Rivals Criticize Dean For Mideast Comment

What does this mean? That we can't have any fresh thinking in this Party? Do we all have to bow down and obey the lobby? BS Howard Dean is actually thinking outside the box and is making inroads in Bushbot's base and because of his call for being fair he is DOOMED?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45122-2003Sep8.html
Howard Dean came under fire yesterday from two rivals for the Democratic nomination for saying the United States should not "take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Several Democrats predicted Dean would pay a political price for his remarks. Democratic candidates receive a significant amount of money and support from the Jewish community. It would be hard for any Democrat considered soft on Israel by Jewish leaders to win the nomination, several party strategists said.

I cannot tell you how disgusted I am by this.
Don't allow special interests to destroy the campaign of this man.

Dean's wife is Jewish. I think this might give him some cover on this issue.

let's see... joe lieberman and john kerry. big surprise there. lieberman cos he's an asshole, well, that's a given. kerry's comments are groundless, as well as going to piss off a whole bunch of dean supporters. and, as for the region exploding into chaos, wtf does kerry think things are like there now?

I, for one, am glad to see a bit of pragmatism on the whole I/P issue. If the US is going to in any way broker a deal, it makes sense to try and be somewhat even-handed going in.

who have been critical of Dean being "aligned" with AIPAC? I am not sure Kerry's comments are going to play well with some of his own supporters. He is obviously bottom feeding off a Lieberman attack with his commnents. T

Dean has conflicting statements on this, and his stance is adrift. Let Dean get caught up with his inconsistencies.

Kerry's policy doesn't align with Joe's, in fact he was to Joe and Dean's left on this. Dean's shifting. I'm curious as to how this will play out when people start paying attention to the issue and exactly what Dean's final stance will be.

I know a number of American Islamic groups don't like him because they think he's too pro-Israel. He has said his views closely reflect those of AIPAC.

(I am a Dean campaign volunteer and do not share that view of him)

"As a first step in 2002, Dean named Massachusetts-based Steven Grossman, former head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and ex-chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to be a top fundraiser. Dean then took his campaign to Israel for a little vacation paid by AIPAC."

To do another flip flop.

He was sent to Israel by AIPAC, his speech in Israel showaed massive ignorance as to foreign affairs, Muslim Wake up and other Kucinich supporting Muslims slammed Deans MoveOn Campaign and were largely responsibl for Deans precipitous drop from the obvious winner of the primary when it was announced to keeping Dean from getting the endorsement.

In Vermont, such flip flops are not as obvious, at the national level, tryng to please EVERYONE, you end up pleasing no one.

It just wont wqork

I think its rather fair. This kinda confuses me, I thought Dean was pretty pro Israel. :shrug: no opinion just read the Kucinich position, hes had it for a while now.

In an interview, Dean sought to clarify his statement but did not back down from his belief that the United State cannot negotiate peace unless it is seen as a neutral party in the region. "Israel has always been a longtime ally with a special relationship with the United States, but if we are going to bargain by being in the middle of the negotiations then we are going to have to take an even-handed role," he said.

For more than 50 years, the United States has backed Israel as its closest ally in the region, providing the Jewish state with billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid. Dean does not advocate breaking the U.S.-Israeli alliance, but believes the only way to bring peace to the Middle East is for the president to broker a deal without playing favorites. A top Dean adviser said the former Vermont governor is doing nothing different than former president Bill Clinton did when he reached out to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians as a path to peace.

IMHO, Dean is smart to tie himself to Clinton's I/P policies.

And it seems to me that Lieberman and Kerry believe that Clinton was "soft on Israel" considering their blatantly political attacks.

Lieberman and Kerry are really grasping at straws this time.

Clinton's "plan" still would not have left the Palestinians with a viable state. Three bantustans cut off from the rest of the world on the West Bank and Gaza Strip are NOT a viable state.

The only workable solution is that Israel abides by the UN resolutions put in place after the 1967 war and withdraws from ALL occupied territories (include East Jerusalem) and the Palestinians are given a state of their own. Why is this so difficult to comprehend???

I don't know what Lieberman's position is and don't really care.

Kerry and Dean are close to the same page on Israel/Palestine. Kerry calls it parallel progress, Dean calls it even-handed. We all know all the debate about the wall in Israel and everything else and where Dean stands on Israel. This is a piece intend to cause divisiveness among Democrats, we need to stop rising to the bait. Some reporter probably asked 'what do you think of this'. Clue: 'if this is a well-thought-out position'; meaning it's probably second-hand reporting.

But, if Dean actually were to become President, he truly does have to understand that every single word he says comes under scrutiny. And in the international arena, serious damage can happen as a result of misspoken words.

and attack Dean.

You act as if they were huddled together with the reporter, clasping their hands and grinning evily, concocting mean things to say about Howard Dean.

