[dervish]

You said: Because I don't see how the US is going to be able to continue its support for Israel without Jewish leadership--and the few conservative US Jews seem more upset about Buchanan than they ever were about Arafat.

I answered: It is your position -- that Jewish influence, not US interest, controls US policy -- that suggests anti-Jewish prejudice

Then you said: The US supports Israel for many reasons. I don't believe that the neocons have that much influence--to make the US give support where it does not already have an interest. However, that may not always be so. I fear that Israel will be in for harder times in the years to come, with what I see emerging among the Euros and the US Dems--and it'd sure help if the liberal US Jews would get on board!

Nope. Never said any such thing. YOU can say it, if you like, and I guess you do like. I am getting used, to having silly statements such as yours put in my mouth (or keyboard), however, by those anxious to holler "antisemite" at any breath of criticism.

So you agree that US support of Israel now is in the US interest. Great. Me too. So in your first statement you were talking about a future need for US Jewish support when at some later hypothetical juncture the US interests diverge from Israel’s like the way they have often diverged from other democracies?

When those interests diverge obviously the US should go with their own interests. I would hate to see undue influence by Jews of any stripe effect legitimate US interests. Wouldn’t you?

It is not helpful to the interest of Israel to take such rhetorical positions with allies--but I see such behavior over and over in this forum. Sometimes I suspect it comes from trolls...

I guess you are implying here that I am a troll. Why? Is that defined as someone who coherently questions your position? And may I ask with who are you “allies”? I am in favor of US interests on all issues.

Thanks for the welcome.

[Mamzelle]

I shouldn't have implied that you're a troll. I should have just said it outright. I suspect strongly that we've spoken before, and that you've come here with a new name to begin old quarrels. I shouldn't waste my time on someone determined to write my positions for me so he can play Nazi-killer for his own vanity. But it's a slow evening.

I am dismayed that so few American Jews understand the folly of supporting anti-Israel candidates. Without Jewish leadership, US support for Israel will shortly fall apart. Evangelicals cannot do it all by themselves.

Pat Buchanan, BTW, supported the pro-Israel candidate, unlike 76% of US Jews. I always like to give that rind out for the neos to think about when they want to carry on about PB and the mythical threat of the paleo dinos.

I'm bored beyond imagining with the same old, same old stuff from the neocon "intelligentisia." Tired. Weary. Wish some new writers with fresher things to say could get a TUMBLE from the few "conservative" outlets that remain. But they fired Ann Coulter, and I believe that neocons want more to impress the liberal Blue-City jazz afficionados sucking up lattes than they care about Red Country.

I'll never forget Brooks and Krauthammer both coming out shortly after the election with columns asserting that the evangelical vote in 2004 was nonexistant and should be meaningless. It wasn't the evangelicals, you see, that helped elect W--it was the increased numbers of women, Hispanics, and blacks who did the helping.

Well, what's neocon for "D'UH", oh bright boys from the urban trenches and the Ivy League? Did it every occur to you that there are a lot of women evangelicals, black evangelicals, and you're probably too insulated in your rent-controlled to realize that there are huge numbers of Hispanic evangelicals, too? This is the stuff that neo "intellects" write.