Jewish Democratic Council seeks to change MoveOn's website (Dean reaction)

A Jewish Democratic group is seeking to remove what it considers "unbalanced" material from the Web site of a group it is calling "an important and influential progressive organization."

The National Jewish Democratic Council is asking its members to contact MoveOn.org, a grassroots left-liberal organization that uses the Internet to build electronic advocacy groups, about material it has posted about the Middle East "road map."

The material, in a MoveOn June bulletin that is permanently posted on the site, "is totally slanted, biased, factually inaccurate and gives comfort to those who would say progressives are not pro-Israel," said the council's executive director, Ira Forman. "It's totally out of sync with the attitude and policy stance of the Democratic Party and its leadership."

The bulletin pins the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit on Israel's then-prime minister Ehud Barak, places the blame for the start of the intifada on Ariel Sharon's "provocative visit" to the Temple Mount later that year and discounts the road map as "far from being a bona fide peace proposal." The bulletin also links to other sites that oppose the West Bank security fence and critique Sharon's policy on settlements.

Courted avidly by the Democratic presidential contenders, MoveOn made its biggest splash so far in June with an online "primary" that was won by insurgent candidate Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor. In a news release last month, Dean, whose Internet-savvy campaign garnered 139,360 "votes" in that effort, called the primary "participatory democracy at its finest" and "a milestone that will be remembered."

Asked to comment on the MoveOn material, Dean policy director Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote in an e-mail message to the Forward on behalf of the campaign: "The only positions that should matter to voters in this election are those taken by the governor himself. Howard Dean's position on the Middle East was clearly laid out in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. Along with solid majorities of Israelis and Palestinians, he favors a two-state solution bringing peace and security to both peoples, negotiated with strong leadership from the United States. As president, Howard Dean will maintain America's historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security."

more: http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.07.25/news3.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.

among other things. They don't even mention Sharon's responsibility for the unending cycle of violence since he took office: egging on the suicide bombers by promising that their bombs will always cut off peace talks, targeting Palestinians for assassination every time there seems to be prospects for progress in negotiations, allowing an increased flow of settlers and outposts, military provocations in Palestinian areas, and so on.

From his Georgetown Foreign Policy Speech:

"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."

Another interesting comment by Kerry on Israel.

"I went to Jerusalem a number of years ago on an official journey to Israel and I was absolutely fascinated by the 32 or so different branches of Catholicism that were there. That's before you even get to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. I have spent a lot of time since then trying to understand these fundamental differences between religions in order to really better understand the politics that grow out of them. So much of the conflict on the face of this planet is rooted in religions and the belief systems they give rise to. The fundamentalism of one entity or another.

So I really wanted to try to learn more. I've spent some time reading and thinking about it and trying to study it and I've arrived at not so much a sense of the differences but a sense of the similarities in so many ways; the value system roots and the linkages between the Torah, the Koran and the Bible and the fundamental story that runs through all of this, that connects us-and really connects all of us."

Hopefully progressives are pro-truth, not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine.

Dean is not exactly the most progressive figure on the Middle East peace process. Besides arguing FOR the continuation of enormous wall - OPPOSED by MoveOn.com - that cuts deep into Palestinian lands, he also favors a unilateral cease fire on the parts of the Palestinians before Israelis withdraw from the occupied territories (whose Israeli population has already gone up by 5000 THIS YEAR).

See David Corn's interview with Dean to verify this.

Kerry, on the other hand, makes clear his support of Israeli long-term security through PARALLEL conditions to the peace process - the position the progressive community takes.

who advocates an even-handed approach in the interests of peace and justice!


I don't see Dean as very progressive on the issue, when you say your views are more in line with AIPAC's than with Americans for Peace Now, I find that quite telling.

Perhaps this is an issue that most of MoveOn's members either do not see this as a high priority, or do not agree with MoveOn on this.

that Dean was progressive on this issue. Now that people are beginning to examine the issues more closely, how long do you think this will continue? This happens to be one of my major issues.

