But I don't care.

 I question the patriotism of any "American" who puts Israel's interests ahead of the United States' interests.

 I question the patriotism of anyone who thinks continuing a destructive and counterproductive Likudnik policy is worth wasting American blood and treasure.

 I question the patriotism of anyone who would support a monster like John Bolton to represent the United States on the world stage.

 I don't hate Israel. Israel has the same right to exist any nation-state has. But Israel is the Israelis' responsibility. And given that the region is not any more stable today than it was 60 years ago, maybe it's time we acknowledged that it's time to try something different.

Very well written, it impressed a teacher friend of mine.  I discovered this problem early on during the last presidential campaign.  I'm very glad someone as eloquent as you is attacking it.

Reading this kind of pops the bubble that has been flying high since Tues. night. I'm getting weary of three dimensional chess and want things to be more honest and direct. But the difference between reality and what I want is huge.

Thanks for thinking way ahead and preparing the ground for the travesty that will be the Bolton "hearings."

ugh.

Bolton came up for cloture twice last year.  Lieberman voted no, along with the bulk of the Dems, twice.  It sort of surprises me, but it's true.

We rightly excoriate Lieberman for trying to have it both ways on the Alito confirmation, voting for cloture but voting against the nomination when it no longer mattered.  Yet when he did the right thing on Bolton, not once but twice, somehow the spin is that he "didn't take a position for or against Bolton."

I don't think that part of the post is particularly fair.

Thank you so much for this.  I agree completely with your analysis.  When I heard awhile back that Schumer was going soft on Bolton, I knew it was what you have described.  

I think there is plenty of discomfort with the unquestioning support for Israel among Democrats but most are afraid to speak up.  The AIPAC crowd will cut you off with a swift blow to the knees if you do. To be frank, I have given up on the issue - I hate that my party does this, but it stands for pretty much everything else I believe in.

But we should take a stand on Bolton and not give in.

The political calculation is that Lieberman didn't lose because he was right-wing, he lost because he was a singularly awful politician.  As such, there's no need to move leftward since it's fairly easy to avoid a Lieberman-esque political backlash.

The best way to keep them from thinking that is to raise a ton of money and volunteers for Hillary's challenger, Tasini.

Why would Democrats even consider ratifying Bush's foreign policy through Bolton?

Because for Senate NeoDems like JoMo, Shumer, Hillary, DiFi, Bayh, the Nelsons, Salazar, Landrieu, Lincoln, Kerry, Cantwell, and Pryor, Bush's foreign policy is their foreign policy.

A very interesting, informative and insightful--if somewhat depressing--analysis, Matt.

You said "It's the 'with us or against us' mindset." I think that hits one of the key nails on the head and it's a fundamental level of consciousness where a strain of Jewish identity intersects with the Bush worldview, which I think is partly what has made Lieberman embrace so much of what Bush has been saying and doing.

You identified some tangled threads of belief, influence and money that are good to keep in mind and that could slow progress, especially if we're not aware of them.

You said: "It's shocking to me that there are no effective progressive Jewish groups focusing on foreign policy.  The only ones I've seen are pathetic, wonkified, and largely unwilling to deal with the reality of a crazy domestic right-wing leadership structure."

Who are these "pathetic" groups and are you pretty sure you're aware of what groups are out there?  And can you clarify what you mean by  "unwilling to deal with the reality of a crazy domestic right-wing leadership structure?"  
I'd like to think you're overstating your points about the lack of alternative and viable perspectives here, but I have no idea if that's the case.  If not, I'm shocked as well.

Good post.  Thanks.

Amen to that, Matt.  And in regard to ..."cutting them off at the knees"..., read my post script.

I think there is an alternate way to look at the race.  All politicians must balance the  best interests of the nation, the interests of constituents, the interests of their contributors and in the end, their own personal interests and agenda.  Cunningham balanced in his own financial favor and got caught.  Lieberman balanced in his own ethno-religious-philosophical favor and he has been defeated.

I only wonder if there will ever be any polling to substantiate the hypothesis that the voters were turned off not just because of the war, and not just because of his relationship with Bush, but his betrayal of everyone in pursuit of his own agenda,  a Greater Israel..  This undercurrent, if there, is something which flows under a lot, if not most, candidates this year and could wash a lot of the bums out.

On a more personal note, I really feel for your turmoil as a Jew opposing the policies of Israel and I commend you for being straight forward in this regard.

