Every time I listen to another hysterical carrying on about the irrelevant Pat Buchanan, I think of how that energy might be better spent in trying to get some support for Israel from liberal Jews in the US.
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.
You can go back to October/November/early December and see the references to the fact that Jews hate America and Christmas. I'm certainly not going to do your research for you but it's there on the open forum for you to look.
So the US supports Israel because Jews, in your mind "Neoconservatives" push such support? Wrong. The US supports Israel, especially under Pres Bush and post 9/11, because it is in the US interest to support the only Democracy in the region which holds the line against Islamic totalitarianism in the ME. That is why the US alliance has tightened with India as well. Not because of Indian Jews, and Indian Neocons.
For that same reason Pres Reagan was a great friend of Israel. As was the non-Jewish Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Neocons all.
It is your position -- that Jewish influence, not US interest, controls US policy -- that suggests anti-Jewish prejudice. It smacks of old slurs -- the Jews control the world. So far in this thread they control the left ACLU and the right foreign policy. Most US Jews don't give a rat's a** about Israel, so your formula of converting Liberal Jews to conservatism will not happen.
The group you refer to as Neocons were prescient in anticipating the rise of Islamism and the need to confront it and not cater to short-term solutions that blow up in your face like the realpolitics of Kissinger and Bush 1. The logical conclusion, minus Jewish conspiracy theory, is that post 9/11 the wisdom in their views was evident.
As to your assertion that the Jewish Neocons control the press (another example of claimed Jewish domination in this thread), try the American Spectator and Buchanan’s rag. You might also try reading the National Review. I don’t think Ramesh Ponnuru or William Buckley could be called socially liberal.
Very true, Mamzelle. I've pointed out in a number of posts that the anti-Christmas crusade is led by liberal Jews. (Notice I didn't say all Jews - certainly not traditionalists like Medved or Lapin -- I said "liberal" Jews. It's not "antisemitic" to point out that liberal Jews are making war, in the courts and elsewhere, against Christmas and against traditional values. Peach can't find real examples of antisemitism in my posting history, so Peach tries to suggest I've done something wrong by criticizing the bigots in the ACLU and the ADL. Peach sides with these anti-Christian and anti-Christmas bigots. This is pretty revealing about Peach - - and it certainly vindicates Churchillbuff.