Progressives care about his issue much more than AIPAC wants us to think and the opinions have shifted radically since we began looking into I/P. This is precisely why AIPAC and the ADL have been raising a hullaballoo over anti-Semitism on the Left, establishing sites like Daniel Pipe's famous Campus Watch (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=31912&mesg_id=31912&page= ), distributing talking points to battalions of supporters whose job it is to prevent the left from having any meaningful discussion on the subject. Did you read the Luntz-Wexner Analysis?

The document, entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication
Priorities 2003," counsels pro-Israel advocates to keep invoking the
name of Saddam Hussein, and to stress that Israel "was always behind
American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate
their people." Despite his solid support for Israel and Ariel Sharon,
the document warns pro-Israel advocates not to compliment or praise
President Bush. At the same time it acknowledges that Yasser Arafat has
been a great asset to Israel because "he looks the part" of a
"terrorist." The installation of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime
minister, and potential replacement for Arafat, comes "at the wrong
time," because he has the potential to improve the image of the
Palestinians, and that could put the onus on Israel to return to
negotiations. The document advises supporters of Israel to appear to
affect a "balanced" tone, but admits that in arguing for Israel's
policies, the illegal "settlements are our Achilles heel," for which
there is no good defense.

The document was commissioned by the Wexner Foundation, a private
foundation that funds, among other pro-Israel initiatives, "Birthright Israel," a program that pays for young American Jews to take free trips to Israel.

Here is some of the key advice the document provides to Israel and its advocates:

# "Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq.
This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of
support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and
opposition from some of our European "allies." For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people."

# "The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three
months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was
absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own "road map" for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism."

# "It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don't use George Bush as a synonym for the United States. Even with the
destruction of the Hussein regime and all the positive reactions from
the Iraqi people, there still remains about 20% of America that opposes the Iraqi war, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat. That leaves about half the Democrats who support the war even if they don't support George Bush. You antagonize the latter half unnecessarily every time you compliment the President. Don't do it."

# ""SECURITY" sells. Security has become the key fundamental principle for all Americans. Security is the context by which you should explain Israeli need for loan guarantees and military aid, as well as why Israel can't just give up land. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates."

# Download the document now
http://electronicIntifada.net/artman/uploads/luntzwexneranalysis.pdf
electronicintifada.net/artman/uploads/ luntzwexneranalysis.pdf

Dean's supports have too much invested emotionally to dump him on this one issue.

but I think it will turn off a majority of Kucinich supporters and independents. All depends how much "noise" kicks up around this issue.


My objective POV is that it was a tactical error for JDC to even bring this up. Now there will be noise and you know how quickly noise spreads on the internet and people start visiting pages they never would have seen before and asking questions.

Time will tell...


I only hope that if Dean is as good a man as most of his supporters think, that he will re-examine this issue. From what I read he hardly knew anything about the ME until AIPAC sponsored that trip and he called Gary Hart a few days prior saying "Gary, what do I do?". It's a shame that he will take the AIPAC view. I just realized why:


Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean: Steve Grossman, 56, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and unsuccessful 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate, is chairman of Dean's finance team. Grossman, former president of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, signed-on with Dean very early, and having the former party chairman lent credibility to his then-fledgling campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/30/politics/printable561070.shtml

On edit: Very astute comment about the emotional investment. As a Kucinich supperter, I wish that weren't the case but I see that investment loud and clear at DU. Another very sad aspect of these political times.

I think Kucinich is that man.

And that's the problem with all emotion- rather than issues-based support--it takes a major destructive event before the victims can bring themselves to walk away.

Once his stance on the I/P situation was my greatest worry about supporting him, but as I read more of what he's said and wrote, I realize he's more moderate on this issue than he might seem.

As my avatar states, Kucinich for President!

I like his approach to it also, just as I like his Tikkun approach to life. It's no wonder Rabbi Lerner's organization has endorsed him (well, as much as a non-profit can endorse a candidate). There are 6 people from "Jews for Peace" working on my campaign team so I know we're on to a good thing. ;)

Additionally, when I think of the 3 million Muslims in the US (don't know how many of them are voters), I believe Kucinich has a real chance!