The article says Lieberman released a statement. It doesn't say Kerry did, it says he responded to a question asked by a reporter. Obviously so the reporter could write the article. It sells papers. Besides, it is true, Israel is a US ally. They have been because ME countries have consistently attacked them for more than 50 years now. Dean's comments did sound like he wants to change that policy, which is kind of astounding. There's a difference between staying engaged and requiring I/P to both make concessions, like Clinton did; and saying that our interests in both should be equal. It is also true that he either needs to think about what he says or realize he's wrong.

Besides, Dean has had a free ride for 8 months now, saying pretty much anything he likes. He's playing with the 'big boys' now and if he can't stand the heat, he needs to get out of the kitchen. I think Harry Truman used to say that.

not surprised, Senator Kerry, disappointed...

Dean says we shouldn't "take sides" in the Mid-East. This coming from the guy who promised Ariel Sharon he would quad-f'n-duple the military aid going into the country, not to mention lavish loan guarantees. All he tells the Palestinians is they better clean up their act.

Now he's trying to come off as the Great White Hope and he's being taken to task for it. I notice there's no mention of him taking back his promises to AIPAC and Sharon. So much for the straight-shooter.

I believe he as "taken to task" for not blindly supporting Israel.

Like too many issues with Dean, this is about style, not substance. In substance, the roles are reversed. Now watch him squirm trying to please the Left and Sharon at the same time. Guess who'll get the words, and who'll get the $4 billion.

I've only ever seen HD say he believes in a 'two state' solution.

Comprehensive information here...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/Search?query=israel&inc=10&x=-1&y=-1

"Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers.

Usually, major-party candidates wait until they have a lock on the presidential nomination before diving to the center. Eager to avoid being hammered by the national press corps for supposed liberalism, Dean hasn't bothered to wait."

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/030626.html

See post #23 for links to reality.

And your boy publically condemned Dean, along with Lieberman for not unilaterally supporting Israel. There is no denying it and it is a disgrace.

As stated above, it is US policy to defend Israel. It has been since the 1940s and the ME invaded the day after Israel became a country. Israel hasn't had a moment's peace in all those years, constantly being invaded and threatened by every country in the ME. In that regard, the US is a defender of Israel's right to exist. If Dean is planning on changing that policy, it would be a MAJOR US policy shift and cause MAJOR 'ripples' through the ME. All at a time when we have troops on the ground, whether you agree with that or not, the troops are still there.

Now I don't think that's Dean's position, but he does need to measure his words. A President can't run around the world shooting off at the mouth without thinking through what he's saying.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

at telling people to educate themselves when they disagree with you and throwing around sarcasm and names.

Why not do some educating yourself? Where is the stated opinion wrong?

to lecture others for what she freely gives herself permission.

Learn something:

http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/backinfo.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Tried to encapsulate the entire I/P issue in a couple of sentences, on one side of the issue. You can think whatever you want about the Palestinians, but the fact remains, the US has traditionally stood beside Israel. If Dean is planning on changing that, it's a BIG deal. And that's ALL I said. I didn't even say I agreed with that policy, only that it IS the policy.

when your best effort arguing against somebody is to tell them to go "learn something" you do a serious disservice to your position. Why can't you see this? Sure at times it will take a ton of time to explain, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have provided the link (or just stated your disagreement) without intentionally trying to insult people.

If you don't think that it's rude to dismiss other points of view or to insult people's knowledge of a topic without feeling the need to justify their own positions, then I'm not sure whether your goal is to convince others that you're right or to just give yourself a false sense of superiority. As liberals, aren't we supposed to be open-minded (as opposed to the narrow-minds of the Right) and welcome civil discussion and debate? Please reconsider your approach. I won't be putting you on ignore though since I think it's important to hear what everybody's ideas are on the issues.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sure.

Think you can handle it? I mean, seriously, you can get pretty cranky on occasion. It ought to be fun to watch, though.

Also, I ought to say that I am sorry for jumping you. I got irritated because you were being dismissive without supplying any information of your own. The sad truth is that a lot of us are not as informed as we should be. How can we be informed on EVERY subject that comes up? But to me, instead of saying "go get informed", it is better to say, "go get informed...here.." and provide the information.

Burned out on the I\P issue. Debated it everyday for a couple years on a different site - had miles of bookmarks...Have gone to the I\P forum here just a few times due to a very high level of frustration around the issue. Cranky would be an improvement.

Understood.

Not tang, not jang, and not "whatever." It's a pretty common Korean last name. Yeah, the whole I/P debate can be very emotional and frustrating, but please show a little more sensitivity to not pissing people off. It's really not that hard.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

<>

Actually, the website is "Jews AGAINST Occupation". It really IS an informative site. The only problem is that I don't think it represents the expressed position of the Israeli government.

The US is and has been committed to defending Israel? Explain how that is spin.