J

I just want to publicly state my undying gratitude for the courage and determination of the FBI agents who brought Larry Franklin to justice.

When the history of this era is written it will be shown that the worker bees of the US Government did the right thing when their political masters failed them again and again.

We've gotten to the point where it's objectively obvious that no one who calls themselves a friend of Israel is actually a friend of Israel.

To put it simply: friends don't let friends fight drunk.  And Israel is flat-out plastered.

The contrast between the current fiasco and the Six-Day War could not be more striking.  But Israel is so wasted it can't tell the difference.

The progressive degeneration has been going on for a long, long time now.  But lately it's gone on steroids.  Even war criminal Ariel Sharon in 1982 would have regarded the present actions as crazy.  He was far too short-sighted to have seen the consequences of his actions then, which have helped to create the tinderbox of today.  But the downside of the current offensive is much more immediately obvious.  Even Sharon would have called it crazy.  It couldn't possibly succeed, he would have pointed out, and thus was bound to make Israel look weaker, for failing in its objective, no matter how much damage it did.

Imagine that!  Ariel Sharon as a model of sanity and restraint!

That's how far gone they are.

The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is they were trying to make George Bush look good.  "See!  We're even crazier than he is!"

The neocons are now attempting to dictate policy to Israel, pushing them to be more aggressive, even encouraging them to start a regional war.  

Karen Armstrong wrote an amazing book called, "The Battle for God" in which she talks about the impact of the Jewish fundamentalists in Israel (as well as the Christian fundamentalists in this country and the Muslim fundamentalists in different Islamic countries.  It clarifies that the right-wing in Israel has figured out how to influence policy there and here as well. The country has changed wildly since the war of 1968.  

runs through accusations of anti-semitism.  

The progressive left must articulate an approach to our relationship with Israel founded on progressive values while at the same time honoring Israel's right to exist.  

At the same time, this does not require support for all of Israel's actions or policies, and this approach allows for the possibility of daylight between American interests and Israeli state interests.

Only progressives, acting from progressive values, are actually friends of Israel.  We must make that argument and fight through the heat we take.

Thanks to Matt for taking this on.  Great post, Matt.

Israel has not been taken over by 'orthodox religious fascists' as this last comment suggests.  I don't think that's being implied in the post, is it?

They are there, no doubt.  But their leaders are routinely rounded up and thrown in jail on trumped up charges so the Israeli police can control them before they blow up the Temple Mount.    

By now the settler movement has been dilluted by people lured there by cut rate mortages.  The old guard gush emunim are washed up.  And they're not the ones barking for an invasion of Lebanon.  The Gushies are too stupid to be neocons.

In many ways, I think it's kind of the easy way out to say that Rabin was the good guy and if he had not been killed, the whole thing would be different.  I admired him, too.  But he committed war crimes and was not exactly big on telling the world what he was thinking.  

In reality, there are no simple sides in Israel anymore if there ever was.   Everyone is responsible for arriving at this point.  

Having said all that--what I miss, and what I think the world misses, is Carter's mindset.   Or at this moment, I'd even take Warren Christopher's mindset or even James Baker's midset.  Because they were all committed to the idea of mediation.

I think what Matt is talking about in the U.S. is the emergence--or rather the spread (neocon Jews happend long before the story in this post began)--of a particular type of Jew whose identity and sense of self vis-a-vis Israel has been stripped clean of mediation as a moral good.  They've gone clear back to the 1920s with this talk of 'rooted out' the problems in the middle east.

In the 20s, they 'rooted out' villages and planted trees and that gave us the map in 1948.  Now, they are 'rooting out' bunkers and convoys with the hope of giving us a new map in 2008.  

How a moral foundation that included mediation has completely eroded in just a few short years--I don't know.  It seemed to still be in Israel a few years back.  But I think the suicide bombs had something to do with it.  And the Likkud did the rest.  

As for how that moral foundation eroded in the U.S.--it hasn't.  But we just need to fight now to get people back in place who have it.

But that's the big, big problem.  If we want to take on a faction of Jewish politics--progressives would need to generate  group with credentials that gave them authority to speak. Otherwise, it's just Liberals talking, and that's not going to be enough.

There's an attempt, for example, to push back the Evangelicals by building up Christian credentials on the Left. It's slow.  

