General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth's Warren's staunch support for Israel can be explained.
A number of people are scratching their heads and wondering why Warren is such a staunch supporter of Israel. The fact is that Elizabeth Warren was a Republican up until the 1990's. She left the Republican Party relatively recently, but it had nothing to do with foreign policy:
by Jeff Spross Posted on April 27, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told George Stephanopoulos Sunday that she left the Republican Party in the mid-90s because it was tilting the playing field in favor of Wall Street.
Warren has quickly become a populist hero to liberals. Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s The Week, noted something in her background that “might surprise” her supporters: the fact that she has voted Republican in the past, and was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1996. Warren said she left the party after that because she felt it was siding more and more with Wall Street:
I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/27/3431303/warren-left-gop/
Warren's main focus is Wall Street and tackling issues like income inequality and student loans. That's obviously commendable, but there's no reason to believe that she's willing to do anything about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.
In fact, she supports sending high tech US weapons to Israel. Those same weapons are used by Israel to slaughter Palestinian civilians.
From her website:
As a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success. I believe Israel must maintain a qualitative military edge and defensible borders.
The United States must continue to ensure that Israel can defend itself from terrorist organizations and hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others
Meaning she will support israel military aid ?
Unilateral actions, such as the Palestinians’ membership efforts before the United Nations, are unhelpful, and I would support vetoing a membership application.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025258116
Aside from the obvious fact she's willing to send advanced US weapons to Israel, she even goes so far as to say she's willing to veto Palestinian membership in the UN. That's a pretty conservative position and it also means she not to big on the idea of Palestinian statehood.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)However, I guess my point is that just because somebody goes after Wall Street and income inequality, it doesn't mean they're progressive on other issues.
So her support for Israel is not exactly shocking. It should be expected.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #2)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I really wish more people here understood that. It's a big tent and not everybody in the Democratic coalition aligns or fits the same blueprint. I sometimes feel that we'd do ourselves a lot of good if we could have a "define yourself as a Democrat" thread, a survey of the Democratic landscape...except that I think it would devolve into the Hobbesian state of nature. (A philosophy joke: I mean we'd all end up in an every-person-for-themselves melee.)
It's why I put my positions in my sig-line.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its laughable!
djean111
(14,255 posts)No, I don't think a president will come along to support all my PET ISSUES - like no TPP, for instance.
Pet issue? Pretty big fucking issue - reads like global corporate fascism, methinks.
Hillary helped architect it, and pushes it, Warren is against it.
So - no matter what Warren does, I will not support a TPP-pushing Hillary.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)If she is the candidate, and she wins, I expect the TPP will be the coup de grace for the middle and lower classes. That is how I think of Hillary. I do not want to vote for her. Most likely, if she is the candidate, I will just stay away from politics, vote on election day, and wake up the next day to see who gets to fuck us over. No need to do anything else, since I am told that 99.99% of Democrats worship her or whatever.
If the TPP is championed here because it is Hillary's thing, I will honestly have to say the Democratic Party has left me, and move on.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)convictions mean soooooo much to you! As I have said before even IF EW were to win the Primary and Presidency.....as soon as she made one move you didn't approve of...Onto the funeral pyre she goes!
Have cake and eat it too right? Easy peasy....who would even notice?
Nothing hypocritical at all about trashing the very person you just admitted you would end up voting for in the end....not hypocritical AT ALL!
djean111
(14,255 posts)Funeral pyre, hair on fire, kinda funny now.
"convictions mean soooooo much to you!" - what the hell does that mean?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Apparently only go so far......in reality though you seem to know who butters your bread....
djean111
(14,255 posts)dislike Hillary, you are getting ridiculous. In fact, there is so much effort put forth these days to belittle and drive off Progressives and Liberals that I do wonder about the same thing.....................................
My conviction that things like the TPP are bad for Americans is unshakeable. My convictions are not swayed by a political personality.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Sounds like thou dost protest too much! As it hadn't even occurred to me until just now reading your words...
