This is the crux of the matter. The rest of what you said may or may not he true, but it is at least debatable. Your prior analogy was false and besides the point.

“jdyer ;The democratic party of today is nothing like the democratic party of Truman,JFK, Scoop Jackson,Hubert Humphrey.etc. That is my point. As a matter of fact the Dems just elected a racist muslim from Minnesota for congress.”

I don’t see the election of one “racist Muslim” muslim as changing the complexity of the party.

“Forgetting all analogies to ww2,I see the dems as gradually drifting away from a pro Isreal stance in favor of a more pro palestinian stance.Of course it will be nuanced as a more anti zionist repressive govt stance and not an anti jewish stance.”

You are jumping the gun. This may be true in the future, it may also he true that the Republicans will also compete for that vote.

Let’s wait and see what the Democratic policies will be before throwing a temper tantrum.

Also keep in mind the muslim voter base is growing in the USA. The Dems are very aware of this, and are very keen to add another special interest group to their voting base.

I find that most people who resort to analogies linking the current situation of the Jewish people to some aspect of their fate under the Nazis have only a superficial acquaintance either with the Nazi period or with Jewish history.

This is especially true of people on the left who vilify the Jewish state. It’s also sadly true of some people who support it.

For your information it was the Democratic party that supported Israel diplomatically before 1967 and financially after that period and not the Republican conservatives who had no interest early on in the Jewish State.

Truman endorsed Israeli independence, while the Eisenhower administration made life difficult for it.

The Democratic President John Kennedy was, I believe, the first American President to meet with an Israeli PM.

Still, the history of US relations to the Arab world and Israel are shot through with ironies and to see one party or the other as either “partial” or “an enemy of Israel” is just ignorant.

What has governed American relations towards Israeli have always been the self interests of the US, mo matter the canard of an “all powerful Jewish Lobby.”

Check this out:

“A senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Bass reminds us that Kennedy made his foreign-policy intentions clear in his inaugural address: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Kennedy’s message was directed at the world, but it must have made Dwight Eisenhower, whose Mideast policy JFK held in contempt, wince. Eisenhower and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, considered Harry Truman to have been partial to Israel. According to Bass, they “thought Israel a headache that would make it harder to box up communism,” marking the Eisenhower era as “the coldest period in the entire U.S.-Israel relationship.” The Suez Crisis of 1956 made Eisenhower all the more distrustful.

“Friendship with the Arab states was useful for containment,” writes Bass of Eisenhower, “while friendship with Israel was not.”

What will surprise some readers is that Kennedy’s initial New Frontier outreach was to the president of Egypt, Jamal Abd al-Nasser, in the hope of counterbalancing the Soviet Union’s Mideast influence. Bass quotes from the ever-more-cordial letters between JFK and Nasser, and describes the rise and fall of the U.S.-Egypt relationship — and of U.S. foreign aid — over Nasser’s fixation on pan-Arabism, his growing dependence on Soviet military hardware, and his heavy hand in the 1962 coup and subsequent war in Yemen. (By February 1963 Egypt had 40,000 troops there and had used chemical weapons repeatedly.) The war, which Nasser came to call his Vietnam, risked spreading to U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan and ended the blossoming relationship for some time.

The cooling of one alliance was matched by the warming of another. Bass describes the 1962 sale of Hawk missles to Israel after a protracted tug of war, breaking Eisenhower’s arms-sale embargo, as “perhaps the most underappreciated milestone in the U.S.-Israel special relationship.” State Department officials complained that JFK was bowing to pressure from the Jewish lobby; Bass shows us that there hardly was such a lobby four decades ago.”

http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2003/fall/essays/friends/index.html

During the 70′s the US foreign policty towards Israel has been pretty consitent under both parties and while the extreme left of the Democrats want to change that, so do the extreme right in the Republican party.

It’s also not true that:

“Remember how easily many of the Jews were lead off to the concentration camps in ww2. Very few thought that they were entering hell on earth…”

The Jews were no more “easily led off” than any other conquered peoples then and since; and they did resort to self defense, usually hopeless, more often that did the conquered populace of Europe at the time.

In time you will see a much more pro palestinian policy as the liberal faction takes more power. If you dont believe me just look at Europe. This is what I mean by my analogy. American jews if they have strong support for Isreal are better served by the gop. They are asleep at the wheel. Just as many jews in 1930s Europe were. Sorry if the analogy hurts, but thats the way I see it. I’ve also been watching Europe quite closely these last few years,and antisemetic crimes have been on a steady rise, in these liberal democratic societies.

November 18th, 2006 at 7:43 am

“To Jdyer; Maybe Dan Levy was right. 85% of Jews voting for the Dems does not suprise me. Remember how easily many of the Jews were lead off to the concentration camps in ww2. Very few thought that they were entering hell on earth.”

This is a stupid comparison rc21 in every way historically, politically and ethically. You need to rethink the analogies you use, buddy.

Nuf said!

There is much written by the Nazis at how gullible and easy it was to mislead the Jews into believing they were just being relocated. Their was very little in the way of resistance from the Jews in Europe. The Warsaw uprising not withstanding.

http://www.senado.es/legis8/senadores/173_index.html

Senador por Burgos

GRUPO PARLAMENTARIO SOCIALISTA (GPS)

He should be invited on opensource to discuss Spanish politics.

November 11th, 2006 at 10:43 pm

[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan] ”

Brendan you are too deleting comments a bit too quickly. You need to let us know what in the comment was “against the guidelines.” As it is your deletions are a matter of personal point of view, which is a form of censorship.

“Spanish senator blasts anti-Israel views

A veteran member of Spain’s senate, criticized Spanish leaders, the nation’s media and Spaniards in general for harboring anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic attitudes.

“Anti-Zionism, anti-Israeli attitudes, anti-Semitism and justification of the Holocaust are a way of life in Spain,” Juan Jose Laborda, a seven-term senator, said during an appearance at Madrid’s Conservative synagogue, Congregation Bet-El.

A member of the ruling Socialist party, Laborda has served in the upper house of the Spanish congress since it was established in 1978 after Spain’s return to democracy….”

Raed the who article:

http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=5594