In the early part of my academic career, I spent ten years building up credentials so I could speak with authority on Jewish topics.  It's no different than in any other profession.  But now I see that the real need, as Matt points out, is to create a strong voice in Progressive politics that can be a bullwark agaisnt the Jewish Neo-Cons.  But I don't know more than a small handful of people who can do this.  And frankly, if we try to do it, it will be minutes before the dittoheads inject fake anti-Semitism and accusations of anti-Semitism into it, crippling the whole effort with a flame war that nobody can get out of alive.   And that would leave us no better off than if we didn't do it.  There's a real key ingredient of power that we are lacking.  If we had a few more real Progressive senate seats, a few more real Progressive cable stations, a few more real Progressive governors--maybe.  But we lack that power, now.  It feels like a squirt gun against a tornado evertime Progressives try to take on the Neo-Con Israel stuff in our current power position.  It's crazy.

That's why I think the solution is to try to go beyond knocking heads with the bogus accusations that Liberals are 'anti-Israel'--because the real reason we don't want Bolton is that he is a pig who will continue to alienate every ally we ever had.   So we need to move the debate to that.  Because when we lose all our allies, we end up dumping American soldiers like garbage into Iraq, Lebanon, and god knows where else before this thing is over.  

Seriously.  I really think we are in a unique position right now to bat away the Israel frame and say, 'This is about American character and leadership.  This is about service and sacrifice.  This is about the voice of the people.'  The themes from CT that worked really well.  And then just to stand our ground, don't flinch, when it gets ugly.

It's frustrating to be accused of this stuff, I know.  But I spend as much time as possible on Kos and elsewhere just telling people to be confident and hit back 'You're not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.  Believe it.  We've got your back.  Keep moving forward.'  And Jews and non-Jews have it equally as bad on this, because most American Jews lack any sort of confidence in their Jewish identities.

But I strongly agree with the larger point of the post.  Particularly on the question of taking notes during the Bolton campaign.  Any Democrat who sides with the accusations that equate opposition to Bolton with anti-Israeli or anti-Semitism or the Holocaust or any of that crap--those Democrats should be toxic from that moment forward.

ok, so this is something that's been itching away at my brain since the recent hostilities in lebanon commenced.

about 15 years ago, when yours truly was esconced in college, palestinian intellectuals used to routinely discuss the importance of a 'right of return' for refugess.  hell, even left israeli and jewish figures abroad did.

haven't heard a damn thing about that for years.  and once i was told--eh, some had suggested--that it was the most trenchant barrier to a lasting peace.

according to one prof i had, jewish settlers under the palestine mandate had purchased about 7% of the land the comprised the state of israel as of the eve of the war of independence.  that would suggest that of the pre-1967 total, 93% was taken through, um, other measures.

anyway, i digress.  combined with the demographic time bomb that is arab israeli birth rates, any discussion of a right of return would make the maintenance of a jewish democracy impossible.  the state of israel would rapidly become a pluralistic democracy, populated by groups that have some issues with each other, to say the least.

strangely enough, this thing that was the very fulcrum of argument as recently as 10 years ago is now off the table somehow, at least as far as the west is concerned.  how'd that happen?

Today I went to a demonstration opposing Israeli aggression against Lebanon in front of the White House that drew about 5,000 people. The highlight was watching about 10 Orthodox rabbis walk arm-in-arm with Lebanese and Palestinian men. It gave me chills.

Afterwards in the park one of the rabbis was talking and a small group had gathered around him. I caught only part of it, but what I heard was extremely enlightening and heartening. He said that the Zionists have done things to incite Arab rage, in the name of Judaism, and then have equated anti-Zionist sentiment with anti-Semitism. That has been a hugely successful strategy. He said that it is extremely important to draw a distinction between the two: anti-Zionism is NOT anti-Semitism.

I agree. I think that we live in complicated times and it's extremely important to take care to accurately name the not just the forces but the parties to this conflict. The danger in not doing so is the potential of creating misdirected animus. That's true on both sides. On the neocon side, the Bushies have been able to successfully tap into the public's culturally shared racism and lump together "Islamic facists" and everyone else who opposes occupation. On our side, we've often been careless with our words, fueld by indignation, and alienated American Jews. That's a tragedy, because, of any group, Jews who oppose Israeli aggression have probably the most important role to play in bringing peace to the middle east.

That wealthy elites make Influence U.S foreign policy choices to benefit Israel rather then the United States, are you?

AIPAC will eat you for lunch!

Bolton is the Ambassador of World War III.

