← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Jean West
Thread ID: 12021 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2004-01-24
2004-01-24 18:42 | User Profile
[url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin_2003_10_07.php3[/url]
[B]WHEN ALL CANDIDATES ARE FOR ISRAEL, IT IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE[/B] A Jewish View of the U.S. Elections
The Israel Factor Will support for the Jewish state be an issue in the presidential race?
By Jonathan Tobin Jewish World Review October 7, 2003
The notion that Jews cast their votes solely on the issue of Israel is more myth than fact.
Of course, you might forget that if you listen to some of the rhetoric aimed at Jews by presidential candidates. Can it be that Israel is once again a presidential-election issue?
For all of the alarmist rhetoric we often hear from Jewish groups, the truth is that Israel simply hasn't been an issue during the last two elections. It was conspicuously absent from the discussion during the 2000 George W. Bush vs. Al Gore match-up, as well as in 1996, when Bill Clinton bested both Republican Bob Dole and independent Ross Perot to win re-election.
BURNING THE ELDER BUSH
In fact, it has been 12 years since Israel was a factor in a presidential election. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush's administration was seen as hostile to the State of Israel and many American Jews were eager to do anything to boot him out of the White House the next year.
Bush's disdain for Israel and efforts to isolate its leaders were deeply resented. The hostility of his Secretary of State, James A. "bleep the Jews" Baker III, toward Israel was the icing on the cake. This probably didn't cost Bush the election, but he did get the lowest total of Jewish votes by a major-party candidate since Barry Goldwater, and set back GOP efforts to make inroads among Jews by a decade.
The issue disappeared entirely in 1996, as neither of Bill Clinton's challengers could credibly present themselves as more pro-Israel than the president. Nor was the 2000 election much of a test of affection for Israel. Despite some outreach efforts to the pro-Israel community, George W. Bush was fatally handicapped by the association with his father, as well as by the fact that the Democrats nominated a Jew, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, for vice president.
Ironically, Lieberman, who is attempting to move up on the ticket this time and become the first Jewish president, isn't the only Democrat candidate with Jewish roots. Gen. Wesley Clark's father was Jewish (Clark was raised as a Protestant, and is currently a Catholic); Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts recently "discovered" that his grandfather was Jewish; and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is married to a Jew, and his children were raised as Jews.
Will any of this appeal to Jewish voters? I doubt it, but as a minyan of Democrats line up for the chance to knock off Bush the younger, some of them have not been shy about attempting to use the Middle East to make some political hay.
DEAN GIVES THEM AN OPENING
In August, Dean gave an opening to his rivals by stating that the United States must be "evenhanded," in its policy between Israel and the Arabs. This prompted Lieberman to publicly chastise Dean for abandoning Israel. Kerry, the putative Democratic front-runner until Dean mobilized anti-Iraq war sentiment on his behalf, chimed in on that score, and then one-upped Lieberman by seizing upon a Dean quote in which he referred to Hamas terrorists as "soldiers."
The latest entrant to the Democratic race may soon face some of the same treatment. A political greenhorn, Clark has been all over the place on the war in Iraq. But he has stated support for the idea that NATO troops could serve as peacekeepers in Israel, as well as for an enhanced international component to Middle East diplomacy.
That immediately drew fire from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which pointed out the dangers for Israel involved in bringing American soldiers, or more European or U.N. diplomats, into the conflict with the Palestinians.
The decision of Lieberman to use the Israel issue against Dean is interesting because it may be his best chance to rally Jewish voters to his flagging campaign. Lieberman is seen by some as having trouble raising Jewish money. That is happening for two reasons, one of which is based on nonsense, while the other is rooted in hard fact.
On the one hand, some believe Lieberman's election, would stir up more anti-Semitism. That is patently false, as his well-regarded run for the vice presidency in 2000 proved. But others are right to worry whether Lieberman or any Jewish president would be so eager to prove his "evenhandedness" on the Middle East that they would bend over backward to show no favoritism to Israel. But Lieberman is probably barking up the wrong tree here. After all, many of the liberal Jews who will help determine the outcome probably are supporters of "evenhanded" policies toward Israel themselves.
