Why are the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot?

I am a Democrat in part because, historically, the Democrats have been pro-Israel - even moreso than the Republicans. A Pentagon memo states that the land Israel acquired in the 1967 war is of strategic importance. (reference) Namely, that the Israeli borders are not defensible without this land. It would be suicidal of Israel to just give up this land without any assurance of peace. As a perfect example, we all know what happened after Israel gave up Gaza. It is my belief that if Israel were to give the West Bank to Hamas as of today with nothing in exchange except a smile, Israel would be well on its way towards annhilation. Hamas already has stated it hopes to wipe Israel off the map - it is in their very charter. They still have yet to recognize Israel's existence. Giving them land means giving them a launchpad with which to to send missiles and rockets into Israel. (see: Gaza, as a perfect example) Tel Aviv is less than 20 miles from the tip of the West Bank. It would face a daily barrage of rockets, as Sderot does, if this land is given up unequivocably to Hamas. According to Jimmy Carter and far too many Dems (though recently also the Repubs under Baker/Gates), the ability for Israel to defend itself is basically irrelevant. Instead, the entire burden is on Israel, who must somehow unequivocably give up the West Bank to Hamas and Golan Heights to Hizballah. If the Jews give up the West Bank, they will not have access to their holy sites within them, even as they grant full access to the holy sites for Muslims within Israel in present day. Furthermore, should Israel give up all this land, it would be Judenrein - free of Jews. Yet there is this absurd expectation that Jews should flee the West Bank (and grant it to Hamas), while allowing Arab Israelis full citizenship in Israel. (oh yeah, and the Palestinians also want a right of return, on top of that!) Finally, Israel also must not fire back when shot at. Doing anything less than all of this somehow equals apartheid. The standards that Jimmy Carter and those who agree with him give for Israel are so over the top extreme, that they are more fit for Arafat, NOT an upstanding member of the Democratic party. If Jimmy Carter's desires are granted by Israel, then in fact it would be a monumental injustice, for the reasons I cited. It would lead Israel down the path of its annhilation. The only thing Carter forwards is the notion that Democrats are anti-Israel. This is why I am so horrified by him and anyone who agrees with him, as Israel is one of the most important topics in the world to me, and I grew up thinking that Democrats supported Israel, while Republicans, such as Reagan and Bush Sr, did not. I guess times are changing, though thankfully, mainstream Dems such as Pelosi and Dean and even leftist Dems such as John Conyers have come out against Carter's book and have expressed condemnation for what he is advocating. -Red Tulips P.S.: One last thing I remembered, which you would not know by reading Carter's book...Jordan illegally annexed the West bank after the 1948 war, and the Palestinians who lived within that land had no real civil rights to speak of between 1948-1967. (in fact, Jordan has killed more Palestinians than Israel has in its entire history - see the 1970 war - "Black September") My point is that the UN resolution 242 makes no note of Jordan's illegal annexation of the land, and Carter does not mention this, either. In 1967, there was a real question as to who the land should be returned to, the Palestinians or Jordan. There remains that question to this day as the Palestinians are fighting an internal struggle between Hamas and Fatah to determine its future, and more Palestinians are killed by Palestinians than by Israel. I am trying to save the Democratic party from itself. The existence of Baker and Gates is really not a shock, as I assumed that this represented the true beliefs of the Republicans all along. The widespread support for Carter, on the other hand, deeply troubles me.