Having both parties oppose a strongly held position of mine is dispiriting but not unprecedented: look at the drug war, for instance. But in this case, the parties also go against the vast majority of the American people!
How does this happen? Fanatical extremist lobbies who hold each party in sway. For the GOP, it's the Christian right, who believe biblical Israel must rise again so evangelicals can ride the "rapture" to heaven (leaving their cars unmanned to crash into heathens like you and me). For Democrats, it's AIPAC's money and their influence over the Jewish vote.
From AlterNet:
In March, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders signed a letter to President Bush opposing the White House-endorsed Middle East "road map," which they perceived as being too lenient on the Palestinians.
[...]
In response to widespread reports issued by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other groups charging Israeli occupation forces of committing human rights abuses during its military offensive in the West Bank last year, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders went on record declaring that the Israeli attacks were completely justifiable and were aimed "only at the terrorist infrastructure." Pelosi also praised President Bush's "leadership" in supporting Sharon, whom the president declared to be "a man of peace," In fact, in a speech before the AIPAC convention in April, Pelosi denounced President Bush for suggesting that Israel needed to freeze construction of new settlements in the Occupied Territories, claiming that it gave comfort to Israel's enemies.
[...]
[Howard Dean's] campaign co-chair, Steve Grossman, is the former president of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). His only trip to Israel, which took place last fall, was organized and paid for by AIPAC and he did not meet with any prominent Palestinians or Israeli peace activists. Dean has described his attachment to Israel as "visceral."
In fact, Dean is widely seen as a hawk on Israel and Palestine. He has stated that his position is closer to the right-wing AIPAC, which allies itself with Israel's ruling Likud Bloc, than it is to Americans for Peace Now, which identifies with the Israeli peace movement and the more liberal Israeli parties.
Much to the chagrin of peace and human rights advocates, Dean supported the Bush Administration's recent $9 billion loan guarantee to Sharon without adding conditions, such as freezing new settlement activity in the Occupied Territories.
[...]
According to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland this May...a full 73 percent stated that the United States should not take either side in the conflict.
In other words, Senators Kerry and Lieberman and the House Democratic leadership have gone on record supporting the policies of the Bush administration against the will of an overwhelming majority of the American people.
This just makes me sick. Sounds like Kerry is as bad as any of them; and it's pointless to support Kucinich (though if he'd held his ground on abortion, I might have to seriously consider it). This is one area in which the Deaniacs are right about the Dems betraying the left (what's wrong with this picture, when the Republican Secretary of State is more progressive on Israel and Palestine than the leadership of both parties?). Only problem is, Dean himself--despite the flap over his "evenhanded" statement--is clearly in AIPAC's pocket as much as any of them. You know, if Dean took a clear, unequivocal anti-Sharon stance, it might be enough to overcome all my other objections to him. But alas, no.
So where does this leave me? Every major candidate has, one by one, let me down in some major, unforgivable way or another. Except--maybe--one: John Edwards, not mentioned in this article. And as far as I can tell from the Zogby Arab League site, he hasn't done or said anything as bad as the others (though he hasn't said anything particularly laudable either). Too bad working for him in Iowa seems--judging from the polls--pointless.
Oh, and btw, this reminds me: though I like to refer to Bob Novak as my polar opposite (I'm a left winger who supported the Iraq war; he's a right winger who opposed the war), that's actually not 100% true--not when it comes to this issue. He's a big critic of Israel in general and Sharon in particular. It's actually a bit bizarre to hear him grumble about the "right wing" in Israel, as though the right was a terrible side to be on (it is, but one wouldn't expect Novak to think so).