Many American Jews Sour On Netanyahu

[mikegriffith1]

Gee, one would never know to read your anti-Semitic, Arab propaganda that Netanyahu won the election by a decisive margin and that he received more votes than any previous candidate for prime minister in the previous 20 years.

Well, no - no one "votes" for PM in Israel, they vote for a party.

Oh, spare me your pedantic hair-splitting. Yes, I know that in Israel technically you don't vote for prime minister. I lived in Israel for a time. I speak Hebrew. And I have followed Israeli politics for going on 30 years. A vote for the party is a vote for the party's candidate for prime minister. That's why each party runs a candidate for prime minister, and that's why those candidates go out and campaign, and that's why the main focus is on the candidates for prime minister, etc.

And Likud under Sharon got more than 28% of the vote in 2003.

Sharon got 29.4% of the vote in 2003. (But, wait, what happened to your hair-splitting point that in Israel candidates for prime minister don't receive votes, only the parties?) And as you should know, the 2003 election was a bit of an aberration (albeit a good one) because the Labor Party decided to run a truly pathetic candidate (Amram Mitzna) and because Labor had discredited itself in its weak response to the Intifida. But, yes, Sharon did get more than Netanyahu got.

So let me revise my point: With the sole exception of the 2003 election, Netanyahu received a larger share of the vote (23.4%) than any opposing candidate in the last 26 years (since 1999):

2006 - Olmert 22%
1999 - Olmert 20%
1996 - Peres 26.8% (Netanyahu got 25.1% and would have won handily had not the conservative vote that year split three ways, with the two other conservative parties, Shas and NRP, getting over 16% of the vote)

And that one exception, in 2003, was Netanyahu's fellow Likud member Ariel Sharon, who, as mentioned, was lucky enough to run against the American equivalent of Walter Mondale and George McGovern.

 

[Lakhota]

It looks like it's up to future generations of Israelis to reverse the current course of aggression and apartheid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Long before the latest election in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu was a polarizing figure among American Jews. But even many of his supporters said this week that they were appalled at his last-minute bid to mobilize Jewish voters by warning that Arabs were going to the polls in droves, and his renunciation of a two-state solution to the Palestinian crisis.

Mr. Netanyahu’s party won the election and cheers from hard-line American Jews. But in interviews this week, rabbis, scholars and Jews from across the country and a range of denominations said that with his campaign tactics, he had further divided American Jews and alienated even some conservatives, who had already suspected that he was more committed to building settlements than building peace with the Palestinians.

Even with Mr. Netanyahu’s postelection interview walking back his statements against a two-state plan for peace with Palestinians, many Jews say they are worried that the most lasting outcome of the elections will be the increasing isolation of Israel — not only around the world but also from the younger generation of American Jews. Unlike their parents and grandparents, these Jews have grown up in an era when Israel is portrayed not as a heroic underdog but as an oppressive occupier, and many of them tend to see Mr. Netanyahu as out of step with their views on Israel and the world.

Much More: Netanyahu Tactics Anger Many U.S. Jews, Deepening a Divide - The New York Times

Are these American anti-Netanyahu Jews guilty of anti-Semitism? What about American Jews who are also part Arab?

Note to mods: If you move this thread - please leave a trail.

New York Times Buried Holocaust News

The New York Times consistently buried Holocaust news in its back pages and downplayed the victims' Jewish identity. So states the first scholarly study of how the Times covered the Nazi genocide. Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper," by Prof. Laurel Leff, has just been published by Cambridge University Press.

Among the book's key findings, according to The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, are the following:

* Holocaust news was consistently relegated to the Times' back pages. Of the 1,186 articles that the Times published during 1939-1945 about Europe's Jews, only 26 (about two percent) of them appeared on the front page, and even those articles "obscured the fact that most of the victims were Jews."

* New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, an assimilated Jew of German descent, feared that the newspaper would be engaging in special pleading and thus deliberately downplayed news of the Holocaust and the Jewish identity of the victims.

* The Times only rarely published editorials about the annihilation of Europe's Jews, and only once ran a lead editorial about the Nazi genocide.

Book Reveals New York Times Buried Holocaust News

We didn't go to war to save the Jews, boys, and we knew they were being slaughtered. The question is, why didn't they die like men instead of like sheep behind barbed wire?

they couldn't believe was was happening and scumbag news papers like the NY times buried the horror

Not just the NYT. Everyone. No one wanted to get involved or believe what was happening. Antisemitism was common. Even the American Jewish community did not want to make waves that would bring negative attention on them.

And out of that mess we get this mess. If Herzl had only gone with his other choice, South America.