What can we do to help?

I always start with the rights (and responsibilities) outlined in Amendment 1. Keep in contact with your elected representatives. This should include republican officials. Attend anti-felon and anti-war rallies when possible. Stay informed, which has to involve finding alternatives to the corporate news. Encourage unregistered family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc to register and to vote.

"Politics 101" comes into play. There are three groups: those who always support you, those who always oppose you, and the undecided. It is good to coordinate efforts with the first group. Ignore the second group. And concentrate on group three.

I think it was around September of 2024 that I first said that dragging the pre-corpse of Dick on stage was an error. Some good person here pointed out that he had not been physically brought on stage. This is, obviously, true, for he was nearing death, though not quickly enough in my humble opinion. I favored tossing him in a wheelbarrow and pushing him across that finished line. I'll cover my response to that friend, and add a bit more.

The first one that ushered him into the campaign was his daughter Liz. This happened at some festival in Texas, where she said that not only would she be voting against the felon, but her father would, too. You may remember the audience cheered when she announced it. Shortly thereafter, a statement was released -- reportedly from Dick -- endorsing VP Harris. I immediately recognized that as poison. It struck me as being akin to an endorsement from Idi Amin. One should not seek the endorsement of war criminals. Rather, treat them the same as an endorsement from David Duke.

Now, unlike her father, I had some respect for Liz Cheney, for when push came to shove, she did take a brave stand for the Constitution. That is something her father did not do while serving under Bush. Yet I disagreed with most every other position she took while in office. Having her campaign against the felon within the context of the republican party was fine, but she surely wasn't going to bring many voters with her. Dick hardly represented Democratic Party values.

After her Texas speech, the pre-ghost of Dick would be brought up numerous times by the campaign. A lot of people, myself included, found that offensive. Of course, it did not change my vote, as I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since reaching voting age. But I did find that a number of people I know -- people that knew someone wounded or killed in Iraq -- found it outrageous. They opted not to vote, which I think was a shame. But I respect everyone's right to vote or not vote based upon their values.

VP Harris would say, among other things about Liz and Dick, that she was "honored" to have Dick's endorsement, and that he and Liz were "leaders who were well-respected." Again, like many Democrats, I respected Liz. But I do not think that Dick was well-respected by very many other than a few die-hard necroconservatives.

In summation, I recognize the the putrid, rotting flesh and bones of a Dick on life support was not literally dropped onto a stage, or pushed out on the hospital bed he resided in at his home. But he was brought on stage numerous times by the campaign.

...because the Cheney's were on stage advocating against him in favor of the election of his opponents in that critical race?

Speaking of Never Trumpers, I listen to podcasts like The Bulwark because they talk about what the actual problem is, Trump and the Republicans, know them intimately of course, and don't spend most of the time nitpicking and getting things wrong about Democrats like many others who claim to not want Republicans to win but it sure doesn't seem to be their focus.

Last edited Sun May 10, 2026, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I am not so sure that Democratic messaging should focus on this complicated issue in the context of winning elections.

It is extremely complicated with no easy solution, which most voters don't grasp very well. Also it does not directly affect them, except with the closing of the Hormuz Strait. THAT has become a major advantage to Democrats as the price of gas goes up and looming shortages of other commodities are likely to have an even greater economic impact.

The US policy of unconditional support for Israel has been essentially unchanged for generations. The atrocities in Gaza were going to hurt the party in the White House among muslim voters and idealistic young Americans. It was bad timing for the Democratic ticket.

Antisemitism in this country is a real problem, though it has often been used as a false accusation for political advantage. AIPAC has influence on US elections. Is there any solution to the I/P conflict which is fair to Palestinians but does not involve cutting off aid to Israel if it does not change its policies?

This is a double-edged sword in US politics, and a distraction from the key issues Democrats must hammer to overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, and whatever gestapo/ICE actions Mango Mussolini has up his sleeve.

I am not at all happy in approaching the highly moral issue of atrocities in the Middle East as a political calculation for winning elections. My preference is always Do the right thing. In practical terms, this involves getting results. I understand that many voters could not in good conscience vote for Kamala because the Biden administration would not apply real pressure on Netanyahu in Gaza. Did those voters understand the US election is a binary choice, and Trump would be worse for everything they cared about?

I wholeheartedly agree that serious conversations are necessary regarding the horrible conflict that has raged for generations if not millennia, but not as a campaign strategy.

H2O Man,
To be fair, you did not advocate that. My next post will have my thoughts on this complicated issue, aside from US electoral politics.

I was frustrated by friends and associates who did not vote for VP Harris. By their saying that they did not think the felon could win in 2024, much like some of them -- though fewer -- said in 2016. I did think that VP Harris should have spoken more about the differences between what would be her administration's position on Gaza than President Biden's. While Biden has been one of my favorite politicians for decades, I disagreed with his full support for Israel. I remembered 1968, when VP Humphrey waited too long to move away from LBJ's policies in Vietnam. Yet just as a win belongs to the candidate and their campaign, so does a loss.

One of my nieces is married to a fellow from Boston. He is Jewish, and very pro-Israel as an American citizen. He is one of my favorite people to talk about politics with when he visits their second home here in upstate NY (my late parents' house). I'm looking forward to talking to him this summer. Last summer, he explained his thinking that Netanyahu is not so much the problem as the extremists who back him. He makes a number of valid, important points.

I appreciate the anger that resulted from Hama's brutal attack on Israeli human beings. I experienced something similar when British troops executed one of my cousins in front of his family. After breaking into their home late at night, they brought everyone into the living room, and killed my cousin in front of them. Did I support the tactics of the IRA then, as a young man? I could tell some stories. But today, in my old age, I know that violence is not the answer. Self-defense is good, but that is distinct from blowing things up, be it a bar in Ireland, or a girls school in Iran.

Everyone suffers in and from war, except the old men thirsting for death and destruction. We need to recognize them for what they are, and remove them from power.

Intractable: an adjective describing something or someone that is very difficult to control, manage, handle, or solve. It often refers to stubborn, unyielding problems, behaviors, or conditions that resist efforts to change, cure, or manage them.

Intractable is the word that comes to mind regarding the Middle East conflict that has raged since Israel declared its independence as the Jewish nation state in 1948. In the broader context of history, this conflict stretches back thousands of years to "The Promised Land" and wars fought over the holy city of Jerusalem.

Many words are necessary to articulate my thoughts on this. I'll try to be succinct.

I think the Two State Solution has been practically impossible since the collapse of the Clinton Parameters in 2001. Israel has continued building settlements in the West Bank with roads connecting them, which has sliced and diced the land. There can be no sovereign Palestinian state unless those Jewish communities (some long established multigenerational) are abandoned. I highly doubt even the most liberal Israeli government would attempt that forcible removal.

