On a Rainy Day

[H2O Man]

"Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” – Lao Tzu
“... But it takes so long, my Lord.” – George Harrison

My west coast brother contacted me with a question. He is a liberal Democrat who despises the president and the damage he is doing to our country and the world. He asked me if I thought antisemitism is on the rise in the United States, and if so, why? I said yes, and that I think it is a case of a rising tide lifting ignorant and angry boats. And that the jackasses are confident that they have license to talk and act in an obnoxious, sometimes dangerous manner.

There are definitely distinctions between recognizing that Netanyahu is a psychopathic war criminal, and being either antisemitic or disliking Israel. I think that Netanyahu & fiends are the greatest threat to a secure future for Israel, exactly the same as this president & fiends are the greatest threat to our society. Netantahu and the convicted sex offender/felon are hate manifested as mad men subjecting the world to obscene violence.

Thus, while I know it is important that we, as the Democratic Party, confront antisemitism, it has to be done as part of an evaluation of the extreme violence of Israel and the United States, and taking a firm stance that we are opposed to the violent aggression in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran. It is essential that we have a conversation on this complicated issue, both before the mid-terms and the 2028 election.

In the lead-up to the 2024 election, there were some Democrats and even more independents who wanted our candidate to take a firm position opposed to the genocide in Gaza. But they were muted, largely by the candidate's campaign, because even questioning Israel was viewed as “high risk.” People were discouraged even on the internet from suggesting that Netanyahu's war crimes were an issue in the election. Indeed, at one point, the pre-corpse of necroconservative Dick Cheney were ushered on stage to endorse our ticket.

I will suggest that the sum-total of citizens who were influenced by Cheney's endorsement to vote for our candidate was far, far less than the number of potential voters who could not in good conscience vote in a manner that did not address the genocide of Palestinians. I say that, recognizing that Cheney may have had as many as ten loyal supporters. Others, quite obviously, think the opposite. We still see people who insist that if one did not vote – either at all, or for our ticket – it equals a vote for the felon. This indicates that they struggled with first grade math problems.

Today, of course, the majority of Americans are opposed to the felon and Netanyahu's war with Iran. This includes being able to connect that war with Netanyahu's “policies” in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. It is also significant that both the United States and Israel are more unpopular globally due to the war's economic impact. I am convinced that the felon and Netanyahu pose the greatest threat to our countries and the global community. Again, being opposed to this president is not “anti-American.” Being opposed to Netanyahu is not “anti-Israel.” In my opinion, being in favor of Trump is anti-American, and being in favor of Netanyahu is anti-Israel. I recognize that this is merely my opinion, but it seems that more and more people understand this.

If the Democratic Party is to regain a wholesome control of two-thirds of the federal government in the mid-terms and in 2028, we must have an honest discussion, putting all the cards on the table, about the crimes of the felon and Netanyahu. Our relationships within the global community are changing, and not for the better, as a result of the war with Iran. It is interesting to note that our allies were hesitant to disagree with the president in his first term and early in his second.

They recognized him as an unstable bully. But since he attacked Iran, for example, and found himself in deep shit, they refused his demand they help him. The German chancellor correctly noted – in public – that Iran has humiliated the president. China and Russia quietly watch the president self-destruct, knowing the severe damage he is doing to our country. The changes within the world community are accelerating, and not in our favor. We need to change, if as LBJ said, we are to master that change.

[Saoirse9]

1. Individually

What can we do to help?

[H2O Man]

6. A number of things.

I always start with the rights (and responsibilities) outlined in Amendment 1. Keep in contact with your elected representatives. This should include republican officials. Attend anti-felon and anti-war rallies when possible. Stay informed, which has to involve finding alternatives to the corporate news. Encourage unregistered family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc to register and to vote.

"Politics 101" comes into play. There are three groups: those who always support you, those who always oppose you, and the undecided. It is good to coordinate efforts with the first group. Ignore the second group. And concentrate on group three.

