Please disable your Ad Blocker in order to interact with the site.

Back in 2006 Ed Lasky wrote an expose’ which said in part:

The rank and file of the Party has become increasingly anti—Semitic and support for Israel has noticeably fallen. Democratic Congressmen have reflected this trend in very visible ways: their votes and actions in Congress reveal that support for Israel has eroded in alarming ways…..These disconcerting trends can be observed by a bottom—up approach: looking at the grassroots base of the Democratic Party, how these views are expressed in Congress, and how the Democratic leadership has responded to these developments….

…. Political blogs have achieved a high level of …As several pundits have noted, the blogs have become a hot bed for anti—Semitic sentiments.

In this Wall Street Journal op—ed, Bill Clinton’s former Special Counsel, Lanny Davis expressed his distress at the increasing tide of anti—Semitism and vitriol spewing forth from Democratic blogs. Examples he noted:

  • “Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an American who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby” (by “rim,” posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006
  • “Joe’s on the Senate floor now and he’s growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate” (by “ctkeith,” posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).
  • On “Lieberman vs. Murtha”: “as everybody knows, jews [sic] ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on” (by “tomjones,” posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).
  • “Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife’s name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover” (by “gerrylong,” posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).
    • During the recent Gaza War, Rasmussen reported that Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans backed Israel’s decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agreed.

    The Democratic Party used to be the most dependable pro-Israel party that most certainly has changed in recent years. Schmuel Rosner has some ideas why this occurred:

    Substantive reasons:

    • Because Democrats want to make peace with the Arab world, and Israel is standing in their way.
    • Because Democrats want to make peace with the rest of the world and Israel stands in their way.
    • Because Democrats tend to adopt risk-averse policies on foreign policy matters, not wanting to risk “another Iraq” or “another blunder”.
    • Because Democrats – and Americans in general – think more about domestic, economic issues, and just want the world to go away.
    • Because Democrats have turned “dialogue” and “engagement” into new religion, and Israel seems to be skeptical of their new gods.
    • Because experts with liberal tendencies recommend more “balance”, believing that such balance can provide for new openings in the peace process.
    • Because the tied has turned and America now abandons Jacksonian, aggressive, policies – and finds it hard to sympathies with countries pursuing military means on a daily basis.

    Political reasons:

    • Because this Democratic majority is committed to the success of the Obama administration – and if confrontation between Obama and Israel occurs the legislators might find it difficult to side with Israel.
    • Because Democratic voters, as I’ve shown earlier, support Israel less than Republican voters.
    • Because Jewish Americans – an important sub-group in the Democratic establishment – are less supportive of Israel than they once were (again, I will not bore you with numbers, but the proof is overwhelming).
    • Because as I’ve demonstrated, one can now have it both ways: claiming to be supportive of Israel while pursuing policies traditionally considered un-supportive, relying on so-called pro-Israel groups.
    • Because in recent years the cause of Israel was conquered by Republicans, making it much less appealing for Democratic legislators.
    • Because Bush was considered very supportive of Israel – and for the time being everything Bush was doing is anathema for Democrats.

    Source

    Become a Lid Insider

    Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

    Send this to friend