But if Dean or Clark do emerge from the pack, they will have to be wary of anything that will make them seem to be too closely identified with an anti-Israel tint. In a close election, a swing of a few Jewish voters in key states could prove fatal to Democratic hopes.
And that's where one major difference from 1992 comes in. Because, in stark contrast to his father, George W. Bush is regarded by most Jewish voters as sympathetic to Israel.
A DIFFERENT BUSH
Though he hasn't a single Jew in his Cabinet, the presence of many pro-Israel voices in the administration (the neoconservative cabal that leftists are so worried about) has led to the crafting of a policies that are seen as closely aligned with that of Israel. In particular, his refusal to meet with Yasser Arafat, whom he rightly regards as a terrorist, is deeply satisfying to most pro-Israel voters.
Some on the Jewish right are still unhappy about Bush's support of the road-map peace plan and a Palestinian state, a position now shared by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But given the fact that any of the Democrats would probably emulate Clinton in his support for the Israeli left, Jews who bash Bush from the right have no place to go.
And as November 2004 gets closer, we can probably see even less interest from the White House in any plan that makes Israel uncomfortable. That will allow Bush to help secure some key Jewish votes and firm up his hold on conservative Christians, who are more fervently pro-Israel than many Jews.
It is unlikely that 2004 will see a return of the old-time pandering to Jewish voters, which once had every challenger falsely promising to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But, given the fact that Israel is still assailed by a bloody Palestinian terror war, it would be foolish to think that Israel is a negligible factor. If the GOP can label a Democratic candidate as soft on Israel, it will hurt them.
Despite the current banter, it's hard to imagine Israel being an issue next spring in the Democratic primaries. But if the Democrats aren't careful, history might reverse itself, as a Bush turns the Israel factor to his advantage this time.
2004-01-24 18:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jean West][url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin_2003_10_07.php3[/url]
[B]WHEN ALL CANDIDATES ARE FOR ISRAEL, IT IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE[/B] A Jewish View of the U.S. Elections.[/QUOTE]
Responses
[I]...others are right to worry whether Lieberman or any Jewish president would be so eager to prove his "evenhandedness" on the Middle East that they would bend over backward to show no favoritism to Israel.[/I]
IOW, Jews seek a candidate that will show favoritism to Israel. Only a racialism/nationalism/ethnocentrism as intense as that of the Jews will be able to make a dent in their juggernaut. JW
Someone asked me a question yesterday. "If the Jews are in control why don't they make sure a Jew is elected President?" I told him the answer is simple and very evident if you think about it. Jewish control is essentially a shadow government. If there were a Jewish President then blatantly Jewish policy as now exists would be tied to the Jewish President and the Jews. So, of course they would not want a Jewish President. That would be very counter productive to the power and influence they now yield. As stated in the article, when all candidates are for Israel (and unbridled Jewish interests) it is no longer an issue. A non Jewish President and majority Congress gives them plausible deniability. Just as Communist fighting for Zionist interests, blacks fighting for Zionist interests, Mexicans fighting for Zionist interests, "Christians" fighting for Zionist interests has created a shield for them why would they choose to take a different path in government? Even with his Jewish wife and children Dean's comments regarding the war and the Palestinians could not be allowed to develop a following that might ignite, so he was eliminated. It's amazing how fast they just cut the legs out from Dean. Witness the real "third rail". This was also meant as a warning to the other candidates and those to follow. You can be sure they heard loud and clear. CP
"Plausible deniability" - if that's a common expression, I haven't heard it before, and it perfectly describes an essential characteristic of Jewish strategy. The strategy I was familiar with, but that there is precise term for it, I didn't, and precise terms are important; it isn't enough to see something--one has to see clearly what function it's performing. Regarding Dean, that's a good analysis. Is that why he did that absurd about-face on religion and started saying he's going to bring Jesus into his campaign because religion is important in the South. How weird of him to lay that plan out in public; I thought it showed what an amateur he is at politics. JW
2004-01-27 02:31 | User Profile
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=66557&highlight=Kerry#pos[/url] t66557 Interesting backgrounds of the 4 Dem. challengers.