I do not blame Barak for the failure at Camp David in 2000. I DO BLAME Sharon for a PROVOCATIVE VISIT to the Temple Mount. And Israel will not get the benefit of the doubt from me ever again unless they get rid of the right-wing thugs that are running their country. I HAD always been a strong supporter of Israel but there is no excuse for their support of a fascist Government.

And very clearly, too.

We've been hearing AIPAC's side for the last 40 years only to find out it's been slanted and tilted, to put it charitably.

AIPAC, Can we now hear from the progressive Jewish/Israeli sites who are tired of the distortions, the ones that MoveOn refers to?

MoveOn just shot up in my esteem!!

Dean policy director Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote in an e-mail message to the Forward on behalf of the campaign: "The only positions that should matter to voters in this election are those taken by the governor himself. Howard Dean's position on the Middle East was clearly laid out in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. Along with solid majorities of Israelis and Palestinians, he favors a two-state solution bringing peace and security to both peoples, negotiated with strong leadership from the United States. As president, Howard Dean will maintain America's historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security."

<snip>

In his message to his membership, the Jewish democratic council's Forman said he objects to MoveOn's material because it "places the onus for the breakdown in the Middle East peace process in 2000 squarely on the shoulders of then-prime minister Ehud Barak of Israel's Labor Party. Moreover, the bulletin concludes by featuring an anti-Zionist article written by an academic who 'describes how Israel-Palestine could become neither a Jewish state, nor an Arab state, but a state of all its citizens.' This is the final word offered by this bulletin — an opinion piece arguing that Israel should cease being a Jewish homeland."



Yeah yeah, yada, yada, Bush favors a two-state solution and so does AIPAC and so does Dean because the alternatives are status quo scrapping bone and gristle off the streets with a spatula or the one-state solution which really shouldn't be a problem to a country calling itself a democracy. APAIC's pro-Likud view is not the progressive view! APN's is!

----

The liberal wing of America’s Jewish community is represented in the views of Americans for Peace Now (APN), which supports negotiations with the Palestinians based upon the principle of land for peace, that is, Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees. The conservative wing is represented by the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which supports the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his government’s ongoing occupation and colonization of Palestinian land seized in the 1967 war, repression of the Palestinian population, and refusal to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership.

When asked by the Jewish newspaper Forward late last year as to whether he supported APN’s perspective, Governor Dean replied "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."

In November, Dean paid his first-ever visit to Israel on an excursion that was organized and paid for by AIPAC. He was apparently unperturbed at his sponsors’ close ties to a government that engages in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations and blatantly violates a series of UN Security Council resolutions and other international legal principles. During his visit, Dean did not meet with any Palestinian leaders or any Israeli moderates.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

---

Here are the sites MoveOn lists. They hardly seem "biased" to me!

Americans for Peace Now

Bat Shalom

Bereaved Families Forum

Brit Tzedek V Shalom: Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Grassroots International

Israeli-Palestinian Bereaved Families for Peace

International Solidarity Movement

Jewish Unity for a Just Peace (JUNITY)

A Jewish Voice for Peace

Jewish Voices Against the Occupation of Palestinian Territories (JVAO)

Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel

Gush Shalom

MADRE

Pax Christi International

Rabbis for Human Rights

Tikkun

http://taayush.tripod.com">Ta ayush: An Israeli-Arab partnership


OTHER RESOURCES:

A historic wrong?
URL: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/0112occupation.html
Description: Foreign Policy In Focus argues that the Israeli occupation is a historic wrong on the scale of slavery and apartheid, and that it must be ended in order to break the cycle of violence.

Americans for Peace Now
URL: http://www.peacenow.org/stand.html
Description: In their policy statement, Americans for Peace Now, the U.S. partner of the Israeli organization Shalom Achshav, compellingly argue that Israel has as much to gain from a Palestinian state as Palestinians do. APN believes that forging a lasting peace with the Palestinians is not only compatible with the Zionist position, but is necessary if Israel is to preserve its Jewish and democratic character.

Bitter Lemons
URL: http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl070102ed1.html
Description: In this edition of Bitter Lemons, a weekly cross-fire produced and edited by Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian, and Yossi Alpher, an Israeli, editorialists present Palestinian and Israeli views on the state of peace in the region. Although no consensus is reached per se, all contributors see the dead-locked peace process as the result of irrational mistrust and fear on both sides, as well as a failure to learn from past mistakes.

