Lol, jews account for less than 2% of the population of the United States.
I think he means more the pro-Israel vote and lobbyists (most of whom incidentally are not Jewish).
Yes, I do. The direct Jewish vote is actually a little bit over 2% but the Jewish lobby, disproportionately to its size, is tremendously influential in the USA from the point of view of its status in the media and its money, with which politicians run campaigns. Jewish influence in American politics has for decades been well known to be significant and more recently, look at the tiny margin which George W Bush won in 2000.
On the question of the Appeasement parallel, there are some broad similarities, but I don't think that is as direct as DC is suggesting. For a start, in the 1930s, much of Europe and not just Britain was guilty of appeasing Hitler who might well have been stopped short in 1936, before he was really militarily strong, had a stand been taken on the Rhineland question. However the main difference is that in Europe in the 1930s there was a clear and direct threat to the appeasers themselves of a second conflict engulfing the continent and they failed to to act in such a way as to protect themselves from it. Much of what motivated this was a desire to avoid a repeat of 1914-18 but there is no such similar danger in the Israel scenario.
On the other hand, it could be argued that there is a limit to which the bigger powers can become involved in conflicts like the Middle East, even though they were involved in setting up the Jewish state in 1948 (and had to endure multiple acts of Jewish terrorism against them in the process by the way - please note that terrorism is not the sole preserve of Arabs.)
We already have a substantial argument that intervention in Iraq should never have happened. I would also imagine that few would suggest that we should go and give the North Koreans a sorting out for sinking the South Korean ship. You could even stretch this argument to ask why for 45 years we "appeased" the Russians when they did what they liked to countries like Hungary and Czechoslovakia etc. There is a limit to which the larger states can become the world's policemen in a military sense.
On the other hand there are probably diplomatic or economic pressures which the larger states could and indeed should be taking against Israel and which might well be effective, but which they are not applying. But there again the Appeasement analogy breaks down because sanctions of this nature would have been no use against Hitler and it was lack of early military intervention that was the problem.
I know what you mean. Obviously there are other things that had to be taken into consideration when it came to Hitler. Such as Versailles, Britian not ready for war, Communism a "Bigger" threat. But it was really just a broad comparison i was trying to make. Though i probably never made it sound like that.