Read the academic works on the subject-- read the coverage of the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson administrations.

It was not a done deal re: US = Israeli ally.

The reverse is just as true.

Enough with the spin.

Every President has come down on the side of Israel's right to exist when it comes right down to the question of Israel or no Israel. Over the course of time we have become their ally. That isn't the same as concluding Israel is always right or that their military tactics are right or that the Palestinians don't have serious and valid grievances. Our defense of Israel is the reason the US is the only country Israel really trusts and the reason the US has to stay engaged in order to ever hope for a peaceful resolution.

I am really stunned by the readiness of people to only consider one side of an issue on so many things. It amazes me.

They trust us?? Pollard anyone?

I am not confusing diplomacy and being an ally. I am talking about the decision-making process over decades. If you would take the time to actually read histories of our involvement in the region you would know that the relationship has not been warm all the time. It has, in fact, varied from president to president and within individual presidencies.

You accuse me (among others) of seeing only one side?? I am sorry--that is most assuredly the pot calling the kettle black. My point has been that the US relationship with Israel has not been the same--one has to look at it from a variety of vantage points over a series of decades rather than making some pithy statement about the traditionally close relationship between the US and Israel.

Before you continue along these lines, I suggest you read up on the issues.

There are disagreements, frustrations, outright anger. But every President has come down on the side of defending Israel if it means Israel or no Israel. I don't think we're saying anything different here. And if Israel doesn't trust the US, is there some other country they trust more?

Ask Ike in 1956...

and changed direction with Israel.

Ah-- that explains *everything*....

Good to know you're in Ike's head on that one. Too bad many of the historians missed that.

"I regret what I did. I never should have pressured Israel to evacuate the Sinai." Reported by Max Fisher (UJA)

Academic source??? Just wondering.

UJA stands for?

As for the author--not a name that jumps out.

Alliance Politics by Neustadt-- deals with 1956.

You ought to know who Max Fisher is. And if you don't, it means you haven't been thorough in your reading. And yeah, I'm flipping you shit, but hey, I shouldn't have to do your research for you.

Spare me the recess taunts.

Another person bites the dust in the name of ignorance.

You don't know who one of the most influential leaders of the Jewish community is and I'm the one who's ignorant. Okay.

Bye now.

I really DON'T know enough about this. I have also always assumed that the US was a traditional Israeli ally. Could you please either offer a brief explanation as to why this impression is false or offer a link that will explain it? I have Googled it a couple of times, but I keep getting things that are not quite what I am looking for.

I was referring to the Jonathan Pollard spy case at first.

In the rest of the post I was referring to the relationship between the US and Israel--

Numerous works are out there on the subject written from a variety of perspectives.

William Cleveland's History of the Modern Middle East is a good place to start to get a bare bones history of the region (very college textbook like)

From there one can then go onto more specialist oriented studies--

The major point in reading any of them is to realize whatever POV is taken--the author is still human and may have biases. It is up to you as the individual to judge what you find to be the most effective use of sources to support their contentions.

At the moment, Avi Shlaim's Iron Wall is an effective discussion of Israeli foreign policy. He has his detractors--some of whose critiques stand up to scrutiny, while others are just hogwash.

If you're like me, you'll come away understanding that the current situation is the intersection, basically, of 2 related forces.

One of them was the desire of European Jews--largely East-European Ashkenazim: they had pogroms--to take over Palestine, the region from which some of their remote ancestors were driven by the Romans some 2000 years ago. (I say 'some' because there had been a LOT of intermarriage with non-Semites, especially before they moved north and east from Italy in the 4th century. Whence the non-Semitic appearance of most Ashkenazim)

The second force was the virulent predjudice against Jews that had results ranging from Jews changing their surnames and getting 'nose jobs' to pogroms and the Holocaust. Because of that prejudice, no country was willing to give sanctuary to more than a few of the displaced Jewish survivors of WW2.

But the Great Powers had a solution! Since n*gg*rs, including 'sand n*gg*rs' were even further down the pecking order than Jews, it was thought perfectly okay for the UN (really the US, as usual) to give Palestine to the Zionists as a Jewish homeland (the Brits had offered them a large chunk of Uganda early in the 20th c., but they'd declined). Giving them half of Palestine allowed the Allied nations to relieve their racist guilt at no cost to themselves (pity about the ragheads, of course, but omelets and eggs).

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the dominant Zionist mythology was that (a) God really had told the Jews that they could have all of Palestine and (b) there was nobody living there anyhow. So, once the world had handed over half the Palestinian Arabs' land --51%, actually, and the better 51%, too-- to the Jews and washed their hands, the Zionists started driving out the remaining 'nobodies'.

