Lessons the Democratic Party Seems to Have Forgotten

Late in the evening after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, new president Lyndon Johnson returned to his home in Washington D.C. Shortly after midnight, he marched to his bedroom, bringing three of his closest advisors with him. There, sprawled across a king-size bed in his pajamas, LBJ launched into a long [url=http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158254#v=onepage&q=Never again will a little old lady who's sick as a dog be turned away from a hospital because she doesn't have any money to pay for her treatment&f=false]monologue[/url] about his vision of the future. “We'll pass legislation that allows everyone anywhere in this country to vote,” he told them, “with all the barriers down. You give people a vote, and they damn sure have the power to change their life for the better. And that's not all. We're going to get a law that says that every boy and girl in this country, no matter how poor or the color of their skin, or the region they came from, is going to be able to get all the education they can, by loan, scholarship, or grant, right from the federal government. And I aim to pass Harry Truman's medical insurance bill that got nowhere before. Never again will a little old lady who's sick as a dog be turned away from a hospital because she doesn't have any money to pay for her treatment.”

For the next five years, Johnson would devote himself to implementing this vision. The list of federal programs is almost overwhelming: Medicare and Medicaid; aid to education; civil rights laws; poverty programs; job training; Head Start; and much more. Some of Johnson’s efforts were tremendously successful. Others were spectacular failures. But as Democrats struggle to understand their dismal performance in the 2014 mid-term elections, they could start by turning back to the Johnson presidency. For regardless of the specific details of the Great Society programs, the ideology that lay behind them speaks volumes about the American conception of the role of government, and offers lessons for the contemporary Democratic Party that seem to have been forgotten.


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158254

The party does need to remember what it's all about from time to time, but I think one of the biggest factors is the barely (or not at all) concealed menace we face from right-wingers in the U.S. They're definitely trying to be scary.

Obama's health care reform has added 20 million Americans to the ranks of those who have health insurance. This is what greeted the passage of the ACA:

Shots fired at a congressman's campaign headquarters. Windows smashed at Democratic offices across the country. A coffin placed on a lawmaker's lawn. Hate-filled voice mail messages left on members of Congress' phone lines.

Those are just some of the incidents reported since the House passed historic health care reform legislation Sunday -- a bill that became the law of the land.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/

We have another of our many well-documented mass shooting tragedies and if a liberal brings up measures to rein in gun violence, it's met by this:



Gay marriage:

When asked what he thought the consequence of nationwide marriage equality would be, the attendee had just one word: "Violence."

"The state is saying my marriage would be equivalent to what homosexuals do and what homosexual relationships are, and it just can't be tolerated."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/06/19/WATCH-National-Organization-for-Marriage-supporter-threatens-violence-if-same-sex-marriage-is-legalized-nationally/3001403219919/

Protesting for civil rights:



Multiculturalism? We get stuff like the Sikh temple shooting:



Right-wingers carry long rifles in our city streets:



Now ...

In spite of this obvious intimidation and the near-constant threat of right-wing violence (I crunched these numbers the other day), in less than a decade here are some of the things the Democrats have done:

* 225 million Americans live in states with marriage equality

* More Americans (about 17 million) live in states with legal marijuana than live in the Netherlands (about 16 million)

* Obamacare has resulted in 87 percent of Americans having health insurance coverage, compared to 82 percent before its implementation

Is funny you should bring up these points Ben and as seen America has a long way to go and look at Israel on these points like health care and gun control:

Healthcare there today is managed by the 1995 National Health Insurance Law, which mandates that every Israeli citizen has a right to be covered by one of the country's four non-profit HMOs, with about 40 percent of the costs being covered through taxation from income and the state paying for the other 60 percent.

On gun control:


Today, relatively few Israelis own guns. Israel’s Firearms Law severely limits gun ownership. Even after satisfying extensive licensing procedures and background checks, licensed gun owners in Israel are only permitted to hold 50 bullets at one time. Fewer than 8% of Israelis own a gun, compared to 26% of Americans. Americans are 4.5 times more likely than Israelis to be killed by a gun.


On Discrmination:

Israel has one of the broadest anti-discrimination laws of any country. According to the State Department, "The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, or sexual orientation. The law also prohibits discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, political beliefs, and age."


On Labour and Unions:

"Workers may join and establish labor organizations freely," the State Department noted in its report. "Non­resident workers in the organized sector, including Palestinians from the occupied territories, are represented by Histadrut and are covered under its collective bargaining agreements. They may join, vote for, and be elected to shop­level workers' committees. Labor laws applicable in Israel are applied to Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Syrian Arabs and Druze on the Golan Heights."

Israel Has a Powerful Labor Movement: Unlike the United States, where conservatives have succeeded in minimizing the power of labor unions particularly in the private sector, Israel's labor movement remains strong. Union density is about a third of the workforce, what it was in the heyday of America's labor movement. Going into the parliamentary elections, Israel's main union has made threats of shutting down part of the economy if a major company does not go back on its move to reduce its workforce.


Paternity leave:


Israel’s Women’s Labor Law obligates workplaces to give women 14 weeks of paid maternity leave and an additional 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Compare this to America’s Family and Medical Leave Act, which grants only 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave (Congratulations, new mother! You have the right to not work, and not get paid! Just thank Uncle Sam that you weren’t fired.)


Severance pay

Israel’s Severance Pay Law requires employers to pay terminated employees one month’s pay for each year worked before their employment termination.

Religious freedom:

"The law provides for freedom of religion, and the Government respects this right," according to the State Department report. In fact, each religious community has legal authority over its members in matters of marriage and divorce. They also control their own holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country.

For a country that is supposed to be right wing, they sure do have far more liberal and left wing policies than the US Ben

All of that given, I would not trade our problems for theirs, not in a heartbeat.

Israeli settlers on land taken illegally.

Ben_Reilly wrote:All of that given, I would not trade our problems for theirs, not in a heartbeat.

Of course you would not trade being surrounded by nations that hate you, who would, you do not have to wake everyday knowing that many people just hate you for being Jewish.
The point is though Ben what people think of Israel as seen is easily mistaken by the fact they have far more left wing polcies than your own country does

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:All of that given, I would not trade our problems for theirs, not in a heartbeat.