NOW I am wondering......since YOU brought it up....
by the way.....when I said "butters your bread" I meant that in the end.....you vote for the Democrat. Funny how you turned THAT into my accusing you of being a paid shill!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm somewhat bemused when someone trivializes the concerns others may have by calling them "pet issues". It seems to indicate a lack of depth.
But I would entertain this more openly were a link provided to a post explicit making the implication that someone believes a President will in fact, support all of that individual's concerns... otherwise, I'll simply have to see it as little more of the same melodrama in place of substantive thought.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Dollars from AIPAC, but also dollars from defense contractors who want to see the money train continue by supplying weapons.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I would want to know why. Did she ever claim a dissenting position on Israel policy? I sure don't remember it.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)and progressive foreign policy types need to start seriously talking with her, or she will be another Obama/Hillary Clinton on this issue. As I have pointed out in other posts, neoconservatism is a bipartisan Washington establishment dominant philosophy, just like neoliberal economics.
bigtree
(86,004 posts). . . I've always heard she's a woman of conviction. Not so much on this issue, you believe?
'Progressive foreign policy types need to start seriously talking with her?'
OMFG.
(I don't agree with the op, btw, that what he's posted 'explains' her position. This and many other questions which don't deal with economics need to be answered in detail by the senator, imo.)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I don't think that means she lacks conviction. To me, that means she is sane and reasonable.
-Laelth
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts), or has thought about the issue much, so she goes along with Centrists dems on this issue. I think that was the problem we faced with Obama, and at one point the Clintons, though they are thoroughly Lieberdem at this point, owing to their corrupt dlc nature. Being pro-aparthied is profitable and Clintons/dlcers never take a stand on an issue where their donors profit. Liz doesn't have the profit motive that Obama and the Clinton's do so she can probably be changed.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)anti - Palestine than mine by a significant margin seeing that I also support the right to exist of an independent Palestine.
I'm assured that my position is extreme and have been called a thoughtless mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda (that was not hidden though asserted twice consecutively) so it seems out of step with what many would call a "good position" on the situation around these parts but you think Warren can be drawn from what I consider extreme all the way over to "good" (which in some corners seems to be nothing short of the ending of Israel outright or at least as a Jewish state, while others are more nebulous in what that endgame actually is but it seems to allude to Israel can exist as long as they just sit their and take whatever is thrown at them for as long as it takes for the terrorist factions to get tired of it while increasing the opportunity to take hits aka end the blockade, allow free movement, take no actions to stop rockets or tunnel digging).
It would appear a fairly tough roe to hoe to get her to my two state position. Shit, UN recognition is a bridge too far for her. I'm not sure she is even solidly on your side of Bibi (at least publicly).
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)The dems used to support two states, but have dropped that in favor of complete apartheid, probably as a result of closet neocon Nancy Pelosi.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Iraq, and Syria are a mess. Jordan has a lot on their plate.
Buy in, even the greatest buy in of Israel and the Palestinians isn't enough. The external pressures and threats will blow up any arrangements, especially if the Saudis aren't in. The religious, financial, and political influence in the region is too great to pretend they don't matter in the situation.
Folks may want to believe Israel can fix this themselves but that isn't true (save by disbanding their country), others will put the onus on the Palestinians which is even more silly but they certainly have a necessary role that cannot be glossed over, and some put the US as the pivot but even that isn't true because the Arab nations are a significant portion of any calculation.
I say this not as an excuse for anyone but the situation is way volatile and much more complicated than almost anyone is willing to admit so I figure with all the balls in the air and our near complete illegitimacy in the region, hands got thrown up and the status quo embraced.
Hell, I don't think we can even articulate a case to Israel considering our own reaction to terror threats other than playing the "because we said so, now do as you are told or we're cutting off your allowance" card that can't be played politically and would sever our leash which might lead to more general difficulties in the region, including the oil supply.
The symbolism is great to have that in platform but it is utterly beyond any practice at this stage, in no small part to our own recent shenanigans in the region. So, what is the point, the logic goes, let's amend to make potential big money donors happy so the Republicans don't take advantage.