[url]http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0104/13soros.html[/url] Soros has bought the Democratic Party.
~~~~~~~
Bush's crowd.
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=9888[/url]
Prof. Kevin McDonalds View of "The Neocons":
[url]http://www.nowarforisrael.com/[/url]
Cabinet and advisors
[url]http://braden.weblogs.com/2003/03/02[/url]
Powell fluent in Yiddish, and Condeleza Rice is fluent in Herbrew.
YUKOS Chief Executive Officer Mikhail Khodorkovsky, etc.
Why Bush went inot Afghanistan. The Taliban said "NO to the pipeline
Khodorkovsky wants to connect to the Arabian Sea. They also forbade the
propagation of poppies. BAAAD Taliban. Bush replaced them with his oil
buddy, Hamid Karzai.
[url]http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html[/url]
[url]http://english.pravda.ru/comp/2001/12/20/24062.html[/url]
Dear Editor,
US newspapers are reporting the arrest of billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky
of YUKOS Oil Co., on fraud, forgery, and other charges. Of course, they make
no mention of his being part of the Jewish Mafia, or even the the
politically correct "Russian" mafia. Nor do they mention the recent historic
merger between two large oil companies - Yukos and Sibneft chaired by Roman
Abramovich, another member of the mob.
I see a connection here to Afghanistan. Afghanistan lies geographically on
the route of a planned pipeline from the Yukos Caucasian oil fields, to the
seaport of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea. As more details surface, it becomes
obvious that this savage incursion into Afghan territory has less to do with
accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and more to do with Washington'
s plans for oil and political hegemony in the Caspian region.
The Taliban became the fly in the ointment when the refused to allow the
construction of this pipeline through Afghanistan, after Pakistan had
approved of it. This came to light in Houston at a conference held for this
endeavor on Dec. 7th 1997. Unocal invited a Taliban contingency to visit
them in Houston, Texas, housed them in five-star hotels, and dined them at
the home of a Unocal VP. Hamid Karzai, an old friend of the Bush family,
represented Unocal. I think it is no coincidence that Karzai was appointed
by Bush to Govern Afghanistan. At this conference, the Taliban also
announced that henceforth, the cultivation of poppies for the drug trade was
forbidden. Bad Taliban! Before the ban, Afghanistan was the number one
supplier.
Perhaps this is an example of what Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of
Malaysia, properly noted that "... the Jews rule this world by proxy. They
get others to fight and die for them.".
Could be.
For publication,
Edward Toner, LCDR USNR (Ret.)
481B Jason Place
Brick, NJ 08724
USA
732-840-4203
[url]http://english.pravda.ru/comp/2002/11/27/40048.html[/url]
~~~ Worldwide: [url]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EF07Aa01.html[/url] ............"In post-Communist Russia, six out of the seven wealthiest and most powerful oligarchs, wielding mind-boggling political and economic leverage, are Jewish............ "
2004-01-27 03:16 | User Profile
The only power that someone can have over you is the power that you allowed them to have over you. Thats why I like the Palestinian people they refuse to kneel before the Zionists, contrary to the American government. I only hope that the American people don't realise to late that the Zionist Jews are not our friends and that their only interest in us is for what we are doing for them,,,,,, I really believe in my heart that the Zionist are blackmailing the USA into helping them by means of their nuclear weapons, like Rock Hudson said about James Dean in "Giant" ,,,,,hes to rich to kill now. The present situation with the Zionists is the same, they are to powerfull to do any thing about them, unless many of us is willing to die,,,,, in the long run I think that it will worth while, if nothing else then to save the world for our childrens.