Of course you would not trade being surrounded by nations that hate you, who would, you do not have to wake everyday knowing that many people just hate you for being Jewish.
The point is though Ben what people think of Israel as seen is easily mistaken by the fact they have far more left wing polcies than your own country does

No, I think what Ben is saying--and if he isn't, I will--is that Israel doesn't have a deep enough keel.  Consequently, she is susceptible to wide mood swings.  

CS Lewis said: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."  I do think that Israel may have lost sight of the distinction between victimness and oppression.  

Take a look at a paper by Julie Roberts, PhD, entitled: The Victim Tyrant Cycle:

Julie Roberts, PhD wrote:The tyrant is a response to feeling hurt, invaded, out of control, loss of power or fear of losing power (all things that a victim feels), and so the tyrant position is an attempt to fight the cause of the victimization and gain control.

Where Israel started out with an idea of obsessive protectionism, they are now down to outright stealing. They don't see the difference, nor do they see that they have become the oppressors. Their obsession with their own victimness blinds them to the sufferings of anyone else...particularly of their own making. They have confused the two sides of the ledger.

+10000000
to Quill

t.y. veya.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Of course you would not trade being surrounded by nations that hate you, who would, you do not have to wake everyday knowing that many people just hate you for being Jewish.
The point is though Ben what people think of Israel as seen is easily mistaken by the fact they have far more left wing polcies than your own country does

No, I think what Ben is saying--and if he isn't, I will--is that Israel doesn't have a deep enough keel.  Consequently, she is susceptible to wide mood swings.  

CS Lewis said: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."  I do think that Israel may have lost sight of the distinction between victimness and oppression.  

Take a look at a paper by Julie Roberts, PhD, entitled: The Victim Tyrant Cycle:

Julie Roberts, PhD wrote:The tyrant is a response to feeling hurt, invaded, out of control, loss of power or fear of losing power (all things that a victim feels), and so the tyrant position is an attempt to fight the cause of the victimization and gain control.

Where Israel started out with an idea of obsessive protectionism, they are now down to outright stealing.  They don't see the difference, nor do they see that they have become the oppressors.  Their obsession with their own victimness blinds them to the sufferings of anyone else...particularly of their own making.  They have confused the two sides of the ledger.

Political expert are you?
Seriously thank you for the laugh as that really was a load of babble
C.S. Lewis.
Yeah you have this great habbit of going off the worst bollocks presented not arguing against the actual points that have been made.
Seriously more and more I am convinced you are just some PC wanna be creating your own delusional word to hope people think you are sepcial as the point her being made which you have side tracked on is that Israel has far more left with and Liberal Policies than your own country does

But honestly, can't you see that as a nation Israel has lost its way? We see this time and time again throughout history, people taking a threat and making it into a poorly justified, number 1 priority in terms of its own actions, at the expense of a lot of lives and its own moral high ground.

Poorly justified?
You are bonkers Ben, they have threats from many nations that are real, being attacked countless times, they need to be recognised as a nation, and if America withdrew its support they would be attacked. Israel is not without faults and needs to compremise, that I agree

Ben_Reilly wrote:But honestly, can't you see that as a nation Israel has lost its way? We see this time and time again throughout history, people taking a threat and making it into a poorly justified, number 1 priority in terms of its own actions, at the expense of a lot of lives and its own moral high ground.

The classic case being Nazi Germany in the 1930's:

The Road to War: Germany: 1919-1939 wrote:As the loser, Germany was forced to pay for the war. In 1921 these "reparations" were set at 269 billion Marks, or roughly 32 billion dollars--a staggering sum. Some economists argued against such a big bill, and predicted that it would take Germany until 1988 to pay it. Later that year the sum was reduced to 226 billion Marks, still considered an astronomical amount by many observers. Reparations came in a variety of forms, including coal, steel, intellectual property (eg. the trademark for Aspirin) and agricultural products. In 1923 Germany defaulted on its ability to deliver further amounts of coal and steel. In response, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr River valley inside the western border of Germany, the center of the German coal and steel industries. The German people passively resisted the occupation (workers and civil servants refused orders and instructions from the occupation forces), thus leading to a further strain on Germany's economy and contributing significantly to inflation (a rise in the prices of goods & services). When the government began printing more money to pay its debts, it created astronomical "hyperinflation", the worst ever seen in the history of civilization.

The buying power of German money simply disintegrated. The statistics to the right, which compare the value of the German Mark (the basic unit of currency) with the American dollar, illustrate the point. By the end of 1923, a life savings of a hundred thousand Marks would not buy a loaf of bread. In November, the government started printing new marks called Rentenmarks, which simply lopped off all of the zeros from what the old money was worth. This helped stabilize things, but there remained the problem of reparations. In 1924, a payment plan was worked out and Germany's economy improved. However, it made the German economy, as well as the economies of the rest of Europe, dependent on the United States. A cycle of loans was created: The U.S. loaned money to Germany, which then made reparations to other European nations, which then used the money to pay off their debts to America. Therefore, any problems with the U.S. economy could severely hurt Germany and the rest of Europe.

Going from such extreme victimization to the Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP, hereafter the Nazi party), Germany became one of the most tyrannical forces in history. Case in point.

Dear me your antisemitism is blossoming clearly Quill to even attempt to compare, where again I have studied the Nazi party at great length. Have utterly no respect for such poor inaccurate comments such as this and now no respect for you as an individual.
Utterly appalled

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
All of that given, I would not trade our problems for theirs, not in a heartbeat.

Of course you would not trade being surrounded by nations that hate you, who would, you do not have to wake everyday knowing that many people just hate you for being Jewish.
The point is though Ben what people think of Israel as seen is easily mistaken by the fact they have far more left wing polcies than your own country does

ISRAEL is not, and has never been, a "liberal state", in the true 'literal' and political sense;

ISRAEL has been a "fractured" or incomplete democracy since the 1960s ~ denying voting and citizenship rights, and the ability to buy land or start businesses, to significant slices of the local populace until recent years;

ISRAEL still allows the Zionist theft of Palestinian territories in the Gaza strip and around the 'disputed' West Bank, even after they signed agreements over the years;

AND WHY IS IT such a surprise that so much Arab hatred should follow the unilateral 1948 agreement that the UN, USA and Britain should drop millions of displaced Zionist-inclined Jewish war refugees into the middle of a volatile region that had been infested with eternal wars and disputes for more than 3,000 years ~ and where the Jews and Palestinians carry on those family feuds from some 5,000 years or more in their dark, dim pasts ???      