Question him on Newt Gingrich's comments that we were engaged in WWIII. Ask Bolton to compare casualty counts from WWII and the "global war against islamic fascism". Ask him about press reports that senior US officials were pressing Israel to attack Syria as well as Lebanon.

Members of Likud are calling for Ehud Olmert's ouster. Israeli Minister of Defense Amir Peretz is a labor socialist whose bravado wasn't backed by the IDF gains on the ground. Octagenarian Shimon Peres, a former PM and MoD, was one of the few voices of dissent in the Israeli cabinet.

HAARETZ.com 8/10/06 quotes former Israeli PM and Minister of Defense Shimon Peres:
"Peres said that he did not support the [ground offensive to the Litani River] because it has already forfeited the element of surprise, may involve numerous fatalities and would endanger Israel's relations with Arab and Muslim states."

Peres is no fool. The Likud party isn't in power anymore in Israel. Ariel Sharon was considered too weak by the likes of John Bolton for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. So why should the Netanyahu/Likud view be a litmus test for American supporters of Israel? If Shimon Peres was a registered user at Daily Kos - let's call him 'shimmy23' - he'd likely to get branded an anti-semite by Lanny Davis and his ilk for voicing the following.

shimmy23 on dKos: "I don't support the [ground offensive to the Litani river] because it has already forfeited the element of surprise, may involve numerous fatalities and would endanger Israel's relations with Arab and Muslim states."

Cue Lanny Davis, Bill Kristol, Cal Thomas et al. - "Vile blogger shimmy23 is siding with the Islamic fascists!"

Nevermind that shimmy23 is one of Founding Fathers of Israel. Strong support of Israel is a perfectly reasonable political view but the nature of that support must come in the context of history. Moshe Dayan advocated for unilateral separation from Gaza and the West Bank in 1981. The difference between 1981 and 2006 is a lot of venom builds up in 25 years of occupation. Both Israelis and Palestinians have lost 25 of peace but "tough" people like John Bolton have many conditions for peace, none of which include stop killing each other.

Shimon Peres quote - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/7490 19.html
Shimon Peres bio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Pere s
Moshe Dayan bio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan

People seem to forget that Israel has plenty of liberals who don't subscribe to the Lukid insanity.   American liberals need to cultivate relationships with Liberal Israelis, and forget the idea that being a friend of Israel means supporting the rabid Neocon agenda.

That that 3 out of the top 4 zip codes donating to bush in 2004 were in manhattan.  The same zip codes in the same order were also top 4 donators to Kerry.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topz ips.asp?cycle=2004
John McCain was over in manhattan recently. Apparently there is a faction of bankers supporting him (lead by James Lee of JP morgan).
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14045711/

He's definitely posturing.  I saw him (I think it was Leno) saying that there isn't a moral equivelence between what hezbollah does and what Israel does (the crowd went wild over that).  I agree, only I think Israel Invading and killing 800 people is worse than Hezbollah killing 100. How can anyone argue with that? The side committing the most violence should stop first.  

I congraduate Matt on his courage to address the issue of AIPAC, and what is sometimes referred to broadly as the "pro-Israel" lobby, and its influence in American foreign policy.  

I dont think an insightful discussion of the topic can be had without addressing a simple truth.  At this time in history, as a nuclear power, Israel does not face a serious threat from its Arab neighbors.  The biggest "threat" that Israel now faces is the loss of uncritical US support.  Israel is one vote in the UN security council away from being forced diplomatically to undergo fundamental change.  

I have been interested in Israel and American perceptions of Israel since I was teenager.  I lived outside of the US in several other nations and always paid careful attention to how Israel was viewed by local media.  

While broad international opinion strongly defends Israel's fundamental right to exist, it does not approve of the status quo.  Each year, the United Nations, in plenary assembly, addresses its complaints against Israel with non-binding and unenforceable statements which take issue with Israel's policies.  These votes are almost unanimous, with every country agreeing with the exception of Israel, the US, and whatever nations it can coerce into compliance, usually former Pacific trust nations.  Friendly first-world nations, from Canada to Britain and the entire EU, are unified in expressing opposition to the status quo.  

Criticism of Israel addresses two areas: policies unfavorable to Christian and Muslim Arab Israelis, and refusal of Israel to determine final status of Palestinian-occupied territory.  