Can there be a One State Solution that is not an apartheid state or does not involve the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which is currently underway? While it is true that approximately 2 million Palestinians hold Israeli citizenship, granting full citizenship to all Palestinians within the prospective borders of a Greater Israel could become a demographic time bomb in which Jews would be a minority and the "Jewish State" would cease to exist.

While I despise Netanyahu and the hardline Zionists, I think I understand them. The Holocaust convinced them (not without good reason) that Jews would never have a secure future as minority residents in a foreign land. Many identified as German citizens first. Antisemitism has long existed in the USA (ever see "Gentleman's Agreement" with Gregory Peck?), and is currently on the rise. The Oct 7 Hamas attack that killed 1200 Israelis has reinforced the belief that a secure Jewish State is necessary.

That attack by Hamas was an atrocity. What the Isreali government has done to the civilian population in Gaza is, by any objective measure, a worse atrocity. Can a secure peace ever be attained with seemingly endless reciprocal atrocities?

I am not religious. Nor have I studied religion to any great length. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity comprise the Abrahamic religions, all essentially worshipping the same Supreme Being. Given that, my view is that Jerusalem should be an international city of peace and brotherhood. Instead, human history is drenched with blood by wars fought in the name of God. In the hands of men who covet wealth and power, religion has been a means of control and subjugation.

I don't think human civilization itself has much of a secure future as long as we indulge divisive tribal mindsets based on religion, race, or the bipolar politics we have in the USA. We presume to impose our will on other countries when we can't get our own house in order.

When will Jews and Palestinians live in freedom and peace together in the Promised Land? When will nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran embrace human rights and freedoms for people of all religions or none, within and without their own borders?

Until then, practically intractable.

i wish ppl wd stop singling out aipac. yes, they have worked against progressive candidates for yrs. yes, they have also helped idiot thugs get elected. and yes, they have used shady tactics.
but they r small potatoes compared to the epstein class. and the vast majority of the aid we send to israel comes rt back to us in defense jobs. making them the boogie man is hurting us w many jews who have been reliable dem voters forever.
and we rly, rly have to talk loudly about the rise of antisemitism. ordinary jews, here and esp in the uk, r being attacked and murdered. if it were ordinary americans being murdered in other countries over the actions of tsf, we’d find the words to condemn it.

we rly need to stop shrinking at the accusation of ‘islamophobia’. the true record of islamocists taking over the middle east and often slaughtering ppl of other religions is long and bloody. we shd b calling it out ourselves, or we leave the field open for the evangelicals. jews used to inhabit most of the middle east, but they have been driven out of country after country there. THAT is y israel is soooo important.

it wouldnt hurt to lay out the real history of palestine, which was never a country. and the absolute graft of every palestinian leader from arafat on. many of the leaders of hamas, and their families, r living the high life in qatar and elsewhere on aid money meant for their ppl. THAT is y ppl r starving in gaza.
they cd have had a paradise on the mediterranean, instead they have tunnels and weapons and fat soldiers. tunnels, btw, that they dont allow civilians to shelter in when the bombs fall. food that is not shared w civilians.

maybe we’re beyond the point where we can have nuanced conversations. but we best figure it out.
this is the shit u get when politics becomes soundbites.

I am reluctant to respond, as weariness and disillusionment have long set in, but I'll give it a shot.

Taking the heat off AIPAC by appealing to worse problems seems like whataboutism or two wrongs make a right- thinking. I don't think it's a winning argument but ymmv.

Military aid to Israel is largely paid for by the U.S. taxpayer in one form or other. It is grant money, and in fact only Israel is allowed to use those grants to purchase from Israeli firms as welll as U.S. firms. Creating defense jobs doesn't hold much water with those opposed to the MIC or to ethnic cleansing and genocide carried out with the fruits of the labour of U.S. employees and the subsidy of U.S. taxpayers. People are realizing now that for Israel, war is the first option, not the last and it doesn't sit well with most of them. Aside from morality, war is expensive and touting defense jobs is likely not the winning argument it once was.

I would sincerely hope that Jewish Democrats choose sticking with their party and all it represents over allegiance to AIPAC or any other pro-Israel organization. There has been a sea-change in American Jews' attitudes towards Israel, not surprising as Israel demonstrates over and over again that it is not in alignment with democratic values, principles and seems to have jettisoned humanitarian and moral principles entirely. I have faith in Jewish Americans to make the right choice.

Of course Palestine was not a country but no one ever raises the fact that neither were Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq etc because we know the history of colonialism. We also know why, unlike the others, Palestine is not a country today.

It is never right to drive people out of their lands and homes. That's my response to your point about Jews being driven out of middle east countries AFTER the founding of Israel.

Which empire or ancient kingdom does not have a bloody history, including the ancient Kingdom of Israel? Amalek? And seriously, who is the aggressor today, not hundreds or thousands of years ago? In fact which country's leader boasted about inflicting another Amalek, this time on Palestinians, a promise he in fact made good to the approval of the majority of its citizens?

Paradise on the Mediterranean? Anyone who knows the history of what Israel did to Gaza for decades, instead of falling for Israel's talking points, is not going to believe that.

But out of all these talking points the one that really bothered me for 2 years was the one about people starving in Gaza because their leaders were apparently eating all their food. Or taking their aid money. Anyone who followed even at a cursory level Israel's planned and deliberate blocking of aid and literally starving children as a result, knows that that talking point is hogwash.

Sure, nuanced conversations would be great! But ones based on disproven or suspect talking points that mainly serve to demonize and "other" is not going to get us there.

Murder and assaults on people based on who they are, whether they are Jews or Palestinians or Black Americans, or ICE protesters is abhorrent. Violent, anti-semitic crimes against Jews are abominable and the uptick in violent crime - assaults and murder - against them since 2023 should be talked about. It is not at all "offset" by the decrease of 30-40% in non-violent crimes such as harassment and vandalism since 2024 so I understand why it is not mentioned. Yet it could be indicative of a coming downward trend in physical violence too, for which we can all hope.

Now, despite the fact that you have long been both a very good friend and high among my favorite forum members, I shall subject you to one of my way-too-long, painfully tedious answers! I apologize in advance! For this is an extremely important discussion …. plus I'm sore from head to foot due to my younger son taking me on a long artifact hunt yesterday, that only ended when the sun was down. Both of my remaining muscles ache, despite my inhaling hashish, so I'll write this in the transition break between house work and going to the garden. (We have to get back to the Garden.)

First, per Palestine. The British concept of creating – or, re-creating – the state of Israel began towards the end of WW1. It is not a post-WW2 concept. When Russia decided to sit on the bench, rather than to continue to be on the English & French team, the head of British intelligence proposed a plan to re-locate the Jewish population in Europe to Palestine. He noted that the USA might do so, too.

