If there ever was a question in our minds about Democratic support of Israel, the letter 74 Democrats send demanding Israel make concessions to end the problems in Israel, erases the doubt. This is 39% of all Dems (74 of 190) in Congress, how can they be so out of step with reality.
J Street is an anti-Israel group that has been demanding concessions for years. They believe that this is the only way to get peace. They feel by retreating from land honorably won in war, that somehow Israel's enemies will be satisfied with this concession. However, the country's foes have never been happy with any agreement. Why should they now? They are weak minded, wrong headed and not students of history. Israel should not and cannot negotiate with an enemy who wishes their destruction.
Any American who loves Israel and votes for any of these traitors, should understand that they are effectively calling for the end the State of Israel. How can any person vote to end a country which is our only friend in the Middle East?
Obama has made it clear where he stands (demanding Israel return to 1967 borders which means giving up a large part of current country and most of Jerusalem) and now we know where a large part of the Democratic Party stands. They do not deserve re-election.
Conservative Tom
74 Democrats Join J Street in Urging Concessions
Rachel Hirshfeld - Arutz-7, April 15th, 2012
White House (Israel news photo: Flash 90)
Seventy-four Democrats in the House of Representatives have joined the leftist J Street organization in supporting the Obama administration's attempt to force Israel into making painful and possibly dangerous concessions to the Palestinian Authority.
“In our view, support for a two-state resolution is inseparable from such support for Israel, its special relationship with the United States, and its very survival as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people,” the letter asserted.
Seven Jewish members signed the letter, including Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), Reps. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also signed the letter.
J Street’s director of government affairs, Dylan Williams, noted that the signatories “are making clear that to be pro-Israel is to support active U.S. engagement in achieving a two-state solution.”
“If the U.S. Congress does not make a viable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a cornerstone of foreign policy in the region, then we are not truly helping Israel to face one its most critical challenges,” Williams continued, not mentioning that there are other possible solutions and that the two-state one might bring catastrophe upon Israel.
While J Street claims it is a “pro-Israel” organization, its policies have ranged from supporting the libelous Goldstone Report to opposing sanctions and military actions against Iran. The organization has provided a forum for radicals advocating boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and has denied, despite evidence to the contrary, that it receives funding from George Soros, the multi-billionaire financier of radically left leaning organizations.
Dear Tom,
ReplyDeleteI was interested to find your blog where people from all sides could have "a discussion forum without calling each other names". The first article I read by you states "Any American who loves Israel and votes for any of these traitors...". Good luck with that "no name calling" thingy. I will not be one of your readers.
P.S.: I just noticed the Labels: Democratic turncoats. Again I wish you good luck
Here we go again. Obama did not "demand" they adopt "1967 borders." It was a suggestion, not a demand. He explicitly stated in that speech that the only solution can be a negotiated agreement between the two side. And, off the umpteenth time, his suggestion was not "1967 borders." It was "1967 borders with mutually-agreed land swaps" to protect Israel security over the 9-mile strip, etc., etc. Unless Israel agrees to a land swap that protects its military interests, then no deal would happen.
ReplyDeleteYou and I agree that Israel's best policy is the one they are pursuing -- take the West Bank one settlement at a time over the period of years. However, that is a separate matter from what Obama proposed, which you and the articles you cite have consistently misrepresented. Back when we started this, I quoted Obama's speech, and you agreed that is what he said. Now you are back-sliding again.
--David
In your defense of your blog, I have been treated better by you on this blog than by the churls at redstate.com who permanently banned me from their forum after my second post, which was the factually statement that Reagan and G.W. Bush were not fiscal conservatives inasmuch as the national debt nearly tripled under Reagan, nearly doubled from a higher base under Bush, and that Reagan+Bush-1 + Bush-2, added around $11 trillion to the national debt. Vote Ron Paul!
ReplyDelete--David
--David
David, you always make your points in a straight forward, well stated argument and for that reason, we have never had any problem with you. Not that we agree, that is ok too, because that is the purpose of this blog. To have a discussion. The comment yesterday was someone who did not agree with me and decided that since I voiced my opinion in a pointed way, he did not like it. I reserve the right to call a group out on the way they are acting, that is calling a spade a spade.
ReplyDeleteEven when he left his comment, I did post it--as someone who does not get me and the blog and only read one article or for that matter any of our give and take.