And things went even more sharply downhill from there.

the impression that I had gotten from the other things I had read. It is a totally shitty situation. On the one hand, you have a hard time saying that the Jews should not have a homeland. On the other, you have to have sympathy for some guy whose family has been tending the same land for 500 years who is suddenly told, "You're outta here, bud." And when you look at the grinding poverty that so many Palestinians live in, it is hard to not be sympathetic. I do not support any kind of terrorism. It is horribly wrong to strap a bomb to yourself and go blow up innocent people. But I can also see where it is just as wrong for events to push someone to the point where they can be brainwashed into thinking that is their only option.

It is a sucking blackhole. I really wish we could just say, "hey guys, good luck. When you figure out your peace, let us know".

Arafat runs the show and as a terrorist he simply can't be an honest peacemaker. He's a one-trick pony, who whether he wants peace or not, is still a fighter at the core. I'm not sure the PLO even has the capacity to disarm Hamas and the other groups, which is sad since I think most Palestinians want a peace deal.

A German friend of my brother (who was pro-Palestinian) visited there and came across Palestinians who actually sig-hailed (sorry don't know German spelling) him and liked him because of the Holocaust! Now I'm not saying most Palestinians think this, but it does indicate the huge gap that needs to be crossed before the hatred doesn't get in the way of a deal.

As for the treatment in the past, I find it shameful that other Arab nations claim solidarity with them, but fund terror that makes the situation worse for them.

The analogy I always use is when my big brother and I got into fights when we were little, he'd pin me on the ground when he didn't want to fight anymore (4 yrs older and much bigger). I'd tell him to get off, but he'd say I'll get off if you calm down and promise not to try to hit me. I'd tell him I'll do that once he gets off of me. If he didn't agree, I'd try hitting him to convince him to get off me. And so on and so forth, until my parents broke it up (*perhaps the key insight here).

Uri Avnery doesn't seem to believe that's true. And he seems like a fairly smart man who has unimpeachable Israeli credentials: ex-terrorist, ex-Knesset member, founder of Gush Shalom, and someone who's known Arafat for a long time.

It has been since the 1940s and the ME invaded the day after Israel became a country

That's what we're led to believe by the pro-Zion lobby, although the facts on the ground were vastly different.

The King of Jordan's army only came to the aid of the Palestinians AFTER terroristic Zionists had kicked the Palestinians out of their land in the new state of Israel and AFTER Israel had occupied land that had been allocated to the new Palestinian state in the partition agreement. Arab troops NEVER entered Israel's territory in 1948, while Israel's forces not only forcibly evicted Palestinians living in Jewish territory, but invaded Palestinian territory and added it to Israel.

My sources include:
Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky.

The Question of Palestine by Edward Said.

Also, visit this site for links to anti-Zionist Israelis who disagree with the US's and Israel's current policy toward the Palestinians.

The Israelis caused it all, the Arabs welcomed them with open arms. History 101. Got it.

I said that Israel occupied territory that was allocated to a Palestinian state in 1948. They took territory that was not given to them per the Balfour Declaration. Look it up, even the Israelis and the most rabid pro-Zionists agree on this.

All I'm stating is well-documented historical FACT. Israel took land that didn't belong to them in 1948.

I'm not anti-Israel-- I've got some Jewish blood in my veins. I believe Israel has a right to exist, as does the PLO and many Arabs. However, I don't think that Israel has a right to territories it has "settled"/annexed since 1967-- nor does the UN, either.

I believe that there needs to be a viable Palestinian state for the Palestinians (composed of ALL the territory Israel has occupied since 1967), and that they are entitled to reparations from the Israeli government for the property they lost to Israel since 1947.

Yes. And war is part of the reason, no matter how you want to slice up whose fault it is. Any solution needs to consider all sides and there will have to be give and take on both sides. I am not one-sided on this issue at all. Israel's behavior with the military actions in Palestinian areas repulses me. However, I think it is too common today to ignore the past and it has been a difficult past and Israel does have everything to lose.

My only point was that Dean appeared to say some things that go directly against US policy. He either needs to be more careful in his statements or openly state he wants a new direction and stand behind it firmly. And if it is the latter, that would be a MAJOR policy shift. That's all I said.

unless we start giving the Palestinians a billion dollars a year? That is kind of a silly thing to say, don't you think? How can we treat them equally??

Israeli aid constitutes 30% of the total US foreign aid budget, which renders Israel to be the largest recipient of US aid in the world. It promotes the illegal occupation of Palestinian land in order to establish settlements for Jewish immigrants, transforms Palestine into a military test ground, and violates US law and abuses of human rights.

Since 1987, the US congress has annually been approving a foreign aid bill totaling an average of $3 billion of American taxpayers' money to Israel, $1.2 billion in economical aid, and $1.8 billion in military aid.

After the gulf war in 1991, the US has additionally been offering Israel $2 billion annually in federal loan guarantees, which brings the total US foreign aid to Israel to about $5 billion, or $13.7 million per day.