At the time there were Jewish, Christian, and Muslim people inhabiting that territory in relative peace. The British plan, involving dividing the Middle East between themselves and France, included capitalizing on the conflicts that would surely take place as a result of misplacing thousands of people. Thus, they hoped for access to the development of Gaza, though I do not think they foresaw Jarad.

Now, they felt entitled to do so, in the exact same manner both countries had exploited Native Americans – because tribal people identified with territory, rather than the nation-state practice of Europe. They were convinced their concepts were superior, thus they justified the violence they would inflict on the tribal people. Today, many of us understand why Native American peoples – especially young men – would seek revenge on white settlers. This made Joseph Brant and Geronimo the first scary Usama bin Ladens.

Now, I support the nation of Israel. I support the right of Jewish people to have a homeland. At the same time, I support the right of Palestinians to their territory. That seems fair to me, and at least a few other people. Neither should attack or try to steal land from the others. To continue being as fair as possible, in my lifetime, I can't recall a single instance of Palestinians stealing land from Israel. But I do recognize that both sides have engaged in horrible violence. Were both sides to listen to me, they'd knock that shit out, and I would gladly re-draw a correct map for both.

Now that I have resolved all those problems – at least in my mind, if not the United Nations – let us turn to AIPAC. As I said to our good friend Martin, one of my favorite human beings is the husband of one of my nieces. He is of a Jewish family that came here from Russia not that long ago. He supports AIPAC. So I recognize that there are many, many good members of AIPAC. But that does not preclude recognizing that not all of those who set policy, invest money in candidates from both parties, and thus have what I think is undue influence in American foreign policy are doing our country any favors.

Now immediately, or so I hope, you are saying, “Wait just a minute, you savage rascal – did you not support the Good Fight in Ireland back when you were younger, so much younger than today? And haven't you made clear, over the years on DU:GD (est) that you were an associate of Yohn Lennon and Joko Ono's connection to the Irish cause?” I did and was. But I'm old now, and recognize that everyone suffers in times of violence. I'd also note that we did not influence US policy, which continued to support the foreign military and para-military violence of the foreigners.

You may also remember my focus on the AIPAC espionage scandal that was first reported by CBS in 2004. At that time, it wasn't viewed as polite to discuss this on DU:GD, but due to my severe intellectual limitations and Irish nature, I tried to. A brief reminder: Lawrence Franklin, an employee of the Defense Department, was giving highly classified documents on US policy with Iran to AIPAC's senior policy director Steven Rosen and senior Iranian analyst Keith Weissman.

We know who AIPAC shared it with. Now, I know that some people think that Mossad and the CIA are now the same thing. I do not – I view them as conjoined triplets with M16 and the CIA. And that is not to say I advocate surgery to separate the three. Indeed, I would favor the good faith release of their combined intelligence documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein, rather than the mere raw intelligence being released. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Thus, I am able to recognize the distinction between different levels within AIPAC. But there are some, as we;ve seen in the espionage scandal, that are at least as loyal to Israel as to the USA. That alone is not a problem for me. Espionage is, though. And so does pulling puppet strings in DC, in a manner that has resulted in Netanyahu dictating US “policy” in the military attack on Iran.

for surely, that is where bibi belongs.
there is ugly on all sides in this. but the fact that israel has been attacked, over and over, since the time of it’s founding, is y my sympathies lie there. if oklahomans were lobbing rockets into texas at the rate that hamas lobs them into israel, ok wd b glass by now.

and the fact that worse atrocities r happening in many, many places, many times perpetrated by radical islamists, but they draw none of the outrage that gaza gets sticks in my craw, bigly.
the part where gays r stoned, and tossed off roofs in gaza, too.

i agree that it will b a happy day when humans evolve past violence. until that day, i support the right of a tiny country to defend itself.

ps. u r my favorite savage.

Due to extreme age and untold injuries over the many decades, my savage nature mainly comes out by way of punishing the few that still listen to or read my nonsense. Unlike my late brother, I took relatively few punches to the head in my 329 boxing matches. He was the definition of a short Irishman who was happy to take his opponents' best shots before destroying them. That's not the best thing for future enjoyment of life -- though his case of the Irish Flu likely did not cause him the suffering that it did among the extended family. But I am convinced that the impact of body shots, including the majority that I blocked, has moved back into this feeble old bag of bones and lard.

I absolutely share your outrage for the terrible attacks on the people of Israel, and what is a unsettling rise in antisemitism in our country. That should not be ignored, not in this conversation, or any in this country. Being old, I reognize that many among the younger generation I talk to tend to see things in a one-sided manner. I include my cousins that live on the Old Sod, who are extremely anti-Israel, I will speculate due to stories about the Islamic support the IRA got during "The Troubles."

Now, speaking of boxing .... on another forum's discussing the great sport, a few dim wits were making fun of Duane Bobick, focusing on his 1972 loss to Teo Stevenson of Cuba. So I noted that Duane had beat Stevenson a year earlier, and that his best friend in the Olympic village had been murdered by terrorists hours before he got into the ring. I'll add to this that I approved of the Israeli response. And I would have understood a similar response to October 7.

Rec

I'm not sure if it is good, but I know it is important to discuss before the mid-terms.

...so many successive presidents, republican and Democratic, restrained Israeli presidents from many of their worst ambitions.

Not much interest it seems from the folks who thought voters should blame the Biden administration (and Kamala Harris, the eventual nominee negotiating for a ceasefire in '24) for what Netenyahu eventually did under Trump.

Not sure what the cache is in spending time convincing those same self-defeating demagogues that Democrats wouldn't acquiesce to Israeli presidents wanting to use our military to war on their behalf, like Trump has.

I think we'd do more good accurately representing the party and our elected officials, who have always acted and communicated responsibly about our Mideast ally.

Moreover, we'd also do more good recognizing that issue in the election was a deliberately diverting and divisive canard, considering the republican opposition and the abdication of responsibility we've all witnessed from them.

I'd guess that's where you'd, correctly, find our elected and aspiring Democrats - focused on what concerns and affects Americans the most. Outside of a clear determination to end the Iran war, Democrats need to remind voters that their energy and efforts aren't mired in the fate of some nation or interest other than the United States and our people.

I hesitated when it came to accurately describing one of my Senators, Chuck Schumar. I will respectfully disagree that he has "always acted and communicated responsibly about our Mideast ally." But I can respect that you think he has, or currently is.

I would also strongly disagree that the genocide in Gaza was in any way those pesky republicans way to deliberately divert and divide the Democratic Party. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm pretty sure that on October 7, 2023, when the terrible attack on Israel took place, that Joe Biden was president. More, as I remember it, President Biden was assumed to be our party's candidate for re-election, right up to July 21, 2024, when he was replaced by VP Harris.