Too much political pragmatism is dangerous, eventually the logic will lead one only to embracing the status quo and or changes that only benefit those sitting on a mountain of money.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)it just might jar her. I remember Howard Dean had to modify his pro-Israel views when seeking the Prez nomination in 2004. He's since gone back to being a blind Israel supporter, but when these politicians face supporters who don't accept their b.s. on Israel and Palestinians, they get a sudden jolt of shock that at least for a while makes them rethink their blind support of Israel.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)We could do a write-in vote for Jimmy Carter.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I kept looking for an explanation of why Elizabeth Warren, in particular, supports Israel, and the only answer I see in the OP is this: because she used to be a Republican.
Is that it? Is that the argument you are making? As if all Republicans always support Israel?
What am I missing? 
-Laelth
KoKo
(84,711 posts)RAYTHEON....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025318672
They ALL HAVE TO DO THIS... How do we break the cycle when it's JOBS for people in your state?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)She better, or she won't get my vote.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)from pro-Israel lobbyists.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Check this out:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033492&cycle=Career
Maybe it's that these are her actual positions?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)Unfortunately, that's true for virtually every other Democratic contender, all of whom have shown a nauseating willingness to turn a blind eye to the current atrocity.
I may have to cast a write-in vote for John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Their is no ambiguity. That's refreshing.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)As did John Kerry.
RAYTHEON....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025318672
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
4now
(1,596 posts)I still don't understand how she could support the slaughter of children and other civilians.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)That means somewhere, somehow a lot of civilians and children will be suffering and dying, many here at home but around the world and that is just by supporting our evil economics. Once you get into actual martial and clandestine operations then it goes off the meter even further but male no mistake we kill and destroy more than most ever have with the pen rather than the sword which might be more comfortable for some to sleep with but it is actually worse.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)All her rhetoric has some progressives thinking she can jump in the Presidential race and beat Hillary.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)It is one thing to be critical of Wall Street and their exploitation of the American people in order to earn billions of dollars in salaries, posh lifestyles and bonuses. This is rational.
But her unabashed support for a country that routinely engages in genocide is inexcusable. Unless she explains her position or moderates her unwavering support for Israel she will never have any financial or other support from me. She will be a pariah, a phony, a liar.
She has a lot of explaining to do.
I do NOT want us giving Israel ANY more aid of any kind. I don't care if a child in a hospital in Israel needs a drug that we can provide or they need more bombs to kill Palestinians.
The child needs to have their care for provided by the Israeli state since they routinely thumb their nose at us. The Israelis can go out on the market and tax their citizens to fund their genocidal war.
Elizabeth Warren is a nobody to me now. I will not support her further for anything.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)The simple fact is that any pro-Israel resolution is guaranteed to pass both houses of Congress. There are enough GOPers (appealing to both the Jewish vote and their usual demographic of apocalyptic Christian fundamentalists), and "Pentagon Democrats" to guarantee its passage. Given that, the only thing opposing such resolutions can do is enable your opponents to tag you with the "anti-Semitism" brush. That's going to cost you everywhere -- and especially in states with larger-than-average Jewish populations, which happen to be some of the crucial states for Democrats to hold.
Plus, there's the nature of the upcoming elections to consider. As I have noted on other occasions, recent polls have shown that there's a generational divide on the issue -- those over 50 tend to support Israel on everything, while those younger are much less willing to approve of Likud wars. And, as you get older, that percentage increases. The hardest bedrock support for Israeli actions is in the 65-and-older group. Which bloc tends to be overrepresented in midterm elections? You guessed it.
The way it has always worked has been that Congress has played the cheerleader role for Israel, then sat back and left it to the President and Secretary of State to be the grown-ups and deal with foreign-affairs diplomacy in a way that makes sense -- which is exactly the dynamic you're seeing this time. Too bad some of our Presidents haven't been much in the way of grown-ups themselves.
