On a Rainy Day

[H2O Man]

"Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” – Lao Tzu
“... But it takes so long, my Lord.” – George Harrison

My west coast brother contacted me with a question. He is a liberal Democrat who despises the president and the damage he is doing to our country and the world. He asked me if I thought antisemitism is on the rise in the United States, and if so, why? I said yes, and that I think it is a case of a rising tide lifting ignorant and angry boats. And that the jackasses are confident that they have license to talk and act in an obnoxious, sometimes dangerous manner.

There are definitely distinctions between recognizing that Netanyahu is a psychopathic war criminal, and being either antisemitic or disliking Israel. I think that Netanyahu & fiends are the greatest threat to a secure future for Israel, exactly the same as this president & fiends are the greatest threat to our society. Netantahu and the convicted sex offender/felon are hate manifested as mad men subjecting the world to obscene violence.

Thus, while I know it is important that we, as the Democratic Party, confront antisemitism, it has to be done as part of an evaluation of the extreme violence of Israel and the United States, and taking a firm stance that we are opposed to the violent aggression in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran. It is essential that we have a conversation on this complicated issue, both before the mid-terms and the 2028 election.

In the lead-up to the 2024 election, there were some Democrats and even more independents who wanted our candidate to take a firm position opposed to the genocide in Gaza. But they were muted, largely by the candidate's campaign, because even questioning Israel was viewed as “high risk.” People were discouraged even on the internet from suggesting that Netanyahu's war crimes were an issue in the election. Indeed, at one point, the pre-corpse of necroconservative Dick Cheney were ushered on stage to endorse our ticket.

I will suggest that the sum-total of citizens who were influenced by Cheney's endorsement to vote for our candidate was far, far less than the number of potential voters who could not in good conscience vote in a manner that did not address the genocide of Palestinians. I say that, recognizing that Cheney may have had as many as ten loyal supporters. Others, quite obviously, think the opposite. We still see people who insist that if one did not vote – either at all, or for our ticket – it equals a vote for the felon. This indicates that they struggled with first grade math problems.

Today, of course, the majority of Americans are opposed to the felon and Netanyahu's war with Iran. This includes being able to connect that war with Netanyahu's “policies” in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. It is also significant that both the United States and Israel are more unpopular globally due to the war's economic impact. I am convinced that the felon and Netanyahu pose the greatest threat to our countries and the global community. Again, being opposed to this president is not “anti-American.” Being opposed to Netanyahu is not “anti-Israel.” In my opinion, being in favor of Trump is anti-American, and being in favor of Netanyahu is anti-Israel. I recognize that this is merely my opinion, but it seems that more and more people understand this.

If the Democratic Party is to regain a wholesome control of two-thirds of the federal government in the mid-terms and in 2028, we must have an honest discussion, putting all the cards on the table, about the crimes of the felon and Netanyahu. Our relationships within the global community are changing, and not for the better, as a result of the war with Iran. It is interesting to note that our allies were hesitant to disagree with the president in his first term and early in his second.

They recognized him as an unstable bully. But since he attacked Iran, for example, and found himself in deep shit, they refused his demand they help him. The German chancellor correctly noted – in public – that Iran has humiliated the president. China and Russia quietly watch the president self-destruct, knowing the severe damage he is doing to our country. The changes within the world community are accelerating, and not in our favor. We need to change, if as LBJ said, we are to master that change.

[Saoirse9]

1. Individually

What can we do to help?

[H2O Man]

6. A number of things.

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.

[betsuni]

2. When was Dick Cheney "ushered on stage" to endorse? What event was that?

[H2O Man]

7. Okay.

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.

[Martin Eden]

3. "It is essential that we have a conversation on this complicated issue"

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.

[H2O Man]

8. Very good!

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.

[Martin Eden]

4. One Word

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.

[mopinko]

5. it's a hard conversation to have.

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.

[AloeVera]

9. It has been a long while that I have seen so many of Israel's talking points summarized so well and succinctly.

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.

[H2O Man]

11. It definitely is hard.

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.

[mopinko]

13. i absolutely wish that jews believed in hell,

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.

[H2O Man]

15. Thank you!

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.

[malaise]

10. Good OP

Rec

[H2O Man]

12. Thank you!

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

[bigtree]

14. interesting

...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.

[H2O Man]

16. Interesting.

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.

[bigtree]

17. I think you can find numerous statements and actions by Sen. Schumer, if you look, that condem every objectional aspect

...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.

[H2O Man]

18. Very good.

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.

[AloeVera]

19. Catch-22, denialism and a few other things...

"...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.