The Biden-Harris policy on Gaza was indeed unpopular with some Democrats, including numbers of them in specific states. Yet that was insignificant in terms of determining the election's outcome, when compared to its impact on independent voters.

I will also add, fully recognizing this may be my lonely opinion alone, but I think that all Democrats need to grasp that our country's well-being is tied directly to our position among the other nations of the world. And that the war in Iran has severely damaged that around the globe.

...of Israel's assualts on Gaza.

As far as his supporting Israel, I'd also guess we'd find many of his constituency, other than you, who also support his funding votes related to Israel, none of which triggered their president to wage war in Iran, or retaliate they way they have for the massacres and rapes in their country.

When you find someone who says, 'the genocide in Gaza was in any way those pesky republicans way to deliberately divert and divide the Democratic Party,' you can tell them that I also disagree with that premise.

The attacks on the Biden administration for Israel's military response to the attacks were specious and completely off-base, give that the administration neither supported what Israel did or were responsible for their attacks on Gaza.

Indeed, as I wrote, VP Harris was actively engaged and tasked with brokering a ceasefire in '24, but was accused of some untenable association with the demagoguery against the Biden presidency that supposed the election was about the president who had stepped down, or the VP candidate they imagined was the problem and not the maniac that just went to war with Iran.

Not a word from those people today about enabling Trump into office with their opposition. Maybe someone can bother to hold them accountable for what ultimately happened with Trump and his buddy Bibi.

Whatever the 'Biden-Harris' policy toward Israel, it didn't result in a war with Iran, and it wasn't responsible for the military response of Israel after their people were massacred and raped. In fact, it was the Biden administration, led by VP Harris which worked to mitigate the response.

Anyone who's setting the Democratic party up to debate and focus on Israel, instead of the U.S., is doing exactly what people looking to deliberately divide the party at voting time used to dissuade voters from supporting our nominee, Kamala Harris.

Anyone supposing we'd be in the same position with Israel under a Harris presidency as we experienced under Biden or Trump isn't dealing with those facts in a responsible or factual manner, and the result of that demagoguery will be (deliberately) more of the same division and rejection of a perfectly responsible party; rejection of a coalition of Democrats who may well disagree at times; to the ultimate benefit of a republican party that is demonstratably hostile to the aims that critics purport to support.

How about starting with the supposition that NO American president has been able to formulate a policy that solves the conflict between Israel and it's Arab neighbors, not just Biden's?

How about acknowledging that, from Chuck Schumer, to Biden, to Harris, there is a chasm between them and any republican in any election; elections being the thing this posit is ostensibly concerned with, and that it's time and effort wasted directing Dem supporters to bear down on something that can be debated and resolved among Democrats in a majority?

It's not only deliberately divisive, to the point of threatening the actual Democratic leader more then the republican one, it's specious and deliberately distracting (for many who really don't have the Dem party's future at heart: see: last election) to the actual concerns and needs facing Americans today.

Again, what responsibility do those 'Gaza' advocates bashing Biden and Harris assume for splintering people away from the party right before we voted last time over disagreements best solved in a Democratic majority, and clearly at devastating risk under the presidency they helped enable into power with their campaigning against Democrats instead of republicans?

Some of those same critics are now engaged in trying to take down our Democratic leaders (both of them!) over this speciousness. How's that supposed to work out, advocating against your own party leaders as a strategy to gain support of voters?

It's ludicrous and self-defeating; not to mention, false.

I always respect and appreciate your thinking.

I do my best to be true to my values and beliefs. Part of that is remembering Malcolm X's teaching that instead of listening to what someone says, look what they do. I value that. I believe Malcolm was right. So I would recommend that people look at what any and every politician elected to represent them does. That can include their responses to those who question things such as the war in Iran. It can include learning who they get campaign contributions from. I won't speculate on if you might agree with that, but I thinking that it is public information, and citizens should be well informed.

Now, as for Senator Schumer. I have voted for him in virtually every Senate race he has been in. I recognize that he is highly skilled in campaigning, as he has never lost an election. I anticipate he will not lose a primary if one were to happen, and will vote for him again. I will vote for him, even if some third party candidate who represents my values in areas that Schumer definitely does not. I am a Democrat, since the day I first registered to vote.

At the same time, I won't donate money to his campaign, nor campaign for him. Instead, I will invest my money and energy into the campaigns of those Democrats who represent my values -- and there are many of them. These include those outside of my own congressional district and/or state. Heck, I did speech writing for a congressional candidate in Florida in the past.

I accept that in your mind, speaking the truth about one of those party leaders is wrong. That, in my mind, is the same thinking as the cowardly republicans in the House and Senate who refuse to disagree with the president. And that, in absolutely no way, defines my thinking. It's the exact opposite. I think that my late friend Rubin was 100% correct in his saying that anyone who fails to question "leaders" has betrayed themselves and their country. But, again, I can respect that you think very differently.

"I accept that in your mind, speaking the truth about one of those party leaders is wrong."

You made that up, and it's not okay.

We just disagree. Different perspectives, likely working with different info.

As I said, if you look you can find plenty of opposition from Schumer to what Netenyahu did. What you won't find from him is the degree of separation from the U.S. ally (Israel) that many desire.

I'm going to guess that Schumer will bow out of politics after the election. The writing is on the wall, either way; drag him before the election or after.

But his leadership on Israel reflected the consensus of his Democratic caucus (not withstanding the numerous Senators who've come out against his leadership.)

If there was another consensus that was diametrically opposed to Schumer's publicly expressed views, it would have emerged by now with much more than the few Senators who've been speaking out against his office and positions.

The party is a coalition of like beliefs and views which often disagree. That's the function of government; to reconcile those different interests, beliefs, or concerns into action or law.

I think that reality was lost in many minds last election, where folks forgot we operate in a mostly binary system of elections where one party works for the people, and the other trying to either end us or own us.

Also, that our party leaders operate out of the consensus of their respective caucuses, not the self-interest that many support or even encourage out of them. They weren't hired by the elected membership to dictate down to them. They were chose for their ability to reconcile the myriad differences among them into unified votes, which Schumer has done repeatedly and effectively.

That's his actual job, outside of the individual opinions and votes of his own seat in the Senate, which you say you oppose. He regularly puts those aside and represents what his party agrees to represent collectively. That's what his position as Dem leader requires, outside of what he expresses privately to his membership.

Disagreeing with him is fine and expected, but the political game and goal here isn't what Schumer believes, it's what the membership is willing to unify on. More than that, it about getting the party to a position where they can do more than just argue among themselves.

Many people would be satisfied for the party to argue perpetually in the minority, many of them I'd imagine would encourage more of this navelgazing infighting among people who mostly agree; among Democrats.

That's what debating like a U.S. president controls Israel did in the last presidential contest. It cast the election as a contest between what Biden believed, superimposed on Harris; deluding themselves and others that their opposition against the only party with any sanity was going to produce an outcome favorable to their beliefs and goals.