Brasidas wrote:
Dear me your antisemitism is blossoming clearly Quill to even attempt to compare, where again I have studied the Nazi party at great length. Have utterly no respect for such poor inaccurate comments such as this and now no respect for you as an individual.
Utterly appalled

"ANTISEMITISM", Didge   !?!

WTF have you been smoking this week ?

NEITHER Anti-Zionist nor anti-Israeli opinions equate to a universal hatred of Jews..

WHILE I see plenty of anti-Israeli commentary every month on here, I have yet to see any genuine generic and widespread "antisemitism" from those same contributors.  

Lone Wolf wrote:

Brasidas wrote:
Dear me your antisemitism is blossoming clearly Quill to even attempt to compare, where again I have studied the Nazi party at great length. Have utterly no respect for such poor inaccurate comments such as this and now no respect for you as an individual.
Utterly appalled

"ANTISEMITISM", Didge   !?!

WTF have you been smoking this week ?

NEITHER Anti-Zionist nor anti-Israeli opinions equate to a universal hatred of Jews..

WHILE I see plenty of anti-Israeli commentary every month on here, I have yet to see any genuine generic and widespread "antisemitism" from those same contributors.    

 I am afraid to tell you that they do cross over when the view discriminates against Jews.
For one, saying Israel should not exist is discriminating against Jews denying them their statehood.
Quill made a very racial view point on the Jews in Israel.
There is genuine criticism and then their is antisemitism.
Oh there has been plenty from sassy in regards to antisemitism.
Here this will help:

Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":^[13]

• Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
  
  
• Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
  
  
• Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
  
  
• Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
  
  
• Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.^[vague]
  
  
• Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
  
  
• Holocaust denial
  
  
• Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
  
  
• International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena"): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.
  
  

Cotler argues that classical antisemitism is discrimination against Jews as individuals whereas the new antisemitism, in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism is the same – an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time." This discrimination is hard to measure, because the indices governments tend to use to detect discrimination – such as standard of living, housing, health and employment – are useful only in measuring discrimination against individuals. Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show that the concept is a valid one.^[14]
Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations – the denial of and assault upon the Jewish people's right even to live – with Israel as the "collective Jew among the nations"."^[15]
Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Of course you would not trade being surrounded by nations that hate you, who would, you do not have to wake everyday knowing that many people just hate you for being Jewish.
The point is though Ben what people think of Israel as seen is easily mistaken by the fact they have far more left wing polcies than your own country does

ISRAEL is not, and has never been, a "liberal state", in the true 'literal' and political sense;

ISRAEL has been a "fractured" or incomplete democracy since the 1960s ~ denying voting and citizenship rights, and the ability to buy land or start businesses, to significant slices of the local populace until recent years;

ISRAEL still allows the Zionist theft of Palestinian territories in the Gaza strip and around the 'disputed' West Bank, even after they signed agreements over the years;

AND WHY IS IT such a surprise that so much Arab hatred should follow the unilateral 1948 agreement that the UN, USA and Britain should drop millions of displaced Zionist-inclined Jewish war refugees into the middle of a volatile region that had been infested with eternal wars and disputes for more than 3,000 years ~ and where the Jews and Palestinians carry on those family feuds from some 5,000 years or more in their dark, dim pasts ???      

You are going off wrongs done, but we are talking here about Policies"within" Israel, of which are far more liberal than the US.
Your knowledge here is very poor, considering Jews had been legally buying up land in the Middle East escaping persecution from places like Russia in the 19th century they made the land prosperous, which was during the 19th century barren with a population of only around 30,000, of which the only ones identifying as Palestinians when British rule came was the Jews. Because the Jews made the area prosperous, both Arab and Jews flocked to the area. Migrations by both groups of people continued from the middle of the 19th century into the 20th century. Much violence started to be targeted at Jews, even though they legally owned land
Zionist refugees? I really hope you mean Holocaust survivors?
Most of the Zionists were already there and had already moved before this conflict showing again your lack of understanding here. The Jews had suffered enough and many Jews were not allowed to enter this land they were restricted, hence the violence that followed.
By 1948 there was a substantial Jewish population
All this nonsense about it being the Arabs land, when they had only been there for 1300 years at the time, when the Jews move to areas where Jews were already residing in the 19th century. Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population. Now that land has been owned by many people but at no point as there ever a Palestine nation and at every turn they were offered one, only to refuse and go to war.
I think you will the biggest mass movements of refugees happened in the last two years of WW2, did you see wars breaking out over this to this day, with countries borders changing? New countries have formed and where there is a substantial group of people nations have formed, hence why the best thing to do was a to state solution. So why should the Arabs be pissed off, they belong to many different nations, they were at odds with no being in power and lets face some facts.
This is what it has always been about, nobody has any claim to the land except those who purchased any, which was mainly the Jews.

Didge, you are using the allegation of antisemitism as an offensive weapon, not a defense.  That is in poor taste.

The term was meant to be an adjective arising out of a huge injustice that happened during WWII.  It was not meant to be an offensive weapon for the new tyrant on the block.  If anything, it is a memorial.  To make an offensive weapon of it would probably make the Jews of yesterday--that day--cry.

Not that I feel that Israel has reached the level of tyrant--yet--but it is certainly reaching the level that Dr. Roberts calls the victim/tyrant cycle.  Your choice of terms demonstrates exactly how this process works.  First, there is victimization.  Second, there are the feelings of hurt, invasion, powerlessness and fear.  Third, and finally, there is the blind attempt to strike back under the shroud of the past.  As Dr. Roberts says: "The victim attracts the tyrant...'  http://www.changeworksinc.com/article13.pdf

Your language is the camouflage part of the striking back.  You attempt to cover your motives by such language, hoping that use of those adjectives will convince others that an offensive position is really a defensive one.  It isn't working.  People are addressing the facts, not the adjectives you use.

Original Quill wrote:Didge, you are using the allegation of antisemitism as an offensive weapon, not a defense.  That is in poor taste.

The term was meant to be an adjective arising out of a huge injustice that happened during WWII.  It was not meant to be an offensive weapon for the new tyrant on the block.  If anything, it is a memorial.  To make an offensive weapon of it would probably make the Jews of yesterday--that day--cry.