The internal policies in Israel are often derided as apartheid, policies that result in unequal status of non-Jewish Israeli citizens.  While few formal laws exist, in reality, non-Jewish Israelis are not equal citizens.  Inter-religious marriage is not recognized, it is effectively impossible for non-Jews to buy property, and representation of non-Jews in government is not representational by design.  Also, any challenge to Israeli anti-Arab policies by members of the Knesset can be considered treason, and punished harshly, so Israeli Palestinians are not enthusiastic about participating in government in the first place.  

The question of the occupation is the second broad area criticized.  Palestinians living under Israeli occupation are not citizens of any nation.  They do not have rights to a voice in international diplomacy, and lack even the right to a passport which would allow travel.  There is no recognized authority to issue passports.  The UN believes that Israel must allow a final disposition for these perpertual refugees, which would allow either full and equal Israeli citizenship, or the ability to form an independent nation.  For obvious reasons, Israel refuses both.  

These are complicated issues, and I have spent many long hours contemplating them.  However, I dont think I need to figure out solutions (although I have some worked out if you want to hear.. heheh.)  These are issues for Israel to address, and that nation may take guidance from the UN as needed.  But I believe firmly that the US should not be an obstacle to honest diplomacy.  

Which brings us finally to Stoller's laudable, idealistic, and somewhat naive quest.  The "pro-Israeli lobby" in the US believes that changes in Israeli policy demanded by the non-binding UN resolutions would spell the end of the zionist dream of a Jewish state.  They are well aware that Israel does not have the support of other nations in terms of its current policy, and they know that if Israel loses the unconditional support of the US and our veto in the security council, it faces the choice of undergoing the changes demanded by the UN, or becoming a rogue state, diplomatically and economically isolated.  

Therefore, the first and foremost goal of Israeli foreign policy must be to define the Mideast narrative in the US.  Returning to the US as a teenager, after living in Europe, I was shocked to see the blatant pro-Israel bias in the mainstream media, before that term was a dirty word.  I was disgusted to realized that discussing the policies or modern history of a foreign nation was considered taboo.  And to this day, I am perplexed by the total ignorance that most Americans have concerning the history and policies of Israel.  Anything other than the Woman called Golda version of events cannot be discussed without accusations of anti-semetism.  Not even BBC documentaries can be shown on American TV.  Apparently, they are some kind of foreign propoganda.  

My father is adamantly pro-Israel, as he is keen to remind me whenever we discuss the middle east.  He did serve in US Naval Intelligence for some time, however, and still gets his hackles up about the USS Liberty.  Anger that was renewed with a vengence when Admiral Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, submitted the findings of his independent commission into the congressional record in 2004.  

The final point of Admiral Moorer's findings is the one the resonates loudest with me: "12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States."  It is a testament to the power of the Israeli lobby that a major report entered into the congressional record in 2004 concerning both an act of war by a friendly nation and the subsequent official cover-up by the US government never even made the press in the US.  Ironically, British citizens know more about the USS Liberty than Americans.  It was the subject of a BBC documentary.

So, Matt thinks he can start a informed and respectful dialogue about Israel and US policy towards Israel, from a lefty Jewish perspective.  I disagree.  That type of conversation can lead to re-consideration of uncritical US support of Israel, and that is something that the pro-Israel lobby will fight against, considering it a greater threat to Israel than Iran could ever be.  If he is successful and starts to draw attention, he will be attacked, as I have stated before, with a ferocity that will make Karl Rove look like Shirley Temple.  I have seen good, honest, idealistic people have their guts ripped out, metaphorically speaking, by unrelenting attacks of the Israeli lobby.  

So, anyway, Matt good luck with that.  I will be here to throw in my two cents every once in awhile, if you dont fucking pull my comments.  

Discovering the power of the Israel Lobby experientially is a tough experience. Yes, for too long Democrats have been hamstrung in any effort to articulate a coherent progressive foreign policy because of their dependence on "supporters" who admired and encouraged a racist, bullying Israel. Who is wagging who is a proper subject for discussion. But more important has been the ability of the Israel Lobby to take sane discussion completely off the table of how this country could use its power for good.

Of course the Israel Lobby is not co-extensive with Jews -- most U.S. Jews aren't that invested in Israel, just manipulated. Many Israeli Jews are less vicious than their government. Actually I worry more about the mass of US triumphalist fundie Christians who delight in this stuff. They are a fascist base, inflamed by martial passion.