How did that work out for them? Just sayin'.

"How's that supposed to work out, advocating against your own party leaders as a strategy to gain support of voters?"

I'm pretty sure that is an exact quote from your first comment. Tell me if I'm wrong, and if that is something that I just made up out of thin air. I could have sworn that those were your own words. Perhaps you are correct, that one should never, ever, under any circumstance talk about wanting a change in leadership within our own party -- especially if every single person who advocates change is doing the devil's work.

And perhaps I was not clear: I am not interested in if Senator Schumer has expressed concern about Netanyahu in strongly worded messages. I have no problem believing that he has. But you would have a problem identifying a single action that he has taken when it comes to providing the weapons that he uses to kill innocent people in the Gaza genocide, the attack on Lebanon, the war in Iran, or to stop the violent theft of lands in the West Bank.

"I think we'd do more good accurately representing the party and our elected officials, who have always acted and communicated responsibly about our Mideast ally."

Again, I am quite sure that this is an exact quote from you. I could be wrong, but of course I am not. That is an extremely weak statement, that one that you had just made up there ..... unless it is just something you heard someone else say, and you didn't think for your self. You might notice that even now, there are differences of opinion within "the party and our elected officials" regarding Netanyahu and American policy towards Israel and other nations in that region.

Those differences were found here on this forum back in 2006, when former president Jimmy Carter published his most important book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Different forum members had very different responses to that book. Perhaps you would be so kind as to inform us of which side was "accurately representing the party" -- those who agreed with Jimmy Carter, or those who disagreed with him?

" 'I accept that in your mind, speaking the truth about one of those party leaders is wrong.'

"You made that up, and it's not okay."

Finally, I rarely respond to borderline meows. But because you are a good man, I'll point out your error. In my mind, as a direct result of not only your original post here, but from years of reading and enjoying your contributions, I have come to understand that speaking about anything someone -- we can accurately narrow that down to Democrats -- points out is wrong with "leadership," you tend to spontaneously react by identifying it as anti-party, the work of our enemies. That has been a feature of your contributions here for exactly as long as I have known you here. And that's okay, it is simply who you are, and like I have always said, you are a good man and a loyal Democrat. It's just that high among our differences is our opinions on what "loyalty" demands.

... I never said or implied that, "speaking the truth about one of those party leaders is wrong."

And I have zero interest at this point in debating anything past that misrepresentation.

What I believe is clearly expressed in my replies, and doesn't deserve or require this dissenbling from what I wrote.

Doesn't need repeating, either. So, bye!.

Otherwise, you would not be reacting this way. Instead, you would list times that you have spoken out about disagreements with party leadership. But it seems that you have none, either now or in the past.

...no need for me to respond further to your personalizations of me, at all.

YOUR posit was that Democrats should focus on Israel in the upcoming election, a mostly intractable alliance that no Democrats would acquiesce to the way ANY republican would.

I think that's a ludicrous propisition, like repeatedly hitting myself with a hammer.

Did you imagine your own views on this were inviolable and unassailable? I disagree.

I don't see any virtue at all in placing our election at risk over debating something that most Democrats essentially agree on, and pretending like it's a necessary exercise of political opposition to the Dem party that is immeasurably better than the opposition, and is more than likely to be unified in it's response to Israel, no matter if some may disagree with the course.

It's not like some other Dem leader is going to make a dime's worth of difference in the way Democrats have responded as a party so far. But ANY Dem leader is going to be far more favorable to what critics say they want than risking the election of republicans.

All of this 'speak my mind' stuff is good and fine for your personal edification, but it's fraught when it suggests things that divert from a campaign focused on American needs and concerns which don't involve Israel.

MY personal needs, as a voter, don't involve Israel. That should matter to someone in the party, and I'd guess they know this about Americans they expect to vote for the party.

I mean, neither Biden, Harris, or Schumer supports what Netenyahu has done and has strongly advocated against it. But the American public is evenly divided over Israel support, albeit that support slipping in the wake of their genocide and warring.

The value of a campaign focused on that can only benefit republicans who are completely in charge of the legislature and are thus responsible for the lack of legislative action to connfront Israel - not Democrats as some seem to suggest with their hyperfocus on Schumer's mainstream support for past funding of Israel.

That debate can only be divisive in an election, under terms that essentially leaves the republicans in charge blameless.

In my mind (note that I'm making it clear this is my view), instead of putting republicans in the hot seat, I think some people find it easier to get movement beating up on their own party, rather than elevate and support them, like abusive parents or guardians. How'd that work out in the last election, btw?

What's clear is that Schumer, in his position as leader, has, in the past, represented the collective will of Senate Democrats almost completely on Israel, notwithstanding those who disagree and have said they don't support his leadership today.

Check the past funding votes. That's an awful lot of people lopped off of the party over an issue where they mostly agree.

2024:

Overall, the vote showed that strong majorities of both parties still support Israel, but this many votes against Israel would have been unlikely prior to Oct. 7.

Seventeen of the 56 Democrats who signed onto a recent letter calling for the U.S. to suspend aid to Israel and condition any future aid ultimately ended up voting for the Israel package: Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Jahana Hayes (D-CT), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Nanette Barragan (D-CA), Alma Adams (D-NC), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Kevin Mullin (D-CA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-passes-israel-aid-bill-183939470.html

Seven Dem senators voted for arms sales recently, including Schumer. Seven Dems who I'd guess opponents beleve are expendable, even working to secure a majority to do more than just talk about Trump and vote no in republican bills?

I just don't understand the single issue focus on a mostly intractable alliance as some major campaign effort'issue, facing a republican party that is diametrically opposite to Democrats on that and most other issues.

It's like some folks can't stop themselves from putting obstacles in front of the party's success in the next election; much like the last one, supposing that a divisive internal debate is the beat-all to defeat republicans. It's ludicrous.

...still talking about your posit in the op that this should be a willing feature of Dem campaigns.

I thought you said you were through with this discussion!

...curious pursuit, after making a posit on a discussion board.

But, you do you.

Again...

"What I believe is clearly expressed in my replies, and doesn't deserve or require this dissenbling from what I wrote."

Or, from what I write.

This isn't complicated.

Anything else?

Thanks!

I have told you my opinion of what you think, based 100% on your comments on DU over the years that you have been here. That has upset you. But it remains my opinion, reinforced today.

...the glee in this is positively passive aggressive and just completely offensive, despite your cheerynessess in tearing me down along with your faint praise.

You got a reply to your query, not an invitation to make biased projections about what I believe. But having done so, the deftness in which you claim things about what I've written here (well out of context and evidenced only in your mind in this thread) is quite a thing to behold.

I suggest you restrict those disagreements with what I've written in the past to those threads you're referencing, and not attempt to carry on those disagreements here.