Not that I feel that Israel has reached the level of tyrant--yet--but it is certainly reaching the level that Dr. Roberts calls the victim/tyrant cycle.  Your choice of terms demonstrates exactly how this process works.  First, there is victimization.  Second, there are the feelings of hurt, invasion, powerlessness and fear.  Third, and finally, there is the blind attempt to strike back under the shroud of the past.  As Dr. Roberts says: "The victim attracts the tyrant...'  http://www.changeworksinc.com/article13.pdf

Your language is the camouflage part of the striking back.  You attempt to cover your motives by such language, hoping that use of those adjectives will convince others that an offensive position is really a defensive one.  It isn't working.  People are addressing the facts, not the adjectives you use.

No I am using it correctly where it is rightly applied to where in some cases Criticism of Israel crosses over into discrimination as I have stated about 100 times already.
It has not even come close to the barbarity of its neighbors but as seen, you are placing and judging Israel for which you do not do of countless other countries, which is another poor reasoning you find on the left.
I do not deny that Israel does wrong, but the amount of accusations falsely claimed of them is nothing short of inciting hatred, of which those who hate Israel continue to do this daily. So I am not covering up anything, if you understand discrimination as you claim to do, you should know when criticism of Israel can and does cross over into racism. You also poorly make a people culpable for the actions of the government of this country of which I do not even claim of Gaza and its citizens (where they were voted in also by the people of Gaza), which is where we differ greatly.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Didge, you are using the allegation of antisemitism as an offensive weapon, not a defense.  That is in poor taste.

The term was meant to be an adjective arising out of a huge injustice that happened during WWII.  It was not meant to be an offensive weapon for the new tyrant on the block.  If anything, it is a memorial.  To make an offensive weapon of it would probably make the Jews of yesterday--that day--cry.

Not that I feel that Israel has reached the level of tyrant--yet--but it is certainly reaching the level that Dr. Roberts calls the victim/tyrant cycle.  Your choice of terms demonstrates exactly how this process works.  First, there is victimization.  Second, there are the feelings of hurt, invasion, powerlessness and fear.  Third, and finally, there is the blind attempt to strike back under the shroud of the past.  As Dr. Roberts says: "The victim attracts the tyrant...'  http://www.changeworksinc.com/article13.pdf

Your language is the camouflage part of the striking back.  You attempt to cover your motives by such language, hoping that use of those adjectives will convince others that an offensive position is really a defensive one.  It isn't working.  People are addressing the facts, not the adjectives you use.

No I am using it correctly where it is rightly applied to where in some cases Criticism of Israel crosses over into discrimination as I have stated about 100 times already.

And at what point is that? Can you define those terms?

Brasidas wrote:It has not even come close to the barbarity of its neighbors but as seen, you are placing and judging Israel for which you do not do of countless other countries, which is another poor reasoning you find on the left.

Well, no. I am in a unique position in that I am a citizen of a nation that is holding up Israel by a financial and military crutch. And I'm wondering if it is worth it. When Israel reveals, as Mr. Netanyahu just did, that it is taking my money and laughing behind my back--that it treats the two-state solution, on which we all predicated our hopes for a settlement, as a joke--then I'm going to rethink my investment.

That has to do with my money. Have we really reached a point where it is antisemitic to withhold giving away money to Israel?

Brasidas wrote:I do not deny that Israel does wrong, but the amount of accusations falsely claimed of them is nothing short of inciting hatred, of which those who hate Israel continue to do this daily. So I am not covering up anything, if you understand discrimination as you claim to do, you should know when criticism of Israel can and does cross over into racism. You also poorly make a people culpable for the actions of the government of this country of which I do not even claim of Gaza and its citizens (where they were voted in also by the people of Gaza), which is where we differ greatly.

I have not really joined in that fray. I have maintained the position that there is a lot of duplicity in the claims of the Palestinians. That Hamas is Iran, and that Gaza is run by Hamas and is tossing missiles into Israel, are all facts that register with me. There is also duplicity in the claims of Israel.

But here I am talking about how Israel lied to me, where there was supposed to be a position of trust between us. I'm talking about our bargain--the US and Israel. I don't think it is antisemitic for me to look after my own--that is to say, my country's financial interests, and to protect those interests when one party is misrepresenting itself. In legal terms, that's fraud...and protecting yourself from fraud cannot be antisemitic.

That said, I believe the charge of 'antisemitic' is inappropriate even to those arguing the Palestinian side of the back-story debate. That is because that debate is a geopolitical matter, whereas antisemitism is a form of intolerance and arbitrary injustice. Perhaps it is unfortunate that his is a kind of public relations war, because that gets into the business of name calling and petty lies, and can create the appearance of deeper treachery. But fundamentally, the Palestinians have a point to be made and a case to be put forward on the international front. They are not condemning a people for their very existence, but promoting a perfectly valid viewpoint from their prospective.

That really shows Quill how far removed you are of understanding any of this, because the reality is there is plenty of antisemitism within some of the claims, and they are easy to point out. You again I sadly fear have just proven you fail to understand discrimination. 
The only thing you sad that was poor and could easily be construed as antisemitic was your view to making all Israeli culpable based off a majority election, which by that methodology you and every other Democrat where to blame for the Iraq war, which of course would be absurd to claim and would again be in that case discriminating against countless Americans. Even then most elected Governments then enact and do things you are never asked your view on.
Geological?
WTF, every land is based upon an invented boundary which classifies those of a nation, no different to Israel and thus deligitimizing them as a nation is discriminating against them, denying their their status. That would be like you declaring you and every non indigenous America, in other words descended from Europe ect, have no right to any status because you claim its all geological. Demographics change as they always have and even worse here you clearly fail to understand how discrimination actually
works. You are nearly getting there because why are Jews attacked in antisemitic attacks if the person doing this is Muslims Quill?
Hate for Israel
The worst problem here is that none of what you have said makes any sense and even worse when at every turn Palestine has refused to come to terms on a two state solution, so maybe its time you started asking yourself why, because if you bother to research further you would know in Gaza at barely an age in life, they are taught to hate the Jews and die in martyrdom.
With the view which has never been retracted that they will wipe out the Jews. Now of course if this was people of African as a nation under threat and discriminating rhetoric was used on the nation as a means to be racists to blacks per say, you would immediately see where and how it can be racist, but your bias does not allow you to think clearly on this topic