[betsuni]

2. When was Dick Cheney "ushered on stage" to endorse? What event was that?

[H2O Man]

7. Okay.

I think it was around September of 2024 that I first said that dragging the pre-corpse of Dick on stage was an error. Some good person here pointed out that he had not been physically brought on stage. This is, obviously, true, for he was nearing death, though not quickly enough in my humble opinion. I favored tossing him in a wheelbarrow and pushing him across that finished line. I'll cover my response to that friend, and add a bit more.

The first one that ushered him into the campaign was his daughter Liz. This happened at some festival in Texas, where she said that not only would she be voting against the felon, but her father would, too. You may remember the audience cheered when she announced it. Shortly thereafter, a statement was released -- reportedly from Dick -- endorsing VP Harris. I immediately recognized that as poison. It struck me as being akin to an endorsement from Idi Amin. One should not seek the endorsement of war criminals. Rather, treat them the same as an endorsement from David Duke.

Now, unlike her father, I had some respect for Liz Cheney, for when push came to shove, she did take a brave stand for the Constitution. That is something her father did not do while serving under Bush. Yet I disagreed with most every other position she took while in office. Having her campaign against the felon within the context of the republican party was fine, but she surely wasn't going to bring many voters with her. Dick hardly represented Democratic Party values.

After her Texas speech, the pre-ghost of Dick would be brought up numerous times by the campaign. A lot of people, myself included, found that offensive. Of course, it did not change my vote, as I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since reaching voting age. But I did find that a number of people I know -- people that knew someone wounded or killed in Iraq -- found it outrageous. They opted not to vote, which I think was a shame. But I respect everyone's right to vote or not vote based upon their values.

VP Harris would say, among other things about Liz and Dick, that she was "honored" to have Dick's endorsement, and that he and Liz were "leaders who were well-respected." Again, like many Democrats, I respected Liz. But I do not think that Dick was well-respected by very many other than a few die-hard necroconservatives.

In summation, I recognize the the putrid, rotting flesh and bones of a Dick on life support was not literally dropped onto a stage, or pushed out on the hospital bed he resided in at his home. But he was brought on stage numerous times by the campaign.

[Martin Eden]

3. "It is essential that we have a conversation on this complicated issue"

Last edited Sun May 10, 2026, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I am not so sure that Democratic messaging should focus on this complicated issue in the context of winning elections.

It is extremely complicated with no easy solution, which most voters don't grasp very well. Also it does not directly affect them, except with the closing of the Hormuz Strait. THAT has become a major advantage to Democrats as the price of gas goes up and looming shortages of other commodities are likely to have an even greater economic impact.

The US policy of unconditional support for Israel has been essentially unchanged for generations. The atrocities in Gaza were going to hurt the party in the White House among muslim voters and idealistic young Americans. It was bad timing for the Democratic ticket.

Antisemitism in this country is a real problem, though it has often been used as a false accusation for political advantage. AIPAC has influence on US elections. Is there any solution to the I/P conflict which is fair to Palestinians but does not involve cutting off aid to Israel if it does not change its policies?

This is a double-edged sword in US politics, and a distraction from the key issues Democrats must hammer to overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, and whatever gestapo/ICE actions Mango Mussolini has up his sleeve.

I am not at all happy in approaching the highly moral issue of atrocities in the Middle East as a political calculation for winning elections. My preference is always Do the right thing. In practical terms, this involves getting results. I understand that many voters could not in good conscience vote for Kamala because the Biden administration would not apply real pressure on Netanyahu in Gaza. Did those voters understand the US election is a binary choice, and Trump would be worse for everything they cared about?

I wholeheartedly agree that serious conversations are necessary regarding the horrible conflict that has raged for generations if not millennia, but not as a campaign strategy.

H2O Man,
To be fair, you did not advocate that. My next post will have my thoughts on this complicated issue, aside from US electoral politics.

[H2O Man]

8. Very good!

I was frustrated by friends and associates who did not vote for VP Harris. By their saying that they did not think the felon could win in 2024, much like some of them -- though fewer -- said in 2016. I did think that VP Harris should have spoken more about the differences between what would be her administration's position on Gaza than President Biden's. While Biden has been one of my favorite politicians for decades, I disagreed with his full support for Israel. I remembered 1968, when VP Humphrey waited too long to move away from LBJ's policies in Vietnam. Yet just as a win belongs to the candidate and their campaign, so does a loss.

