The only point of the post was that Jews in the US are not some monolithic group, and despite any views you might have that differ, both the Dems and Republicans in the US view Israel's right to survival as something for which we're willing to sacrifice our remaining treasure and youth.
Neocons: the belief that we may use our military to capture natural resources, rather than trusting to free market economies, exist, but they aren't running Obama foreign policy.
But you just prove the point. Jews have differences of course and all don't think the same, no group does. But regardless of party they are almost unanimously loyal to Israel and both parties are committed to supporting Israel because of AIPAC and jewish donors
AIPAC is only relevant to lobbying. My post was intended to say two things, but it seems I failed. 1. US Jews are not monolithic. Some, like Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol are avowed neoconservatives who would most likely like to see US forces in Syria, and have been openly dismissive of any Palestinian state. But, not all US Jews agree. 2. The vast majority of all Americans view the Israel Palestinian conflict in fairly broad terms that the only reason there's still any conflict is that the Pales won't abide by any peaceful resolution that acknowledges Israel exists, and opposing Israel's destruction is viewed as a vital strategic interest worth fighting over ... and THAT belief is shared by both political parties.
So, focusing on neoconservatism and Israel or even as the dominant belief behind US policy in the ME, and even less so in Europe, is missing the point.
The funny thing is, you didn't address a single point I made about how Aipac controls us foreign policy on Israel, you were just confirming it. You just went on making the same point that all jews aren't alike. Which I never made. Obviously there are different views on how to manage the American Empire and by extension this effects whether they support left or right in Israel. It effects whether they are liberal or neoconservative. But as you said, Israel us their vital interest. However, while they have differences, they all support American aid to Israel e en as illegal settlements continue and oppose Palestinian statehood through the UN. And good look getting members of US Congress in either party overturning aid to Israel or voting to end settlements or to support Palestinian statehood without posing a risk to their next election.
Well, I didn't respond to your "response" because your response to me did not reflect upon what I posted. So my return post was an attempt to clarify what I meant in the first place, rather than uncivilly saying "respond to me.". I was responding to post by someone other than you who posted about neoconservatism in the US, and you jumped in.
Certainly there's nothing wrong with your taking a thread in another direction. But there is something wrong with your accusing me of not responding when the intent of my post was merely to point out you misunderstood what I posted to another poster, not you.
As to your points, I disagree that AIPAC "controls" US for policy on Israel, because that is too simplistic. If AIPAC did, Netandyahoo wouldn't have a bone stuck in his craw. Personally, I think Likud is made up of human rights abusers, and anything the EU does to force an eventual Palestinian state is a good thing. However, I, like most Americans, also don't ignore the fact that Hamas is at heart a terrorist organization committed to ending a Jewish state in the ME. Further, there would be a pale state today if the Palestinians had accepted one along with a permanent Jewish state. There is a cultural bias against the Pales in the US, and I think that is partly from a historical-religious connection between Jews and Christians, but it is also a result years of conflict, which Americans view as more a "fault" of the Palestinians in not wanting to make a peace. [Edit: Jews historically have been viewed a bit differently here than in Europe. While anti-Semitism existed, it generally came from American Protestantism which really doesn't share much with classical Christianity such as that found in Europe. Simply put, America didn't find much to blame the Jews for.} Israel's position continues to harden, and most likely there is no possibility of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. Regardless of AIPAC, I don't think even a significant minority of Americans would cut ties with Israel of that now. Before Arafat turned on Clinton .... maybe. But not now.
So, in summary, AIPAC (and Sheldon Adelson) have the money to require politicians to toe their line. But, even money isn't going to buy votes if voters don't see the facts supporting the line on policy. Currently, Israel is displeased that Obama would prefer an agreement with Iran that gives the intl community a means to be pretty sure where Iran is with a nuclear weapon at any given time. Netandyahoo wants us to bomb Iran for him. I don't think AIPAC, the neocons or Netandyahoo is going to sell America on a war over this, unless they can show Obama has no interest in keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And, frankly, even if they made this stick, and I don't think it should stick, selling the US on another ME war is pretty damn impossible.
As to "American Empire" (laugh) there isn't one. What there is is a continuation of Reagan and Thatcher. Military might is justified against any state that denies other states to engage in free commerce with one another. Israel is a bit of exception. Regardless of economic ties, the US won't cut Israel loose. It would be in our economic interests to do so, but we choose not to. The US won't cut S.Korea loose either, but their economy is nothing to sneeze at, so it is geographically linked to trading partners in the Pacific rim.