Nothing I wrote in response to your posit suggests I believe you shouldn't criticize any politician. What I have written is much more nuanced than this cherrypicked characterization of my beliefs, as if you can only communicate with a fallen thread.

Indeed, you have my actual beliefs right in front of you, in response to your suggestion that Democrats do the same navelgazing backbiting over Israel in the upcoming election that lost us the last one.

You're certainly free to do that counterproductive thing and promote it as you have here. I'm certainly free to disagree that the issue that dissuaded many Democrats from supporting the ONLY choice other than trump in that election should be made prominent in this one.

I don't agree that Israel is more important than, say, ICE and their terrorizing of my community. I believe that intractable issue and debate should center on republican responsibility as a majority, and the contrast on that issue couldn't be greater.

But that doesn't appear to be the concern here.

It seems as if the aim is to use the election to elevate what you believe should happen in Israel/Gaza by casting blame and responsibility on the party out of power; the party that is diametrically opposed to what Netenyahu has done; and similarly opposed to what republicans have abdicated in their legislative role.

I don't get it. It's politically fraught and already evidenced as a losing proposition for Democratic campaigns. What's the problem here with taking this fight to the party that's actually standing in the way of accountability and control over their own prerogative to wage war?

Why this projected speciousness against the minority party which we all know would act responsibly toward Israel, have always represented the will of most Americans toward that sovereign nation?

And then, to transpose all of that onto Democrats, both present and future? What happened to opposing republicans who have repeatedly voted in huge numbers to let Trump continue his war on at the behest of Netenyahu?

Why isn't highlighting those votes, that Democrats have demanded repeatedly, a better political campaign appeal than this ass-out strategy that supposes we've done something wrong?

you already do that, and I find it hilarious!

...I think people who suggest we hyper focus on Israel and Gaza in the next election must not have much other that directly impacts or affects them.

Like, for instance, losing their health insurance subsidies, and consequently their ability to see a doctor. Or, financially strained by Trump and republican policy and inaction to the point of breaking, or already broken.

Or, they must not be associated with the communities of Americans who have just had their voting rights eviscerated by the administration, states, and the courts.

What I really find sad is that I've NEVER seen you, not ONCE, on ANY of the several threads where I was pouring my heart out about people who look like me being targeted by this administration's immigration goons, and the anxiety and fear that has mostly kept me housebound.

But here you expect that I would prioritize another motherfucking country as my concern in the next election to the point that I would want it to dominate the political debate, over my own needs and concerns.

You act as if you know me, but you obviously don't know me; or you just don't care what I believe, or what's important to me. You just want to tell me what I should think is important in the next election.

More than that, you want Democrats to relate to voters that Israel is more important than the struggles Americans are having in THIS country?

I think it's a ludicrous political proposition, and basically blind to the harm so many are facing in this nation; concerns and interests which need elevating to the level of a national discussion with commitments in the election to address and resolve these abuses and neglects.

Har-dee-har-har. Hilarious.

Surely, the entire outcome of November's mid-terms will be decided by your posts on DU.

...sad.

Did you read where I wrote that "you might not find it as funny if I did the same dishonest and demeaning thing"?

I'm channeling what you really believe right now from your several posts in the past fawning over RFK Jr. personally convincing you he cared about the environment, and your subsequent justifications for that support made to me on my thread calling him out.

Hope you didn't give him any money.

See how that works?

Comic genius, amirite?!

I have no problem talking about my friendship with Robert, though we have certainly parted ways in recent years. He was, in fact, the environmental attorney that stood out in two ways -- he won the largest, most important legal cases holding corporate polluters responsible for clean-ups, and won more cases for Native Americans in North, Central, and South America than any lawyer. I recognize that pales in comparison to your accomplishments. But that's not really brought us closer together. Let me explain, and perhaps you will get it, or perhaps not. You seem in a crusty mood today but maybe in the future it will make sense.

In the spring of 1998, two of my nephews were on a b-ball team that won two titles in NYS. One would double the school's rebounding record, the other would triple the scoring record. But, because they are black, not everybody liked them. And they resented all the press they got as scholar/athletes, literally in every newspaper in the state. Now, you have never walked the dirt roads of rural, upstate NY, so this may come as a surprise to you. But a racist hate gang from a different town started dogging the older nephew at a canoe regatta in yet a third town. My nephew asked a village cop on duty to tell the 17 racists to leave him alone ..... but as it turned out, that fellow with a gun and a badge was related to one of the 17, and did steroids and weight-lifted with them in their town.

When my nephew went to get his car in a dark field, the gang of 17 racists attacked. One lady who witnessed it -- before driving away -- later told police it was like a pack of wolves attacking prey. One hit him from behind, with either a rock or a bottle, knocking him unconscious. As he lay on the ground out cold, with his hands in his pockets, they took turns kicking and punching him, before leaving him for dead. But he was found before sun-up, and rushed to a hospital. The doctor said if his muscles were not so powerful -- he was 6'3" and 250 lbs, with a scholarship to play both foot- and basketball at a good university -- he would have died. He recovered from some of the injuries, and still suffers from others.

Three of the 17 were arrested. The gang leader admitted to punching and kicking my nephew a dozen times. At 6'5", he was the smallest of the three arrested. The judge said, in open court, that it was his opinion that the gang members calling my nephew a "dumb ni__er" suggested that race was a factor in the assault. Thus he gave the gang leader a $20 fine for having an open beer at the time he was kicking my nephew. That was it.

The case, of course, was in the regional news from the day after the assault until after the last court date. Two branches of the NAACP showed up every week for the court hearings. The president of one branch and I wee the spokespersons for the TV, radio,and newspaper reporters. The lawyer for the thug leader was considered the top in our region -- as was his father before him -- and he recognized the media reports reached a very large audience. This red-haired Irishman thought he could debate me before the reporters, including television. Being capable of annoying such fools, I said a few things quietly to him that made him freak out and make a complete ass of himself. I enjoyed it, though he also acted like he had dined on grumpy dog food for a couple of years. But our friendship eventually repaired, as he learned his lesson.

Now, at this time, Robert was providing comfort to my sister, her husband, and the boys. I hope that you have never had to witness the suffering they were going through. Robert's kindness meant a lot to them. He wrote to the state attorney general before the trial, advocating for him to prosecute it as a hate crime. The republican did not, of course. And Robert assisted me in talking with Spoirts Illustrated about the case. They were interested, in part because they had earlier ran a 14 page story about a kid from a private school who had a future. Then, when my nephews played this fully recruited school, my nephew held that kid to two points which obviously helped them win the game.

Now, due to his injuries, my nephew could not take advantage of a great scholarship. But he graduated from the university, and I recently enjoyed watching his daughter dominate on the high school court. He lives a good life, but there are things that one never forgets. That includes my remembering what Robert did for my family back then.