One of my nieces is married to a fellow from Boston. He is Jewish, and very pro-Israel as an American citizen. He is one of my favorite people to talk about politics with when he visits their second home here in upstate NY (my late parents' house). I'm looking forward to talking to him this summer. Last summer, he explained his thinking that Netanyahu is not so much the problem as the extremists who back him. He makes a number of valid, important points.

I appreciate the anger that resulted from Hama's brutal attack on Israeli human beings. I experienced something similar when British troops executed one of my cousins in front of his family. After breaking into their home late at night, they brought everyone into the living room, and killed my cousin in front of them. Did I support the tactics of the IRA then, as a young man? I could tell some stories. But today, in my old age, I know that violence is not the answer. Self-defense is good, but that is distinct from blowing things up, be it a bar in Ireland, or a girls school in Iran.

Everyone suffers in and from war, except the old men thirsting for death and destruction. We need to recognize them for what they are, and remove them from power.

[Martin Eden]

4. One Word

Intractable: an adjective describing something or someone that is very difficult to control, manage, handle, or solve. It often refers to stubborn, unyielding problems, behaviors, or conditions that resist efforts to change, cure, or manage them.

Intractable is the word that comes to mind regarding the Middle East conflict that has raged since Israel declared its independence as the Jewish nation state in 1948. In the broader context of history, this conflict stretches back thousands of years to "The Promised Land" and wars fought over the holy city of Jerusalem.

Many words are necessary to articulate my thoughts on this. I'll try to be succinct.

I think the Two State Solution has been practically impossible since the collapse of the Clinton Parameters in 2001. Israel has continued building settlements in the West Bank with roads connecting them, which has sliced and diced the land. There can be no sovereign Palestinian state unless those Jewish communities (some long established multigenerational) are abandoned. I highly doubt even the most liberal Israeli government would attempt that forcible removal.

Can there be a One State Solution that is not an apartheid state or does not involve the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which is currently underway? While it is true that approximately 2 million Palestinians hold Israeli citizenship, granting full citizenship to all Palestinians within the prospective borders of a Greater Israel could become a demographic time bomb in which Jews would be a minority and the "Jewish State" would cease to exist.

While I despise Netanyahu and the hardline Zionists, I think I understand them. The Holocaust convinced them (not without good reason) that Jews would never have a secure future as minority residents in a foreign land. Many identified as German citizens first. Antisemitism has long existed in the USA (ever see "Gentleman's Agreement" with Gregory Peck?), and is currently on the rise. The Oct 7 Hamas attack that killed 1200 Israelis has reinforced the belief that a secure Jewish State is necessary.

That attack by Hamas was an atrocity. What the Isreali government has done to the civilian population in Gaza is, by any objective measure, a worse atrocity. Can a secure peace ever be attained with seemingly endless reciprocal atrocities?

I am not religious. Nor have I studied religion to any great length. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity comprise the Abrahamic religions, all essentially worshipping the same Supreme Being. Given that, my view is that Jerusalem should be an international city of peace and brotherhood. Instead, human history is drenched with blood by wars fought in the name of God. In the hands of men who covet wealth and power, religion has been a means of control and subjugation.

I don't think human civilization itself has much of a secure future as long as we indulge divisive tribal mindsets based on religion, race, or the bipolar politics we have in the USA. We presume to impose our will on other countries when we can't get our own house in order.

When will Jews and Palestinians live in freedom and peace together in the Promised Land? When will nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran embrace human rights and freedoms for people of all religions or none, within and without their own borders?

Until then, practically intractable.

