats are thanking God that Christian conservative Republicans (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) rather than Democrats (Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman) are in the White House. And as they look around, they find that in a world that once again has a cold spot in its heart for the Jews, virtually all their allies are conservatives.

 

As for blacks, I am less sanguine about the immediate future. A generation of blacks has been repeatedly told by their leaders, by liberal educators, liberal media and by the Democratic Party that America and whites are racist. They have also been told that the only way out of the social problems that plague parts of black life is through the Democratic Party.

 

What then should Republicans do? Talk to and especially listen to blacks. Most blacks want, more than anything else, to know that they are being heard. We can ask blacks not to allow their memories of centuries of racism to cloud their views of America today, but they can ask the rest of us not to forget those centuries. We therefore have to say sincerely to blacks, "We will not forget what this country did to you." Only when blacks know that we remember, will they allow themselves to stop being preoccupied with remembering.

 

With Christians speaking up for Jews and conservatives hearing blacks' memories, the Democrats will no longer be able to win elections by appealing to black anger and Jewish fear. What a better America that will be.

[Guest MikeSC]

I, honestly, assumed Kerry's constant deference to our former allies in Europe, many of whom are more than mildly anti-Semitic, would turn the Jewish vote against Kerry.

 

But it doesn't.

 

Which is bizarre.

 

And, I wish I could let blacks know that race DOESN'T matter to whites. If you're a prick, your skin tone won't make it better or worse.

-=Mike