Seventy five percent of US military aid to Israel goes into purchasing US-made military equipment, such as tanks, machine guns, bullets, helicopter gunships, and more. The US depends on Israel to test new military technologies in war conditions. For example, uranium-depleted ammunition has been fired at civilians in Palestine.

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=753&CategoryId=4

Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

<>

:boring:

http://deandefense.org/archives/000647.html

Deans stated position...

"Howard Dean is committed to achieving a negotiated, comprehensive, and just peace between Palestinians and Israelis and remains optimistic about the chances for peace. The greatest asset in that effort is that majorities of both Palestinians and Israelis accept a two-state solution which would guarantee security, sovereignty, and dignity.

Recent developments in the region have created a new sense of opportunity. Any steps that lead away from violence and toward peace need to be encouraged and assisted. Continuing this progress will require the full engagement of the United States at the highest level. U.S. disengagement from the process during much of the Bush Administration has been unacceptable. No other country but the United States has the credibility necessary to facilitate negotiations and to mediate between the parties. Yet, in the end, only the Palestinians and the Israelis themselves can make and keep the peace and work out the specifics of a lasting agreement. Peace cannot be imposed by outside parties.

The basic framework for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a two state solution -- a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state. The best approach to achieving lasting peace is a comprehensive one, providing for fully normalized relations, peace, and security as part of an overall negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arab states.

To get there, the Palestinian Authority will have to fight terrorism and violence on a consistent basis to create the conditions necessary for a viable peace process. The Israeli government will have to work to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people and ultimately will have to remove a number of existing settlements. These issues and others will all be elements of a final agreement negotiated by the parties."

Depending on his audience.

Ho hum. Who cares?

There is nothing he says here that Bush has not already said regarding a two-state solution. Like too many things, Dean is big on evoking the right sentiments - always vague, naturally - to make liberal hearts flutter, and small on providing details. He is fast becoming the king of omitting inconvenient information.

I see nothing here that would contradict his promises to AIPAC and Sharon of financial and military aid to continue their current agenda.

in Dean's policy statement on I/P:

The basic framework for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a two state solution -- a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state. The best approach to achieving lasting peace is a comprehensive one, providing for fully normalized relations, peace, and security as part of an overall negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arab states. (Emphasis in bold mine.)

How is that a balanced policy for all concerned? Israel gets billions in military aid but as a newly formed state the Palestinians are to have no defense capabilities?

As they say in Little League,"Good eye!"

This is very typical of Dean on I/P - sounding like one thing, and slipping in a very imbalanced scale on the sly.

he also wants the Israelis to abandon "some" of their settlements in the occupied territories, NOT ALL OF THEM, as the UN and the international community (sans the US) has demanded for the last 30+ years.

Dean's peace policy == another Oslo. The Palestinians would still get a few bantustans, but little (if any) sovereignty.

Seems to me that Howard's comments smack of a double standard.

That's the US policy on the matter. THEY decide. Israel is our strategic ally, we will defend Israel if it ever came down to it, but the details of their peace agreement need to be resolved by them. Not making public demands on Israel is supposed to remove the impression that we can force Israel into doing anything. Not making public demands on Palestine removes the notion that we are shoving something down their throats on behalf of Israel. There's alot of reasons things have come about over the years in that conflict, and I don't think Howard Dean gets it. His statement that Israel will 'have' to remove "enormous numbers of settlements" goes right to the heart of it. It's not appropriate to say what any country is going to HAVE to do. It would appear words mean an awful lot in international relations and Howard Dean really needs to get up to speed on the language of diplomacy. It's not a 'bash', it's what would be required of any President.

I'm not arguing with you, just adding thoughts.

WTF does that mean?

Israeli settlements in ANY occupied territories are ILLEGAL. PERIOD. THEREFORE, THEY MUST GO.

Israel's settlements violate international law and rules of war, and fly in the face of countless UN resolutions. THE SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL BY ANY DEFINITION, AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CALLED ILLEGAL.

If Israel truly wants peace with the Arabs, it needs to get the hell out of occupied Palestine and return to its pre-1967 borders. It also needs to pay reparations to the Palestinian families it ethnicly cleansed from their homes in 1948, when it overstepped the bounds of its Mandate and annexed portions of the Palestinian territories.

Unfortunately, Dean (like most of the candidates) is no friend of Palestine. How could he possibly even pretend to be "even-handed" in any negotiations?

Have the US step in and DEMAND one thing of Israel, and you're going to have a whole string of demands. That's why it's THEIR peace process. You and I can think it'd be easiest to just sit them down, draw it up, and kick ass if they don't abide. But we've done that before. That's how we ended up with the whole mess in the first place.