[mopinko]

5. it's a hard conversation to have.

i wish ppl wd stop singling out aipac. yes, they have worked against progressive candidates for yrs. yes, they have also helped idiot thugs get elected. and yes, they have used shady tactics.
but they r small potatoes compared to the epstein class. and the vast majority of the aid we send to israel comes rt back to us in defense jobs. making them the boogie man is hurting us w many jews who have been reliable dem voters forever.
and we rly, rly have to talk loudly about the rise of antisemitism. ordinary jews, here and esp in the uk, r being attacked and murdered. if it were ordinary americans being murdered in other countries over the actions of tsf, we’d find the words to condemn it.

we rly need to stop shrinking at the accusation of ‘islamophobia’. the true record of islamocists taking over the middle east and often slaughtering ppl of other religions is long and bloody. we shd b calling it out ourselves, or we leave the field open for the evangelicals. jews used to inhabit most of the middle east, but they have been driven out of country after country there. THAT is y israel is soooo important.

it wouldnt hurt to lay out the real history of palestine, which was never a country. and the absolute graft of every palestinian leader from arafat on. many of the leaders of hamas, and their families, r living the high life in qatar and elsewhere on aid money meant for their ppl. THAT is y ppl r starving in gaza.
they cd have had a paradise on the mediterranean, instead they have tunnels and weapons and fat soldiers. tunnels, btw, that they dont allow civilians to shelter in when the bombs fall. food that is not shared w civilians.

maybe we’re beyond the point where we can have nuanced conversations. but we best figure it out.
this is the shit u get when politics becomes soundbites.

[AloeVera]

9. It has been a long while that I have seen so many of Israel's talking points summarized so well and succinctly.

I am reluctant to respond, as weariness and disillusionment have long set in, but I'll give it a shot.

Taking the heat off AIPAC by appealing to worse problems seems like whataboutism or two wrongs make a right- thinking. I don't think it's a winning argument but ymmv.

Military aid to Israel is largely paid for by the U.S. taxpayer in one form or other. It is grant money, and in fact only Israel is allowed to use those grants to purchase from Israeli firms as welll as U.S. firms. Creating defense jobs doesn't hold much water with those opposed to the MIC or to ethnic cleansing and genocide carried out with the fruits of the labour of U.S. employees and the subsidy of U.S. taxpayers. People are realizing now that for Israel, war is the first option, not the last and it doesn't sit well with most of them. Aside from morality, war is expensive and touting defense jobs is likely not the winning argument it once was.

I would sincerely hope that Jewish Democrats choose sticking with their party and all it represents over allegiance to AIPAC or any other pro-Israel organization. There has been a sea-change in American Jews' attitudes towards Israel, not surprising as Israel demonstrates over and over again that it is not in alignment with democratic values, principles and seems to have jettisoned humanitarian and moral principles entirely. I have faith in Jewish Americans to make the right choice.

Of course Palestine was not a country but no one ever raises the fact that neither were Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq etc because we know the history of colonialism. We also know why, unlike the others, Palestine is not a country today.

It is never right to drive people out of their lands and homes. That's my response to your point about Jews being driven out of middle east countries AFTER the founding of Israel.

Which empire or ancient kingdom does not have a bloody history, including the ancient Kingdom of Israel? Amalek? And seriously, who is the aggressor today, not hundreds or thousands of years ago? In fact which country's leader boasted about inflicting another Amalek, this time on Palestinians, a promise he in fact made good to the approval of the majority of its citizens?

Paradise on the Mediterranean? Anyone who knows the history of what Israel did to Gaza for decades, instead of falling for Israel's talking points, is not going to believe that.

But out of all these talking points the one that really bothered me for 2 years was the one about people starving in Gaza because their leaders were apparently eating all their food. Or taking their aid money. Anyone who followed even at a cursory level Israel's planned and deliberate blocking of aid and literally starving children as a result, knows that that talking point is hogwash.

Sure, nuanced conversations would be great! But ones based on disproven or suspect talking points that mainly serve to demonize and "other" is not going to get us there.

Murder and assaults on people based on who they are, whether they are Jews or Palestinians or Black Americans, or ICE protesters is abhorrent. Violent, anti-semitic crimes against Jews are abominable and the uptick in violent crime - assaults and murder - against them since 2023 should be talked about. It is not at all "offset" by the decrease of 30-40% in non-violent crimes such as harassment and vandalism since 2024 so I understand why it is not mentioned. Yet it could be indicative of a coming downward trend in physical violence too, for which we can all hope.

[malaise]

10. Good OP

Rec