I remember telling the media that because the court failed to address the case seriosly, the gang's violence would spread. Within a year, one member fractured a student from another school's skull with a rock. Another gang member was arrested for shooting a gun into a house where a white girl was dating a black kid. And shortly thereafter, a third gang member was arrested for fracturing the skulls of two Asian-American students at Binghamton University in unprovoked attacks in the dark. He got probation.

If you happen to read this far, I hope that you feel good about yourself. You really got me there!

...who is a psychopath.

You probably missed this in 1998:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Not Going to Comment' on 1998 Sexual Assault Allegations by Former Family Babysitter

In a Vanity Fair article published on Tuesday, July 2, Eliza Cooney claims the independent candidate for president, 70, made inappropriate advances towards her 26 years ago when she was employed by him.

According to the article, a then 23-year-old Cooney was hired as the Kennedys' part-time babysitter in the fall of 1998.

Cooney allegedly kept a diary, where she would document instances of Kennedy's unwanted sexual advances. One incident described in the article reportedly took place on the evening of Nov. 7, 1998, in the Kennedy family kitchen.

“From everything everybody says about the Kennedys + their Babysitters, they had me worried. Like I have to watch out, be careful. And the other night in the kitchen w/ Murray I could have sworn he was touching my leg + hand,” an excerpt read.

“It seemed like he thought I was somebody else or wasn’t paying attention. Like he would come to every once in a while and snap out of it or I would move away. It was like he was on something or really tired or was missing Mary or was testing me.”

Now 48, Cooney also told Vanity Fair that on another occasion she found a shirtless Kennedy in her bedroom asking her to put lotion on his back. According to the former employee, the politician was in his mid-40s at the time.

https://people.com/robert-kennedy-jr-responds-to-sexual-assault-allegations-made-by-former-babysitter-vanity-fair-8673132

excused any of the crimes Robert has committed. You are confused.

...great guy though, in 1998, as you represented him to me.

DNC: RFK Jr. made big promises to pollution victims. Some say he didn’t keep them.

....new reporting from The Washington Post examines how RFK Jr. spent his career preying on and profiting off of the vulnerable communities he claims to fight for. Despite pitching himself as an environmental champion who took on big corporations, records show he often accomplished little- whether it was for a Native American tribe in New Jersey or Appalachians affected by mountaintop removal.

To quote those who were impacted by his failures, RFK Jr. “took advantage” of and “used” them for “vanity project(s).” Just like Donald Trump – who now owns this baggage – RFK Jr. is a fraud.

…Others whose health and homes were at stake in the fights Kennedy took on say he badly disappointed them, promising justice but ultimately revealing himself to be little better than the enemies he tilted against — one more outsider, in their view, exploiting a community for publicity or legal fees instead of coal or factory labor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/07/rfk-environmental-attorney-record-trump-endorsement/


...like i said, I hope you didn't give him any money.

Ha! There is nothing in that post where I claimed you said anything.I don't need to. My gosh, thinking you make a valid point that back in 1998, I didn't know about something that became reported on in 2024! Ha! Oh boy, you really got me there -- especially considering that you didn't know about this until 2024, either!

...that's what you're experiencing right now.

The confusion is your own.

Surprising that an experienced boxer can't recognize an experienced counterpuncher, and just takes wild swing after swing, assuming that his opponent is flatfoooted or has a glass jaw because he's letting you tire yourself out punching at him like you're waving a feather.

This is a mirror of your own conduct to me on this thread, including the gratuitous ridicule. Take another look.

The confusion is your own.

"...folks who thought voters should blame the Biden administration (and Kamala Harris, the eventual nominee negotiating for a ceasefire in '24) for what Netenyahu eventually did under Trump."

I don't understand this statement. The facts are pretty clear that Netanyahu did not have to wait for Trump to inflict the vast majority of damage to Gaza. By every metric of the death and destruction of war, the first 15 months were the most devastating and grotesque. Perhaps you didn't watch the daily atrocities and didn't see that shredded child hanging by a hook on the wall, and many other hellish scenes, as I did. In any case, facts and figures which I won't recite here prove my point.

And while Kamala said she was working tirelessly for a ceasefire, she also said that her commitment to Israel's security was 'iron-clad and "unshakeable". But voters wanted both a ceasefire and conditioned funding or even an arms embargo and they already figured out Netanyahu was not interested in a ceasefire unless he was pressured or threatened with consequences! I happen to believe that Democrats are smart people - they recognized a Catch-22 and a losing, disappointing strategy when they saw it.

I would not presume to think Democratic voters are so weak-minded that they would be influenced by "demagogues" one way or another. I think Democratic non-voters made up their own minds, based on what they saw with their own eyes - shredded kids and a moral disaster for their party. That would tend to be somewhat demoralizing and suppress voter turn-out.

"....that issue in the election was a deliberately diverting and divisive canard, considering the republican opposition and the abdication of responsibility we've all witnessed from them.:

Opposition to the war and asking your President and then your candidate for conditioned funding or an arms embargo to protect Palestinians from war crimes and slaughter was a distraction and divisive? And it was irrelevant anyway because... it was all the fault of republicans?

I don't know quite the term to describe this line of thinking but denialism or revisionism comes to mind.

In case you're interested, here is a very insightful and fact-filled scholarly article that might disabuse you of these notions. No, it does not present a pretty picture so if you read it, keep an open mind. But it is reality - it's what happened and the sum total of it all was just too demoralizing for a lot of people who never made it to the voting booth.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/waf2.70009

"...Democrats need to remind voters that their energy and efforts aren't mired in the fate of some nation or interest other than the United States and our people."

That's not what voters saw, quite the opposite. It's a bit ironic that you put it that way...

Aside from every other rotten consequence of the disastrous Gaza/Israel foreign policy, it's clear to me that the road to Iran (and don't forget Lebanon!) started in the ruins of Gaza and the unconditional support for Israel. There should be some lessons learned here for the Democratic Party, but that won't happen unless there is open and honest discussion and TAKING RESPONSIBILITY - no denialism or revisionism - whatever it takes to bring back those lost voters and restore faith in what the Democratic Party stands for.

...and supposing any American president was going to significantly restrain Israel after the attacks on them is just a cheap shot at the administration, imo.

We can talk about restraining Netenyahu, but it's just nonsense thinking that was gong to happen after the massacres of Israelis.

NPR:

...this is like the way people complain about Democrats opposing republicans, without any workable lever to actually restrain them on each and everything they do wrong, criticizing them for not doing enough because more needed to be done, much of it out of their direct control.

The Biden administration isn't responsible for the attack on Israel or their military response in Gaza. Failing to stop Israel from retaliating the way they did wouldn't just be something restricted to the Biden presidency. That's not the history.