Jews and anti-Zionism In the decades before World War Two, anti-Zionism was a relatively widespread and respected position in Jewish politics. Many Jewish anti-Zionists opposed the idea of creating a Jewish state because they feared it would threaten the political and civic status of Jews in diaspora communities. Others opposed Zionism because they believed that revolutionary socialism would emancipate Jews alongside the rest of humanity. Many strictly Orthodox Jews opposed Zionism on theological grounds. After the Holocaust and the creation of Israel, and following repeated antisemitic purges by the Soviet Union and its allies under the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’, Jewish opposition to Zionism declined markedly. Today, other than within strictly Orthodox or small Marxist groups, many of Israel’s fiercest Jewish critics would not describe themselves as anti-Zionist. Extremists, anti-Zionism and antisemitism A more contemporary anti-Zionism that opposes Jewish self-definition, self-determination, needs and interests is found within far right, far left and extreme Islamist circles. This includes the various antisemites who reside in these political movements. These different political groupings employ ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’ to pejoratively label political enemies. They discuss and perceive Zionism in terms of conspiratorial power and evil that are strikingly similar to antisemitic depictions of Jewish behaviour. Employing the word ‘Zionist’ where once the word ‘Jew’ would have appeared in open antisemitic discourse may, or may not, be deliberate on the part of the user; but it essentially fulfils the same psychological and political purpose as open antisemitism once did. This antisemitic “anti-Zionism”, which has at its heart a construction of ‘Zionism’ as a political, financial, military and media conspiracy that is centred in Washington and Jerusalem, and which opposes authentic local interests, is commonly found in extremist discourse, and sometimes alluded to in more diluted forms in mainstream discourse. Unlike Jewish pre-war antiZionism, these anti-Zionists are not motivated by a concern for Jewish political and civic rights. The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism noted: “One of the most difficult and contentious issues about which we have received evidence is the dividing line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel or Zionism. “...discourse has developed that is in effect antisemitic because it views Zionism itself as a global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history. This definition of Zionism bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept; that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation, born in the late nineteenth century with a geographical focus limited to Israel. Having re-defined Zionism in this way, traditional antisemitic notions of Jewish conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion are then transferred from Jews (a racial and religious group) on to Zionism (a political movement). This is at the core of the ‘New Antisemitism’ on which so much has been written20.” 


Continuities between antisemitism and anti-Zionism There are numerous continuities between historical antisemitic themes and modern anti-Zionism. These include the following: 

• The allegation that Jewish holy books preach Jewish supremacy and that this is the basis for alleged Zionist racism. 

• The image of the shadowy, powerful ‘Zionist’. This repeats antisemitic charges that Jews are loyal only to each other, and that leading Jews conspire to control media, economy and Government for their evil ends. 

• Dehumanising and demonising antisemitic language comparing Jews to rats, cancer, plague and bacteria is now repeated in some depictions of Zionists and Israel. This reduces its target to a pest or disease, encouraging the notion that ‘cleansing’ or ‘extermination’ must occur. 

• Scapegoating Jews as ‘the Other’; blaming them for local and global problems; and demanding their destruction or conversion as a vital step in the building a new, better world is echoed in the notion that Zionism is uniquely illegitimate, and that its destruction is paradigmatic of theological and political struggles for the future of the world. 

• The image of Jews as alien corruptors of traditional, authentic society and established morality endures in today’s portrayals of Zionists as somehow hijacking other peoples’ true will and nature. In the UK, this may be seen in some mainstream depictions of American Zionists. 

• Historically, Jewish-born adherents of other modes of identity, such as Christianity, nationalism or communism, had to show that they had cast off their ‘Jewishness’. Today, there are those (mainly on the anti-Israel left) who uniquely demand that Jews declare their attitude to Israel, before they will be decently treated. Anti-Jewish and antisemitic impacts of anti-Zionism Extreme anti-Israel and anti-Zionist discourse risks numerous negative impacts against the bulk of the Jewish community, despite the fact that such discourse, particularly from the liberal left, media, charities and trade unions, may not be antisemitic. Indeed, some activists may specifically warn against the danger of antisemitic outcomes arising from their activities, because they understand that extreme hostile discourse about Israel and Zionism may – however inadvertently – have explicitly antisemitic impacts. Anti-Jewish community and antisemitic impacts arising from extreme anti-Israel and, in particular, anti-Zionist discourse, may include the following: 

• Depicting the Jewish state as a uniquely racist or imperialist enterprise. This serves to threaten, isolate and demonise all those who believe that Jews have a right to statehood. Indeed, anyone showing support for Israel or Zionism risks being defined and castigated for this behaviour, rather than gauged by any of their other actions and beliefs. 

• Potentially increasing the number of actual antisemitic race hate attacks against British Jews and British Jewish organisations. There is a close statistical correlation between antisemitic attack levels and events involving Israel. Jews are intrinsically associated with Israel and Zionism, so agitation against Israel and Zionism may increase antagonism towards Jews, Jewish organisations and Jewish concerns. 

• At its most extreme, potentially increasing incitement to terrorism against Jews, which risks Jewish safety and morale, and requires a security response that imposes further psychological and financial burdens upon Jews. 

• Providing concealment, encouragement and self-legitimisa


https://cst.org.uk/data/file/2/6/Antisemitic-Discourse-Report-2011.1425052009.pdf

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Didge, you are using the allegation of antisemitism as an offensive weapon, not a defense.  That is in poor taste.

The term was meant to be an adjective arising out of a huge injustice that happened during WWII.  It was not meant to be an offensive weapon for the new tyrant on the block.  If anything, it is a memorial.  To make an offensive weapon of it would probably make the Jews of yesterday--that day--cry.

Not that I feel that Israel has reached the level of tyrant--yet--but it is certainly reaching the level that Dr. Roberts calls the victim/tyrant cycle.  Your choice of terms demonstrates exactly how this process works.  First, there is victimization.  Second, there are the feelings of hurt, invasion, powerlessness and fear.  Third, and finally, there is the blind attempt to strike back under the shroud of the past.  As Dr. Roberts says: "The victim attracts the tyrant...'  http://www.changeworksinc.com/article13.pdf

Your language is the camouflage part of the striking back.  You attempt to cover your motives by such language, hoping that use of those adjectives will convince others that an offensive position is really a defensive one.  It isn't working.  People are addressing the facts, not the adjectives you use.