Since it's a generational thing, I think you're going to see it change relatively quickly. Think about it -- in a decade, the knee-jerk pro-Israel vote will be restricted to those above 60. Unless something happens to convert the youngest voters to that sort of position, being a rubber-stamp for Israel isn't going to work anymore. I think of it similar to the generational divide over same-sex marriage: it was only a decade ago that the recipe for conservatives to win an election would be getting pro-"traditional marriage" initiatives on state ballots. The initiative would be guaranteed to pass handily, even in progressive states like Oregon or California, and would bring out the voters to skew the rest of the election to the right as well. Now? Those same states would pass (and, in some cases, have passed) pro-SSM amendments easily. I suspect you'll see a similar sea-change on the issue of support for Israel (assuming the latter remains under the control of Likudniks pushing hard-line policies) sooner than you might expect.
None of this, it should be noted, excuses those like Warren who are willing to throw the people of Gaza to the dogs. Sometimes, you have to do what is right, even if it is politically risky.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's from her website.
http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy#israel
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)To many democrats, the Arabs are THOSE SCARY BAD GUYS THAT WOULD KILL YOU IF THEY HAD THE CHANCE. Add to the fact that a small, small small group of them is using this myth to gain power, (and oddly enough making thigns far worse for their fellow arabs), and you have a recipe for disaster. Also, do not forget that her home state is also that of Dzofar "I got my picture on Rolling Stone" Tsarnev,. aka the Boston Bomber.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)clicked on one of your "anti-Elizabeth Warren" threads.
I'm not sold on Elizabeth Warren. I will wait to see what the primaries bring.
But I'm very curious why you have posted 100's & 1000's of Elizabeth Warren Anti-threads.
What is your agenda. You make me very very wary of you...
So much so this is the first one of your threads I've clicked on.
I have a feeling, I should do the opposite of whatever you are for.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and is hoping to persuade DUers to agree with him or her. And one way of doing that is to observe that Warren's position on an issue appears to differ from that of the majority of DUers.
All of which is entirely acceptable and permitted on DU, just like the threads that oppose a putative candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)"She's a true progressive and not a fringe ideologue" pretty much fills in the details.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)government does.
Better to know these facts about both of them rather than be surprised AFTER one or the other becomes President.
She fights Wall St, fine, I will support that, Hillary doesn't so she's ahead on that at least, but her 'staunch' support for a far Right Wing Govt ANYWHERE, makes her unsuited as a candidate for the WH, same with Hillary.
I'm very glad we learned this. I prefer to know the facts about who I am supporting. Dropped Hillary after her Iraq War vote, and will have to leave Warren behind as a result of this vote.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)considered anti-semetic and is a political career killer.
She HAS to support Israel. Just like all of us have to, lest we be perceived as anti-semetic.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But as an American, why does I have to work to insure the safety of some other nation?
Why Israel as opposed to say, Poland? Or Uruguay?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)As well as the other members of NATO (among other countries with which we have similar agreements (i.e. South Korea).
treestar
(82,383 posts)And others co-operate. There was a reason for it and also some benefit to us.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Memorandum of Agreement on Security Cooperation being one of the most comprehensive ones (from 1988).
Presumably, the US believes there was some benefit in this and other similar agreements.
Just as the US believes there is some strategic benefit in being a part of NATO or agreeing to provide for South Korea's defense.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or they usually don't. The way Elizabeth Warren puts it above isn't - we entered into a treaty and it's to our benefit. She puts it that we
The United States must continue to ensure that Israel can defend itself from terrorist organizations and hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others
So why must be do that? She doesn't say. We're supposed to just go with that.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Elizabeth Warren and other political figures, including Obama and Biden incidentally, do speak of a relationship between the US and Israel that is about more than just America's strategic needs.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)I wonder if we're looking at her from just a one-issue perspective, that of economics. Could it be she's a hawk on international affairs? And what about the multitude of social issues that are of concern to liberals? Before deciding to back her candidacy (or that of anyone), maybe look before you leap?
ladjf
(17,320 posts)
Arkana
(24,347 posts)If you believed otherwise, that's your fault. And her position on Israel is sure as hell not why I voted for her.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Can that be explained?
Do I smell a covert version of the usual anti-Warren threads, an opportunity to call her a Republican, try to get some division going among her supporters, etc.?
Do only Republicans support Israel?
I'll take a former Republican who's genuinely switched sides over a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, by the way.
