This goes for the American populace as a whole, and for the Jewish Americans as a subgroup. Most Jewish Americans are Democrats; more were against the Iraq War than the American population as a whole. It's arguable now that more Jewish Americans favor honoring the official American policy of getting rid of the settlements and simultaneously setting up a separate Palestinian state that is more than rump state than the Americans as a whole (most of whom who have no information at all on the details of the IP question since 1917). Are all Americans as complicit as Jewish Americans in allowing the political elites of both all Americans and Jewish Americans to write a blank check, arguably at the long-term expense of All Americans, and arguably Israel itself? A thought: Most Americans know virtually nothing about facts on the ground in key exotic places like the Middle East, nor do they care. Most Jewish Americans make it a point to know more about this very reality, yet they too allow themselves to be led like sheep. Goering would understand what I am saying here, I imagine.

When you and others use the term "Israel Lobby" rather than "conservative Israel lobby", you lump all liberals in with all the perspectives that you oppose.

NO DISTINCTION.

How can we get behind that? Demonization and generalization?

"I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like," [Obama] said in a speech redistributed by his campaign. "It would mean that the Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of right of return in a way that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state."

Let me make a couple of substitutions to put this statement into a recognizable U.S. context, and let's see how it sounds:

"I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like," Kennedy said in a speech redistributed by his campaign. "It would mean that the civil rights marchers would have to reinterpret the notion of civil rights in a way that would preserve America as a white Christian state."

Brave. Very brave. NOT!

What an idiot.

Quite literally. Gary Leupp has 'A Sibel Edmonds Timeline' over at Counterpunch where he discusses the probability that "dual Israeli-American national" Marc Grossman and his Neocon claque are dealing American nuclear secrets to Turks and Pakistanis.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01292008.html

Let's stop beating around the Bush: these traitorous scum have become an existential threat to us all.

Actually, both Hitler and Goering viewed the masses, subgroups included, as female. So did Ed Bernays and Goebbels. Sexism has been outed (at least in Western Civilization). The whole art of modern politics is to entertain the vanity and survival concerns of those needed to stay in power or get power. Marketing is everything. Women gained power in the West by getting tired of
their own ignorance and suspecting they were being abused by
cultural conditioning when such conditioning was no longer needed to keep the species alive. Children now follow as they reach the age of nonconsent. Economics is the other side of childhood.

Flogging his new book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (The Lost Years) at Harvard's Center for European Studies on January 17, Enderlin himself exposed a probable Palestinian media hoax in which he had no involvement. The story exposed by Enderlin involved widely circulated reports by the Associated Press, Reuters, and the BBC. As Joel Pollak recounted online at the site Guide to the Perplexed, Enderlin told his Harvard audience "that Yasser Arafat had faked his blood donation to the victims of the September 11th attacks. Enderlin said the event had been staged for the media to counteract the embarrassing television images of Palestinians celebrating in the streets after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks."

The story of Arafat's blood donation was reported around the world in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, usually accompanied by photographs depicting Arafat in the apparent act of giving blood at the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Enderlin elaborated on his contention that the scene depicted in the photographs was staged. According to Pollak's account of Enderlin's remarks, "Arafat didn't like needles, and so the doctor put a needle near his arm and agitated a bag of blood. The reporters took the requisite photographs."

Should we take his word for it? Enderlin is certainly an experienced and knowledgeable reporter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But taking Enderlin's word for the hoax is a bit like trusting the paradoxical assertion of Epimenides, the Cretan philosopher who famously declared that all Cretans are liars. At the least, we should demand to see what Othello called "the ocular proof." Do the photographs conform to Enderlin's description of them? In short, the anwer is yes….

But I think we can safely assume he's not really interested in any of our opinions.