I am probably saying something really stupid here, but how can we just say "It is their peace process" when we give billions of dollars of aid to Israel and virtually zippo to Palestine? Even if we don't sit down at the table, we are there by default. The situation is horrifically unequal and that is partially due to the US. I have no idea how to solve the problem, it is extremely complex. But I do think that we are going to have to do something more proactive than just say, "OK, guys, we have armed one of you to the teeth and given them a thousand times the aid than the other. You guys just work it out now." That is like having two kids fighting over a toy and saying, "OK, Johnny, I am going to give you an AK-57 and Brittany, I am going to give you a slingshot. Now you guys work out how to share the toy."

This may be an embarrassingly simplistic way of looking at things. I truly do not know as much about this as I should.

We probably have in the past, behind the scenes. I've read bits and pieces about withholding money because of the wall. I haven't delved into it alot, but it's definitely been discussed enough to make news.

When I try to think like a 'world leader' or something, I take off my humanitarian hat and put on my asshole hat. You'd have to first believe there's a definite US interest in protecting Israel at all costs. The Jewish people have a right to their homeland. Or, the US likes having Jewish allies to spy in the Middle East. Or, we like having a sort of proxy military base to take over Saudi Arabia if we really really need the oil. They definitely provided 'intelligence' with this Iraq thing, although we can see how dubious that is. Anyway, some US interest to defend Israel if it came to Israel or no Israel. The Jewish people do have a right to their homeland is good enough for me.

If you further believe that if the US backed off from that position that Israel would be attacked and be no more, then you see the reason that it can't be done. And if the rest of the ME got the impression that the US was willing to make demands on Israel, then it could lead to a situation where more countries might start demanding more concessions. They've all had gripes at one time or other. I think we pay Egypt $20 billion a year to keep the peace with Israel. And then there's Syria and Lebanon and the Golan Heights and water resources and all kinds of stuff.

At the same time, if the US started making demands on the Palestinians, then the US would be accused of siding with Israel and shoving a peace process down the Palestinians throats so to speak.

So the position Clinton took was that the US makes no demands. It's their peace process. Both sides are respected. In fact, I remember when Hillary took alot of heat when she suggested a Palestinian State. Bush is the first President to officially utter those words. But he has also gone alot further in backing Israel at the same time.

So that's how I see it, if it makes any sense. Others will undoubtedly see it differently. And I don't see one side or the other as always right, it's just a very old, complicated mess.

looks like it's Kerry's problem now.

I don't see Kerry tripping over himself to kiss Sharon's ass, while Steve Grossman plays the pimp.

Pucker up.

could someone be criticized for even suggesting
that it might be a good idea to treat palestinians fairly.

oh yeah, peace,peace, we all want peace, bla bla bla.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_middleeast.htm
:thumbsup:

but I think they're too busy snapping at each other here.

Dennis has it all right, though. The Tikkun proposal (co-written with Kucinich) is about the only way I see Peace between Israel and Palestine. You wanna talk about being even-handed? THAT'S even-handed, no double-standards. You call for a complete cessation of aggression from BOTH sides and give the Palestinians back their home country. You stop kissing Israeli behind and say look you're both acting like jacka**es now knock it off!

Only Kucinich would say it a lot more diplomatically than I just did. :evilgrin:

"Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it.

While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

<>

Certainly sound reasoning on Kerry's part. I think my question is HOW does the world go about helping them. More importantly (for US voters) how does the US do it?

Next, how do you stop "extremists"? I'm not sure that's possible, to be honest. It's my personal opinion that Palestinians have decades of being without a home country, essentially having their country stolen from them, to be angry about and a few platitudes from other national leaders isn't going to change that. (please, please do NOT try to drag me into a debate over who is right or wrong, I'm not going there.)

My gut says Kerry isn't the guy to negotiate this situation. No insult meant to him, but I suspect his military background might work against him in that effort. I like Kucinich for peace negotiations for many reasons. He has a history in it, he's helped write the Tikkun peace proposal for the I/P conflict, and he's won the Ghandi Peace award. In negotiations toward Peace, I firmly believe he's the man we want.

Despite what Dean people might want to tell you.

Let me give a little clarification as to the notion of "parallel concessions." Parallel concessions is the step-by-step reduction of violence by both parties, with the understanding that the goal is stability, not capital-P Peace.

Waiting for some fairy-tale complete and utter cessation of violence is ridiculous, and yet this is a condition of most unilateral concession visions, including Dean's. Stability will never come to the region if Israel waits for Palestinians to completely end attacks, especially while Israel is destroying their basic needs infrastructure, halting their produce markets, imposing curfews, and firing missiles into crowded streets.

Although he'll never win a Gandhi award, Kerry is a very diplomatic man (as opposed to his wife, who cuts right to the chase). But despite his diplomacy, he is also single-mindedly focused on achieving the goal set before him. He actually thrives on great challenges, and the Middle East is certainly no exception.