Fwiw, it's undeniable that the U.S. was ineffective in influencing Israel away from their deadly assaults and denial of humanitarian assistance to the innocent people they were bombing. But all of the criticism is speculation, mostly that Biden could have publicly jawboned Israel into relenting, which isn't evident in anything other than the projections.

A spokesperson for Blinken said he worked "relentlessly" on humanitarian aid for Gaza.

"He pressed Israel — publicly and privately — to take steps to minimize civilian harm and to uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law. He also sought out, encouraged and listened to different views within the State Department. Any suggestion to the contrary misrepresents both his leadership and the administration's sustained efforts to address the humanitarian crisis," the spokesperson said in a statement to NPR.

I think what many of his critics wanted was to treat Israel as an enemy instead of a wayward ally. Whatever the wisdom or efficacy of that, it remains to be seen if ANY presidential aspirant adopts that stance.

I'd guess any U.S. president is going to attempt to straddle the fence and try to keep Israel as a U.S. ally in the region, so there's always going to be the same muddled responses to Israel which so infuriate those looking to crush the Netenyahu regime.

I talk about this as if from a distance, because I am at a distance. I live here, in the U.S., where most of us have different expectations of our own government; those of which, concerns for managing the conflict between Israel and Gaza do not even begin to address.

It was a divisive diversion in the last election which speciously blamed the American president for the Israeli leader's abuses.

Despite as critical as it is to win a Democratic majority in the next one, people are lining up to do the same dividing thing, suggesting lopping off BOTH Democratic leaders before we vote as if that would be some incentive for voters to support Democrats in the next election.

It's the same backward nonsense that put Trump in the WH. That concerns me more than the obstinacy of the Israeli leaders to past and present demands made by people in the U.S. just as concerned with the violence as anyone else, which can be expected with the permission structure of Trump and republicans refusing to vote to restrain him.

You can't undo the last administration and election (which too many 'Democrats' waged against Biden and Harris) in the midterms. It was already done in by critics who couldn't tell (or admit) the difference between Trump and Biden/Harris.

Fact is, NO Democratic administration would act as Trump has in his acquiescing to Israel. That's the point of the next election, as well.

Cajoling, pleading, working "relentlessly" while imposing no real consequences, founded on some quaint belief that somehow Netanyahu would see the light - while ignoring the powerful levers of U.S. laws and U.S. military assistance - that's not serious.

The U.S. President should not have to do this with an ally:

Bolding mine.

It's absurd that the most powerful man in the world, as the U.S. President is known, was reduced to pleading with Netanyahu to allow Palestinians to eat - one truck or convoy at a time - or to live.

It's not as if the U.S. is dependent on Israel for its survival. But without the U.S., Israel would not exist and that is a fact. So no one can persuade me that we had no options, no leverage, no ability to "restrain". And I am well aware of the obstacles put up by Republicans and the history of U.S. support for Israel by both parties, which brings me to another point, a delicate one here on DU but related to the topic of this o/p of honest and open discussion.

In the article you linked to, there is a section about Biden's personal, not just political, commitment to Israel, which he views as a moral stance, and his honest belief that defeating Hamas with whatever it takes was the right moral choice. This is the crux of the matter for anyone who wants to truly understand why Gaza unfolded the way it did. To assert that it was always like this, with every President, is wrong objectively and historically. Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Obama - all asserted their authority in times of crises or to enforce policy or moral beliefs - and they were successful, though some did pay a price later. But they did what they thought was morally right. I venture that none of them had Biden's level of personal commitment to Israel or the ideology behind it, which Biden himself proclaimed publicly.

I admire and respect Biden for his many accomplishments and general good and kind nature, but I think he made a tragic mistake here by giving too much weight to his personal beliefs about Israel - rooted in another era and another Israel - with far-reaching and devastating consequences and I think we should be able to express that opinion without fear. Simply and perhaps brutally put, "not enough was done" because Israel's "security" in the future was judged more important than Palestinian lives in the present. And that all goes back to personal beliefs - not good policy, politics or a winning electoral strategy, as we found out.

Most democrats, including elected ones and candidates, have come to understand all this. 40 out of 47 Democratic Senators voted for Sanders' bill to stop certain arms and bulldozers being used to demolish homes for land grabs and ethnic cleansing. That is a historical vote. That one of the dissenters was the Senate Leader is a terrible look! Democrats in disarray indeed. Why not let the Democratic Party be the party that is most in tune with the majority of AMERICANS, not just democrats on the issue of illegal wars and genocide. It may not be an important issue to you but it is to a large swath of the electorate, including many independents. Continuing to defend and rationalize what the voters have already judged - and most of the Democratic caucus now agrees with them - that's not helping the party to win elections.

...in the wake of the massacres and rapes.

I've been alive and aware of deadly back and forth conflicts involving Israel since Golda Meir. The U.S. has never had the influence over the sovereign ally that so many people insist on.

It's really something, with all of the problems, risks, threats, and challenges to Americans from the Trump regime, that someone has decided that ANOTHER COUNTRY should take priority in our political appeals?

Fuck the people who can't see a doctor because they can't afford health insurance. Fuck the black folks like me who just lost federal protection of their voting rights. Fuck the people under assault and seige by ICE?

No, some other godammed country takes priority for some. That conflict will go on just as it has for decades and decades, while people in THIS country suffer.

I expect the party to recognize, acknowledge, and pledge to remedy and end the abuses in THIS country, by this administration and republican party FIRST, before galavanting off from that defense and support in the election to divert tthe focus to some other godforsaken nation.

of something that Rubin said -- I can't remember the exact date off hand, but it was in February of 1979 -- "A closed mind, like a closed room, often becomes stuffy." And the most common form of a closed mind is found in binary thinking, for those with very little to compare, find very little to understand. So here we are! (grin)

The idea that we should not exercise our Amendment 1 rights -- and indeed, resposibilities -- to openly express our differences with elected representatives is a psychological set of handcuffs. Nothing more, nothing less. As I noted, for example, I have voted for Senator Schumer each and every time he was on the ballot for his office. Thus, I recognize that I have an absolute responsibility to express my differences with Senator Schumer on an issue such as the violence in the Middle East. Yet, exactly as I noted, I would not do so -- and have never done so -- during an actual election.

I speak in a manner that represents my thinking and my values. Some people agree with me, some people disagree. That is, at least in my opinion, a strength of the Democratic Party. I recognize that there is often a chance that someone may be offended by something that I say. This has been true all of my life, and I'm okay with that. I, for one, can honestly say that I have never posted a threat to quit participating on DU because people disagreed with me or my posts get few if any responses. Not everyone can say that.

Also, binary thinking tends to keep one thinking that the only possible future is dictated by choices made in the past. I can't imagine being in such a limited mind-set. We need to change our thinking of what is possible, in order to create a better future.