The significance of non-Jews condemning issues of Israeli policy for example are that it looks like (and very often is) complaining or "demonizing".

A Jew like Klein is saying, WE should act differently.

The right is saying "they" should act differently (or worse) "they" should be silenced.

Phil, Finkelstein and leftists critiquing AIPAC for example, in attempting "objectivity" is perceived by many almost as a spy, disloyal, a danger, an airer of only community's dirty laundry. As they present themselves as assimilated, rather than associating, they describe themselves as "formerly Jewish".

I do the same. When I edited a magazine on energy issues, I brought my knowledge of business and finance to attempt to expose the corruptions of energy deregulation, of the strange bedfellows, and strange policies that emerged from legislative compromise of interested factions.

I dislike the manner of the Walt/Mearsheimer work for a gamut of reasons, but one critical one is that there is a bait and switch process. They state 'AIPAC has a right to advocate for positions that it considers important', and 'that a faction advocating is not a distortion of public weal, its the American constitution alive", but then they switch to the thesis that it is a distortion.

So which is it?

Reparations
"Since the 1950s, Germany has paid 26 billion euros ($38 billion) in compensation. Around 1.7 billion of this went to Israel, the rest to German claimants." This would not include aid and other sorts of help Germany has given Israel.

Only to the Jews.

Here’s a couple of quotes that nicely summarize Friedman’s angry and violent perspective on the best approach to US foreign policy: "Sometimes it takes a 2-by-4 across the side of the head" and a high-ranking foreign policy official "quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm" to get the message across.(thanks Glenn Greenwald)

There are unquestionably violent proclivities that come out of the Jewish milieu. Those who subscribe to the official Establishment narrative might answer: well sure, a Holocaust will do that. But that ignores the violence of the Jewish Bolsheviks that pre-dated the Holocaust, and on a scale that surpassed the Holocaust. The Jewish collective always seems to inflate the nature of some out-group’s transgression in order to justify its own violent and psychotic over-reaction. Functioning sociopaths.

And yet, all these violent, Jewish Neocon, Jewish Neolib and Jewish Zionist measures are always successfully passed of as merely “pre-emptive” and defensive in nature. There’s no aggression, malice or racism at work; its all, always and inevitably, the fault of someone else.

Why do US Jewish liberal fans of the Tom Friedman mentality profess to hate functioning sociopaths in the Bush/Cheney vein when they are all so much alike?

The problem is bigger than Zionism, but all we need to know right now is that Zionism attracts both Jewish and non-Jewish sociopaths like flies to sh**, and may well be the best means to distinguish the sane from the insane.

By Spencer Ackerman 07/16/2008 12:55PM
Actually, J Street knows. The pro-peace/pro-Israel/pro-Palestine Jewish lobby just released a monster of a poll on American Jewish political attitudes. The takeaway: we're liberal as hell; we hate Bush; we know Bush has been a disaster for Israel; we'll support any peace deal the Israelis make; and the only thing we're uncomfortable with to that end is giving East Jerusalem back to the Palestinians.

Let's go down the line. Seventy-four percent of us view Bush unfavorably and 83 percent of us disapprove of his job performance. While 76 percent of the country as a whole says the U.S. is on the wrong track, an astonishing 90 percent of American Jews say the same. Only 21 percent of us approve of the Iraq war and only 29 percent think Bush is good for Israel, and those are clearly the shmucks that kissed ass in Hebrew school and snitched when the rest of us used the synagogue phone booth and cloakroom to make out.

When asked if the U.S. should or shouldn't actively broker Mideast peace, it broke down 55 percent for U.S. involvement and 30 percent against. J Street, the menschen, took that a step further and examined support for the hard choices piece requires. "Even if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs?" Yes — 75 percent; no — 25 percent. "Even if it meant the United States exerting pressure on both Israelis and Arabs to make the compromises necessary for peace?" Yes — 70 percent; no — 30 percent.

In terms of negotiating positions for an Arab-Israeli settlement, 59 percent agree that Israel will need to "withdraw from most of the West Bank and dismantle many of the Israeli settlements." Another 58 percent agree that for full peace with Syria — and an abandonment of their support for Hamas and Hezbollah — Israel should get out of the Golan. Only 44 percent, though, endorse the statement that Palestinian East Jerusalem should be part of the state of Palestine. And while that's the only non-majority position among American Jews for what can fairly be called the dovish line, 44 percent is still a substantial amount of support.

J Street's poll supports its contention that the attitudes of most of us are far, far out of whack with what this country's self-appointed Jewish leaders — the Joe Liebermans, the AIPACs, the Sheldon Adelsons, the Commentary magazines — say we're about and what we're actually about.