Other candidates, cough cough, are much less diplomatic than Kerry. Although the politics may be left-leaning, these "other candidates" are equally capable of acting like a cowboy. Given the very un-Presidential compromises these "other candidates" have shown to Israel, it is hard to consider them as very good choices for brokering peace even-handedly, despite their claims of following in Clinton's footsteps. Unless Clinton promised to QUADRUPLE their military aid, that would be a hard claim to make in honesty. But, hey, I like a straight-shooter as much as the next guy.

milataristic. My sole point was his military background might be problematic when it comes to building trust on either side of the I/P dispute. I could very well be wrong about that, and wouldn't dream of suggesting that as anything other than my opinion and perceptions of Kerry in general.

He seems to be a pretty tough talker for the most part, and I suspect that's why I mentioned his military background. I don't in any way dislike Kerry or think he's not a good candidate for the Presidency. I've seen that some do, and I disagree. I think his overall experiences contribute to him being one of the most qualified candidates in the field.

I think as far as comparing Kerry with my chosen candidate, I just have a better sense of Kucinich's platform than Kerry's. Kucinich's suits my world-view both in basic premise and in the detailed explanations of his plans that he's put forth. There are very few questions asked about Kucinich that I haven't been sure I knew the response to, and later discovered I was right on the mark.

Kerry to Dean? I MUCH prefer Kerry, any day. He's not perfect, but I believe he's more honest and straightforward than Dean, based PURELY on my own observations, so Deanites, PLEASE do not ask me to back that up because it's been done to death.

That I feel very strongly about this issue. I am probably closest to Kucinich in my feelings on most issues. I think of him kind of like Nader without the egotism. I loved Nader's platform, but I really wasn't crazy about the man.

I see Kerry as the closest thing to a progressive we will see in the White House, at least for a few elections. I had really thought I would campaign for Kucinich, but I got this bizarre and uncharateristic streak of pragmatism.

Kerry's not the easiest guy to defend, either. It is so easy to just write off his Iraq vote and be done with him. But I really think he voted his conscience, and that if he were President, things would have been very different. And, honestly, I agree with almost everything he says. I wish he were a little more personable and easy-going, but the White House isn't a sit-com IMO. (Disclaimer: I'm a big West Wing fan)

As for militaristic, check out what the GOP thinks of his long history of slashing military budgets (and I mean long):

http://www.gop.com/newsroom/rncresearch/research071803.htm

<>

Ok, so he steals ice cream from children. But who doesn't have faults?

(I'm asking only for the sake of information--I really don't know)

when he voted for the war resolution ... and then went on to say Bush is a good man blah, blah, blah. BTW, I like Kerry in spite of his short comings. ;)

Thought the article below was related to the conversation here.

"Recently, Muslim Wake Up posted an indictment of Howard Dean as "Sharon's Man" based on initial clues on his position towards the Middle East conflict.

It is undeniable that Dean has said that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are "in line with AIPAC's". And it is true that Dean considers resolution of the conflict to start with the cessation of terrorism, which in my view is mistaken because it puts cart before horse. Others have noted with alarm that Dean has named Steven Grossman (former head of AIPAC) as his chief fundraiser.

However, this does not mean that Dean is "Sharon's man." In fact the naming of Grossman is a clear indicator of Dean's inherent balance and affinity for moderation. In 1993, Grossman persuaded AIPAC to issue a unanimous declaration of support for the Oslo accords. Grossman supported Bill Clinton in 1991 after Tsongas dropped out, and left AIPAC in 1997 as a more bipartisan and balanced organization than ever before (or since).... READ ON HERE...

http://deandefense.org/archives/000662.html

Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

That is 4x the loan guarantees ($2 billion to $8 billion) and 4x the military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion). Without virtually any strings, which is further than even Paul f'n Wolfowitz is willing to go.

Deans trip to Israel was piad by and because of his support for AIPAC.

Again and Again, Dean flip flops:

Democratic presidential hopeful to 'Post: I back loan guarantees:
CAROLINE B. GLICK. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Dec 5, 2002. pg. 01
Abstract (Article Summary)
"Israel is a democracy, the only democracy aside from Turkey in the region. Israel has incurred severe economic damage as a result of being forced to fight this war. I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees and thereby enabling Israel's economy to grow, the US will be advancing its own interest," he said.

also believes it is important for the ...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/abstract/258437741.html?did=258437741&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&PMID=34400&desc=Democratic+presidential+hopeful+to+%27Post:+I+back+loan+guarantees


In a major foreign policy speech earlier this year, Dean, while calling for an end to Palestinian violence, did not call for an end to Israeli violence, let alone an end to the illegal Israeli occupation.

And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Wanna know the REAL reason for thiis newest of Dean shifts:

MWU! Helps Defeat Dean in MoveOn Primary
Well, may be we weren't completely responsible for Howard Dean falling short of the 50% he needed in the MoveOn.org virtual primary to gain the group's official endorsement, and all the campaign cash that would have entailed, but we'd like to think we played a small role in his defeat.