No I am using it correctly where it is rightly applied to where in some cases Criticism of Israel crosses over into discrimination as I have stated about 100 times already.

And at what point is that?  Can you define those terms?

Brasidas wrote:It has not even come close to the barbarity of its neighbors but as seen, you are placing and judging Israel for which you do not do of countless other countries, which is another poor reasoning you find on the left.

Well, no.  I am in a unique position in that I am a citizen of a nation that is holding up Israel by a financial and military crutch.  And I'm wondering if it is worth it.  When Israel reveals, as Mr. Netanyahu just did, that it is taking my money and laughing behind my back--that it treats the two-state solution, on which we all predicated our hopes for a settlement, as a joke--then I'm going to rethink my investment.

That has to do with my money.  Have we really reached a point where it is antisemitic to withhold giving away money to Israel?

Brasidas wrote:I do not deny that Israel does wrong, but the amount of accusations falsely claimed of them is nothing short of inciting hatred, of which those who hate Israel continue to do this daily. So I am not covering up anything, if you understand discrimination as you claim to do, you should know when criticism of Israel can and does cross over into racism. You also poorly make a people culpable for the actions of the government of this country of which I do not even claim of Gaza and its citizens (where they were voted in also by the people of Gaza), which is where we differ greatly.

I have not really joined in that fray.  I have maintained the position that there is a lot of duplicity in the claims of the Palestinians.  That Hamas is Iran, and that Gaza is run by Hamas and is tossing missiles into Israel, are all facts that register with me.  There is also duplicity in the claims of Israel.

But here I am talking about how Israel lied to me, where there was supposed to be a position of trust between us.  I'm talking about our bargain--the US and Israel.  I don't think it is antisemitic for me to look after my own--that is to say, my country's financial interests, and to protect those interests when one party is misrepresenting itself.  In legal terms, that's fraud...and protecting yourself from fraud cannot be antisemitic.

That said, I believe the charge of 'antisemitic' is inappropriate even to those arguing the Palestinian side of the back-story debate.  That is because that debate is a geopolitical matter, whereas antisemitism is a form of intolerance and arbitrary injustice.  Perhaps it is unfortunate that his is a kind of public relations war, because that gets into the business of name calling and petty lies, and can create the appearance of deeper treachery.  But fundamentally, the Palestinians have a point to be made and a case to be put forward on the international front.  They are not condemning a people for their very existence, but promoting a perfectly valid viewpoint from their prospective.

Quill, I have seen and read many fine quotes from you in the past with a use of words that I can only admire but you have in my eyes surpassed even that with this one.

That is a cracking summary by any standards.

+1000000000

T.y. Irn. As you can see, Mr. Netanyahu has created a huge disappointment in the American liberal community. It changes everything.

It changes nothing unless you are not or failed to adhere to Liberal principles, thus how can you then speak for the Liberals of the world?

Anyhow as seen my points still stand above and will leave Irn and yourself some privacy to kiss up to each other, as this seems your only defence now lol

Original Quill wrote:T.y. Irn. As you can see, Mr. Netanyahu has created a huge disappointment in the American liberal community. It changes everything.

I meant to say yesterday (trouble with kindle and we're travelling this weekend) that even though we disagree on lots - that was a great post and very reflective of how a lot of people are now feeling. A lot of friends/customers are moderate Republicans and they too are fed up with Bibi and his shenanigans.

too many labels are now flung around on a daily basis and their true meaning has become obscured.

thanks for taking the time to write that out.

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:T.y. Irn.  As you can see, Mr. Netanyahu has created a huge disappointment in the American liberal community.  It changes everything.

I meant to say yesterday (trouble with kindle and we're travelling this weekend) that even though we disagree on lots - that was a great post and very reflective of how a lot of people are now feeling. A lot of friends/customers are moderate Republicans and they too are fed up with Bibi and his shenanigans.

too many labels are now flung around on a daily basis and their true meaning has become obscured.

thanks for taking the time to write that out.

Cass there is nothing wrong being critical and even to dislike Netanyahu, even I think he creates problems for Israel, but there is no denying the fact how some criticism of Israel is directed as a view of Jews. Lets also not forget, since its creation Israel has faced threats of extinction and countless times been attacked. There is no doubt in my mind or even yourself, that if you lived in Israel with many neighboring nations clearly being antisemitic in how children are raised and by never viewing Israel as a nation, your resolved would be hardened and concerned over the West Bank being made into a state. As when Israel left Gaza, Hamas took over from Fatah continuing to try and destroy Israel. You would also fear the same happening in the west Bank By denying the people of Israel their status, is legitimizing them as a people, which has happened.

The very fact some of the left , the far right and some Muslims use the worst language against Israel is very antisemitic when it seeks to make out Israel and by this definition, its people are on a par with Nazism, ISIS and apartheid. That just completely insults and demeans the victims of all 3 that suffered with them. Thus claiming Israel and thus by extension Jews being viewed as comparable to 3 of the worst evil things possible, is promoting and inciting people to hate Jews, as it is Jews that lead this country. That is what I object and to when Quill racially made all Israeli's culpable for any wrongs, where if this view was done on blacks or Muslims he would agree with e it would be discrimination, because the claims are baseless.

The other point that really concerns me is not that some the left fight for a Palestinian nation, I wish that to happen also, but that they are backing both Fatah and Hamas to bring forth this new nation. I have clear reservations about a nation being formed, when many of its laws are at odds with Liberalism, where there is a clear lack of equality. That is wrong on every level and no true Liberal would back a view to create a nation with two such bodies in charge, as you then endorse the creation of a nation that has inequality enshrined in its laws and I fail to see how that is upholding to Liberal views. So if they want to statehood, then there should be conditions on having equality laws, to recognise Israel with the same coming from Israel.