Anyway, those of us who have long recognized the constraints that the Israel Lobby has put on U.S. politics should welcome a new generation discovering what we've learned so painfully. Just because they don't immediately see all the connections that we ferreted out with such difficulty mustn't mean that they somehow aren't good enough.

The struggle to take US policy back from these people is critical to averting global suicide.

Because in my Machiavellian perspective, he's better for us than the next Bush appointee would be.  

Having a known bellicose idiot with zero diplomatic credibility advancing Bush's self-destructive Neocon policies is safer for us than having someone else, who might actually have some influence.  Bush/Cheney will STILL be calling the shots, no matter who is appointed.  

It seems clear to me that Bolton is in fact a LIABILITY for the Bush Administration--and it would be foolish for us to force Bush to appoint someone else that might actually be competent (i.e. a Kissinger-type) to advance their evil, stupid agenda.  Better to have someone there who already LOOKS stupid and evil in diplomatic eyes, to insure that BushCo fails.

It would seem any change to the current stanglehold of AIPAC on U.S. foreign policy would have to come from the bottom up.  The only hold AIPAC has on the average American is propaganda.  Legislators are comprimised by contributions and smear.

Grassroots is the only way the American public will find out how our government is being controlled.

I'm encouraged to see some gentle but honest questioning and discussion about the US Israel lobby on the net.  I can remember in the 80s, how referring to this in any way got you branded as an extreme leftist terrorist that nobody with any sense would take seriously.  That may be what the author of this article will be called now, but of course the wingnuts have tossed that label at so many reasonable people that it has lost some of its sting.

I am really disappointed by this entire thread. I am a proud progressive Democrat who has been a reader and occasional poster at MYDD, since the 2002 midterm elections, when I followed Jerome's forecasts. I have worked for Democratic candidates for over 30 years, and was recently employed by one of the most progressive members of the New York City Council. I am also a proud orthodox Jew and was very troubled when large numbers of my fellow orthodox voted for Bush in 2004. So troubled in fact that I am working with a few other like minded orthodox to try to stem the tide of orthodox jews migrating to the GOP.

Having said this, it is threads like this that make our job so difficult. This plays right into the RJC talking points that Democrats do not support Israel. There is no contradiction between being a progressive democrat, even on Iraq and other foreign policy issues, and being robustly pro Israel. Again I use myself as an example. I have been opposed to the Iraq misadventure from the very beginning.I was also a staunch supporter of the Oslo process during the entire 1990's, as was most of the established American Jewish Community. During the Camp David summit of July 2000, I prayed daily for its success.

However the events of the past 6 years have completely turned me. Arafat spurned Barak's offer of a Palestinian State at Camp David, and instead of continuing negotiations in good faith, leashed waves of suicide bombers that killed youngsters waiting to get into a disco, families having lunch at a Pizza Parlor, worshippers returning from prayers at the Western Wall, holiday guests enjoying a Passover Seder and hundreds more. There is no need to go into an entire history lesson of the last six years. Suffice it to say that even New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who has been accused by many critics of being anti-Israel gets it now. To paraphrase him, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and got a Hezbollah state within a state at their borders, getting armed to the teeth by Syria and Iran. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and  instead of the Palestinians showing the world they could actually conduct their own affairs, build industries and schools, they decided to launch Quassam rockets at Israeli civilians. It goes on and on.

Hezbollah's aggression started this conflict, and Israel has every right to defend herself by all legitimate means and try to destroy the Hezbollah infrastructure. This has nothing to do with AIPAC. This is just clear minded thinking.I was in Washington a few weeks ago and I heard Chuck Schumer give a speech in which he said. "I disagree with George Bush on most things, but on Israel he gets it right". I know it may be heresy to say this on this site, but I agree with him, even though I know that on almost every other issue, Bush has been a disaster for this country and has set us back on a course which will take years to recover from, if we hopefully get a Democratic President in 2008.

And as to Bolton. I opposed him vehemently last time, and thought Bush pushing him through as a recess appointment was a sinister move. But I am leaning towards supporting him now. The UN has traditionally been a bastion of Israel bashing, and Bolton has shown himself to be a true friend of Israel. My apologies for going on so long, but I had to get this out. I agree with my friends here in the Mydd community about 95% of the time but we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
 

I think that it is a mistake to say that democrats are being forced to do anything.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they support all of this stuff because they believe in it.  They don't believe in progressive action so instead they try to court ways of winning that involve other less effective means.