Thursday, August 2, 2012

Daily Kos Jews Capitulate on Jerusalem

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

When thinking about the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic party and the progressive-left I tend to look at their online venues such as Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Both of these online political blogs also contain any number of Jewish progressives who advocate for Israel in what is an exceedingly harsh environment. Progressives do not, as a rule, much like Israel and a certain percentage of them are more than willing to compare the Jews of the Middle East to Nazis or to suggest that, like apartheid South Africa, Israel must be eliminated as it is currently configured, which is to say, as a Jewish state.

I cannot help but notice, however, that in the recent kerfuffle over whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel that on Daily Kos not a single "progressive Zionist" has written a diary laying out the case for why Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state and the Jewish nation, which must remain undivided.

Not one.

Who are these people who claim to be "Zionists," yet who are ready to fork over the Old City to the Palestinians? How can one possibly claim to be "pro-Israel" and yet refuse to acknowledge 3,500 years of Jewish history in the city of Jerusalem? And if they do acknowledge 3,500 years of Jewish history in the city of Jerusalem then why will they not defend their own heritage?

There is something very flaccid about the current state of progressive-left Zionism.

They just seem so cowed by their non-Jewish friends, many of whom wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if Israel disappeared tomorrow. I have often wondered aloud as to why "progressive Zionists" are afraid to really, honestly discuss political Islam and have concluded that they have been so socially intimidated that they cannot even bring themselves to think on the subject, much less discuss it in public. What I did not quite realize until now is that this extends even to the question of Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish capital of Jerusalem.

They absolutely refuse to stand up for Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the Jewish state of Israel and this makes them something less than worthless... in my humble opinion, of course.

There was a time when I thought that giving up the Arab sections of the city made sense in whatever final status agreement might be hashed out between the parties. But that was when I still thought that maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians would agree to end hostilities. They have not done so. They want to fight on, yet progressive-left Jews cannot bring themselves to face the truth of the matter.

I just find it sad and vaguely pathetic... and if that sounds harsh to you, I am sorry, but it is long past time to recognize that the Palestinians have no intention whatsoever of allowing the Jews of the Middle East to live in peace. This being the case, Israel must maintain full sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem.

Progressive-left "Zionist" Jews should be ashamed of themselves.


  1. Well, to be fair, most of us who would have written such a diary have been kicked out of that place for the 'crime' of refusing to play footsies with antisemites... ;)

    1. Oh, quick clarification - though I am a liberal, I am very glad to no longer be a "Progressive Zionist," proper, so I can not, and do not, speak for them.

    2. Y'know, Jay, it is becoming more and more apparent that the status of Jerusalem has emerged as a central issue.

      It strikes me as a true dividing line.

      As I said, I used to think that if Israel wanted to give up the Arab sections of town in order to bring about a negotiated settlement, that I would have no problem with that.

      And, in truth, if I thought for one single second that the Palestinians actually want peace in a state of their own next to the Jewish one, I would still go for it.

      But those days are gone.

      Am I wrong?

      Is there still a reasonable possibility for a negotiated agreement any time in the not far distant future?, because I am not seeing it.

    3. Fully agreed on Jerusalem.

      And on the other point, sadly, no. I do not see it anytime soon, either. Declare final borders and get out. Of course, I am not an Israeli (and I'm certainly not a political leader!), so that's just my own opinion...

  2. Since they are so tied to Obama, it would be impossible for them to go against his policy not to name Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Of course, that has been the policy of all the recent Presidents despite The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. Clinton, Bush, Obama....chickenshits.

    1. I think the difference is that when Clinton and Bush were president the "peace process" was ongoing. The Obama administration had yet to throw the whole thing into the toilet.

      In any case, it seems to me that going forward we need to demand that the administration acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and insist that the US embassy be moved there.