If people believe they should pull support and help to Israel you are then condemning all its people based off your dislike of one person, Netanyahu. That is wrong on every level and you thus by wishing this would be condemning all its people as  all culpable to his wrongs. Yes lets criticize Israel for its wrongs but you have to think for a moment how things are for them or how you would be when so many people want you eradicated. If you want measures done to Netanyahu and his government, I will support your view and things should be done, but taking away all support and aid, is basically condemning Israel to death and its people all because of Netanyahu. This is what people fail to see in their views and is completely wrong to make all culpable for his wrongs.

didge - sorry hotel Internet dropping in and out.....

its not just him that I have issues with....I have issues with his party and the settlers and the ultra orthodox (who by the way want to stone women to death for certain crimes)

everyone wants sanctions against other govts. well maybe Israel needs to feel the same pressure from the US financially.

nobody here wants to see Israel disappear - far from it but they gotta walk as well as talk if they want continued financial support from us. by him saying the stuff he has, by his actions in the US recently he is putting that in jeopardy because we wont take it much more. He is the elected PM of his country and as such is responsible for how the country is portrayed to others.

Cass wrote:didge - sorry hotel Internet dropping in and out.....

its not just him that I have issues with....I have issues with his party and the settlers and the ultra orthodox (who by the way want to stone women to death for certain crimes)

everyone wants sanctions against other govts. well maybe Israel needs to feel the same pressure from the US financially.

nobody here wants to see Israel disappear - far from it but they gotta walk as well as talk if they want continued financial support from us. by him saying the stuff he has, by his actions in the US recently he is putting that in jeopardy because we wont take it much more. He is the elected PM of his country and as such is responsible for how the country is portrayed to others.

Cass there is a lot of people that want Israel to disappear, where again many arguments are based on its legitimacy to being a nation. Again to deligitimize Israel is deligitimize the people, which is antisemitic, Hitler very much did the same in deligitimizing the Jews. People who use that kind of Rhetoric clearly do not believe Israel as a nation has a right to exist and do want Israel to disappear. There is no other reason to even argue off its right to be a nation, the only reason is then where people want Israel to disappear. Surely you must see that, as the arguments are against Israel and its existence neither how it was formed should play any part or discourse when bringing about a two state solution. Yet countless people do this, because they want the land only for the Palestinians.

I am happy to impose sanctions on the Government as individuals just as we saw Russia have such sanctions to individuals which has hit them hard and still does. There is no reason to make all the people of Israel suffer because of them. Ban exports from settler areas to show unity against them. We are talking here about a nation that has been attacked countless times with threats against its existence. If you place sanctions against Israel itself an its people, you will greatly weaken its ability to defend itself and even worse you could place them into a do or die situation, if they are attacked as I am very sure this would happen if greatly weakened.

What happens then is if Israel believes it will lose and its people will be killed it would have no hesitation in launching nuclear strikes at all these countries, as a last resort. You have to understand again how many of these people have grown up through years of hate against them, being attacked with the sole intention to destroy Israel and its people. As stated, this has hardened their resolve to fight for their countries existence.
By targeting Netanyahu and other Ministers, business leaders etc with sanctions is separating rightly where the sanctions should be aimed at, not Israel as a nation. As otherwise you are kick starting a chain of events that to me all lead to the same path of destruction and deaths on an unprecedented scale not seen in decades, where nobody wins and vast areas of the Middle east are left in ruins and uninhabitable.

Lurker wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Cass wrote:didge - sorry hotel Internet dropping in and out.....

its not just him that I have issues with....I have issues with his party and the settlers and the ultra orthodox (who by the way want to stone women to death for certain crimes)

everyone wants sanctions against other govts. well maybe Israel needs to feel the same pressure from the US financially.

nobody here wants to see Israel disappear - far from it but they gotta walk as well as talk if they want continued financial support from us. by him saying the stuff he has, by his actions in the US recently he is putting that in jeopardy because we wont take it much more. He is the elected PM of his country and as such is responsible for how the country is portrayed to others.

Cass there is a lot of people that want Israel to disappear, where again many arguments are based on its legitimacy to being a nation. Again to deligitimize Israel is deligitimize the people, which is antisemitic, Hitler very much did the same in deligitimizing the Jews. People who use that kind of Rhetoric clearly do not believe Israel as a nation has a right to exist and do want Israel to disappear. There is no other reason to even argue off its right to be a nation, the only reason is then where people want Israel to disappear. Surely you must see that, as the arguments are against Israel and its existence neither how it was formed should play any part or discourse when bringing about a two state solution. Yet countless people do this, because they want the land only for the Palestinians.

I am happy to impose sanctions on the Government as individuals just as we saw Russia have such sanctions to individuals which has hit them hard and still does. There is no reason to make all the people of Israel suffer because of them. Ban exports from settler areas to show unity against them. We are talking here about a nation that has been attacked countless times with threats against its existence. If you place sanctions against Israel itself an its people, you will greatly weaken its ability to defend itself and even worse you could place them into a do or die situation, if they are attacked as I am very sure this would happen if greatly weakened.

What happens then is if Israel believes it will lose and its people will be killed it would have no hesitation in launching nuclear strikes at all these countries, as a last resort. You have to understand again how many of these people have grown up through years of hate against them, being attacked with the sole intention to destroy Israel and its people. As stated, this has hardened their resolve to fight for their countries existence.
By targeting Netanyahu and other Ministers, business leaders etc with sanctions is separating rightly where the sanctions should be aimed at, not Israel as a nation. As otherwise you are kick starting a chain of events that to me all lead to the same path of destruction and deaths on an unprecedented scale not seen in decades, where nobody wins and vast areas of the Middle east are left in ruins and uninhabitable.

But didge, we are not doing that.  Israel to disappear?  Delegitimize Israel?  Delegitimize its people?  Hitler?  You are trying to push a square peg into a round hole.  You are back in the old argument.  This is a new issue...and a new concern.

As for sanctions, you make a good argument for how effective they are.  Implicit in that argument is a distinction between the people who suffer, and the leaders who do not.  Do you feel the same for Iran?  Anytime sanctions are employed they fall disproportionately on the people.  The hope is that the people will oust the leaders who bring such hardship on them.  In a Democracy, like Israel, that is always the case.  But apparently, Israel bought into Mr. Netanyahu's little larceny, and so I guess the people feel the profit is worth the pain.

As for the ‘chain of events’ that you depict, you are selling Israel’s own dilemma back to us.  This is a situation that they created, and if they prefer a nuclear war to dealing honestly and directly with those who counted them as friends, then they are more demented that we realized.  Realistically though, I doubt that this is a possibility.  We can still support and safeguard Israel, and yet not support Israel's expansionism into occupied territory.