Before our expose of the alleged "anti-war" candidate's glaring inconsistencies regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issue and US foreign policy toward Iran, Dean looked like he had a strong chance for a MoveOn endorsement. However, our article, along with others, helped sway potential Dean voters, who began to wonder whether Dean was all that he really claimed to be. Not only does Dean sound hawkish on some foreign policy issues, his positions on the death penalty, welfare "reform," and gun control leave much to be desired.


http://www.muslimwakeup.com/archives/000130.html

earlier this year?

Maybe if we had his speech we could compare and see what he's telling various audiences.

Is that what he's trying to do? One of Dean's weak spots is his rather outgoing support for Israel. A lot of his more liberal backers have qualms with that, but are willing to overlook it. If you want evidence, Dr. Funk has already provided it.

I can't really blame Kerry for jumping on Dean for this. There's a difference between being supportive of Israel, and being anti-Palestinian. John Kerry believes in an Israeli state, therefore he is pro-Israel, while he strongly believes in fairness for the Palestinians. Dean's stance has been more one-sided, FOR the Israelis, such as the wall, blah blah blah...

But for Dean to say that America, after spending billions in helping Israel, should just sit back, is very contradictory to his previous beliefs, and stupid as well. Perhaps Dean meant that America should care more for the Palestinians (a view he has not particularly shared in trips to Israel), but the way he said it made it sound like he wanted America to sit back while the Arabs and Jews just ripped at each other.

Dean is not some noble champion for the Palestinians. He is, like most American politicians, a supporter of Israel. His latest quip distorts his stance, perhaps as a ploy to pander to the Democratic left to get them energized for the primaries, then make his inevitable shift to the center for the general election. For all you Deaners who are spewing hatred at Kerry's pro-Zionism or whatever, Dean is more Zionist than Kerry. Just watch that your words don't backfire.

Because he supports PEACE and a permanent and fair solution. He always has. Just because you read that he supports Israel somewhere it doesn't mean that he doesn't support Palestinians. A fair, impartial and honest person is fully capable of being supportive and respectful of both sides. And frankly, it's going to take someone who is able to do that to help find peace. Just as Dean says terror attacks need to stop, he also says that settlements have to go and Palestinians need their own state. In fact, his is the most impartial, even, and most fair voice I've ever heard speak on the issue. You simply haven't heard all he has to say on the issue. Perhaps you should make the effort to do that before jumping to conclusions.

Bush supports a two-state solution and says some settlements need to go. The only major difference that I see is that Dean is much more enthusiastic about the settlement wall than Bush.

I am not jumping to conclusions at all. I have read every foreign policy address that Dean has written, and they all emphasize that Palestinians must end terrorism, and Israel must defend itself. That is not a kneejerk reaction. That is his stated foreign policy. I am glad that he is now at least sounding more balanced, but I have yet to see him call for true parallel concessions such as Kerry calls for.

So I'm loooking at this from a bit of a different vantage point than you are. I've seen the way he deals with things and he is always fair and sensible. The man will NOT compromise when it comes to human rights, civil rights and human dignity. When he sees Sharon doing things he shouldn't be doing, Dean will not hesitate to call him up and tell him to knock the shit off. Dean won't be intimidated or owned by ANY special interest group. It's just not going to happen. He will do the right thing even if it means it puts him in danger. I don't share your view of Kerry being more fair to Palestinians. Not by a long shot. I know you like him, but frankly, he lacks the backbone to stand up for Palestinians against the Israeli government when it's necessary. Dean doesn't lack that kind of courage and backbone.

Lead...MY ASS!

Promising to quadruple the loan guarantees ($2 billion to $8 billion) and military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion) without negotiating ANY strings - all while on a trip entirely on AIPAC dime - sounds kinda like being just a teency bit compromised.

Does it sound very Presidential to you?

It sure doesn't sound like "courage and backbone" to me. If anything, Kerry's call for parallel concessions is about as far as is even politically sane to do in the Democratic Party. How do you think AIPAC feels about that?

They'd probably feel a whole lot better if Kerry took one of their famous tours of the Middle East...

He is pro-Israel.

More and more, Dean is talking out both sides.

Just heard him ROCK on Wolfowitz...

He supported Gulf War I (which directly led to 9-11), Afghanistan, and the bombing of Serbian civilian targets during Kosovo.

Dean is not pro-peace. He's "pro-kicking foreigner ass when the US can win at it". There's a very big difference.

He's not a 'pacifist', he's pro peace .... not pro israel regarding the mid east, which is what this thread is about mmmmk?

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

On one hand, you have Karoake's account of Dean being fair and peaceful. On the other hand, you have Dr. Funk's evidence of Dean's promising Sharon 8 billion dollars, a 4-fold increase, in his AIPAC funded trip. Either way, Dean is no longer that good of a straight shooter.