What this is all about is the huge disappointment, as I mentioned, that the American people now feel at having been betrayed by Israel.  Your attempts to marginalize the Israeli right, and Mr. Netanyahu, are belied by the fact that the Likud Party and Netanyahu have just been ratified by the Israeli people and have been sent back to continue to misrepresent themselves to us.

It is what it is, as some are so fond of saying.  The nation of Israel has so taken our support for granted that they now feel secure in trying to take profit from their strong position.  They have forgotten the fact that we, the US, underwrite that strong position.

Their investment in expansionism has been so aggressive that it now affects our interests.  Where once we felt that there could be an agreeable two-state solution, certain elements of Israel feel that that land is theirs for profit taking.  They take away our hopes and peace of mind, and turn it into their profit.  We didn’t bargain for that trade, and so we are not going to go along with it.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Cass there is a lot of people that want Israel to disappear, where again many arguments are based on its legitimacy to being a nation. Again to deligitimize Israel is deligitimize the people, which is antisemitic, Hitler very much did the same in deligitimizing the Jews. People who use that kind of Rhetoric clearly do not believe Israel as a nation has a right to exist and do want Israel to disappear. There is no other reason to even argue off its right to be a nation, the only reason is then where people want Israel to disappear. Surely you must see that, as the arguments are against Israel and its existence neither how it was formed should play any part or discourse when bringing about a two state solution. Yet countless people do this, because they want the land only for the Palestinians.

I am happy to impose sanctions on the Government as individuals just as we saw Russia have such sanctions to individuals which has hit them hard and still does. There is no reason to make all the people of Israel suffer because of them. Ban exports from settler areas to show unity against them. We are talking here about a nation that has been attacked countless times with threats against its existence. If you place sanctions against Israel itself an its people, you will greatly weaken its ability to defend itself and even worse you could place them into a do or die situation, if they are attacked as I am very sure this would happen if greatly weakened.

What happens then is if Israel believes it will lose and its people will be killed it would have no hesitation in launching nuclear strikes at all these countries, as a last resort. You have to understand again how many of these people have grown up through years of hate against them, being attacked with the sole intention to destroy Israel and its people. As stated, this has hardened their resolve to fight for their countries existence.
By targeting Netanyahu and other Ministers, business leaders etc with sanctions is separating rightly where the sanctions should be aimed at, not Israel as a nation. As otherwise you are kick starting a chain of events that to me all lead to the same path of destruction and deaths on an unprecedented scale not seen in decades, where nobody wins and vast areas of the Middle east are left in ruins and uninhabitable.

But didge, we are not doing that.  Israel to disappear?  Delegitimize Israel?  Delegitimize its people?  Hitler?  You are trying to push a square peg into a round hole.  You are back in the old argument.  This is a new issue...and a new concern.

As for sanctions, you make a good argument for how effective they are.  Implicit in that argument is a distinction between the people who suffer, and the leaders who do not.  Do you feel the same for Iran?  Anytime sanctions are employed they fall disproportionately on the people.  The hope is that the people will oust the leaders who bring such hardship on them.  In a Democracy, like Israel, that is always the case.

As for the ‘chain of events’ that you depict, you are selling Israel’s own dilemma back to us.  This is a situation that they created, and if they prefer a nuclear war to dealing honestly and directly with those who counted them as friends, then they are more demented that we realized.  Realistically though, I doubt that this is a realistic possibility.

What this is all about is the huge disappointment, as I mentioned, that the American people now feel at having been betrayed by Israel.  Your attempts to marginalize the Israeli right, and Mr. Netanyahu, are belied by the fact that the Likud Party and Netanyahu have just been ratified by the Israeli people and have been sent back to continue to misrepresent themselves to us.

It is what it is, as some are so fond of saying.  The nation of Israel has so taken our support for granted that they now feel secure in trying to take profit from their strong position.  They have forgotten the fact that we, the US, underwrite that strong position.

Their investment in expansionism has been so aggressive that it now affects our interests.  Where once we felt that there could be an agreeable two-state solution, certain elements of Israel feel that that land is theirs for profit taking.  They take away our hopes and peace of mind, and turn it into their profit.  We didn’t bargain for that trade, and so we are not going to go along with it.

You see you go from one point rightly taking the view to tackle the problem that of the Israeli leadership to then once again making Israeli people culpable claiming they have created. No they didn't one person created this and again people are judging Israel on his remarks and his winning an election. That is wrong on so many levels as you well know because you are blaming all Israeli's for he and others do.
Again you say betrayed by Israel? So because more voted for him, still only a quarter, that then gives you justification to vilify and blame all Israel? Sorry Quill you are contradicting your own view points and making the whole nation at fault here. So basically your methodology her is where there is a majority, all people in that country are thus condemned. That is like claiming all the war protestors, who marched against Iraq should also suffer alongside every other person in this country via terrorist attacks, because that is how the extremists argue and back their view to indiscriminately attack anyone in your country and mine. Now are you going to tell me that your methodlogy of all being culpable and to blame, should suffer as one people based off how some are? That is guilt by association, which is used racially against blacks for one,  we see it argued against Muslims based off what extremists do. The vast majority of your post is making Israel culpable. Again I am all for action on those causing and committing wrongs, but you are making a very poor racial argument against the Israeli's making them again culpable. There is no justification when terrorists use that argument and none with yourself. No sanctions should ever be directed at a whole country as it criminalizes and punishes everyone. Israel has made concessions made times, they withdrew out of Lebanon, they withdrew out of Gaza and are still attacked, you clearly place so much blame on Israel.
What you do is target the people creating the problems in Israel and it sends out a clear message.

As to where people make comparisons to Nazi Germany is very relevant to the people using the kind of language to discriminate against the Jews. You cannot make any argument to castigate all Israeli's based off what some do, that argument never has validity, as all people have different views. I included condemn the settlements but again you cannot castigate and blame all Israeli's for that. If we took your stance and methodology, all America would be accountable for the war crimes around Iraq and its invasions and should suffer sanctions for lying to its allies and fueling and helping terrorism grow against the west.
So by your own methods, would you vote to have your own country imposed with sanctions or to be cut off by their allies?