Brief History of Middle East Conflict
URL: http://www.mideastweb.org/BriefHistory.htm
Description: A summary of the history of the region from 2000 BC to the present.

Compassionate Listening Project
URL: http://www.mideastdiplomacy.org/clp.html
Description: The Compassionate Listening Project, a major initiative of the US-based MidEast Citizen Diplomacy group, brings together people from both sides of the conflict. By meeting and talking with the people they perceive as their enemies, participants begin to break down stereotypes and reconcile with each other.

Displaced Palestinians.
URL: http://peace.moveon.org/r.php3?redir=78
Description: One of the main obstacles in the way of the creating a lasting peace agreement is the question of whether displaced Palestinians should be allowed to return home. A good explanation of both Palestinian and Israeli views on this issue.

Effects of Israeli Occupation
URL: http://www.arij.org/paleye/
Description: Applied Research Institute's "Eye on Palestine" offers frequent reports on the regional effects of Israeli occupation.

Foundation for Middle East Peace
URL: http://www.fmep.org/
Description: The website of the Foundation for Middle East Peace contains articles and more comprehensive information on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The site publishes a biweekly settlement report, which according to the Foundation, is "known as the authoritative English-language source for information about settlements and the settler community" and "is used by diplomats, journalists, students and other interested parties in the Middle East, the United States and elsewhere for concise, accurate updates on this central aspect of Israeli policy in territories occupied in June 1967".

International Solidarity Movement
URL: http://www.palsolidarity.org
Description: "The International Solidarity Movement is a growing movement of Palestinian and international activists working to raise awareness of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize non-violent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge the illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies."

Israel and September 11
URL: http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/04/news1.shtml
Description: " 'For Israel, September 11 was a Hanukkah Miracle,' Israeli political and security officials recently told the newspaper Ha'aretz. Thousands of American fatalities are considered a godsend -- in this cynical world -- because their deaths helped shift international pressure from Israel onto the Palestinians, while allowing the Israeli government to pursue its regional objectives unobstructed. And indeed, in the past months, the United States has unfalteringly supported all of Israel's actions."

Israel and the War on Terrorism
URL: http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein.html
Description: The Israeli/Palestinian peace process has been basically demolished. Israel has appropriated the "war on terrorism" rhetoric of America to justify its actions against Palestine, while the States have remained a strong backer of the Israeli regime, despite its history of human rights abuses.

Israel Primer
URL: http://peace.moveon.org/r.php3?redir=77
Description: Learn about everyday life under Israeli rule, the reasons that Arafat rejected Israel's "best offer yet," and how the Oslo process has curbed the freedom of Palestinians in the West Bank. Plus, some thoughts about how to criticize Israeli policies while remaining supportive of Israel itself, and the vulnerability of these policies to Western pressure.

Jerusalem
URL: http://peace.moveon.org/r.php3?redir=79
Description: The city of Jerusalem, holy for Jews, Muslims, and Christians, may well be the key to creating peace in the Middle East. This article summarizes the historical and religious significance of the holy sites within Jerusalem to each faith, as well as the options being considered by negotiators for this extremely significant city.

Jewish-Arab Center for Peace Programs
URL: http://www.inter.net.il/~givat_h/givat/ctcfaqs.htm
Description: The Givat Haviva Jewish-Arab Center for Peace Programs runs the Children Teaching Children project, through which Israeli and Palestinian children learn to cope with the violence and conflict that are a part of their everyday lives, and learn to think more critically and realistically about the situation.

Jewish Peace Fellowship
URL: http://www.jewishpeacefellowship.org
Description: Members of the Jewish Peace Fellowship are a diverse group of people, religious and secular Jews from all our traditions and all branches of Judaism. All believe deeply that Jewish ideals and experience provide inspiration for a nonviolent way of life. We see Jewish tradition as a continual calling toward peace, justice and compassion, a tradition whose goal is to bring all people to the consciousness that peace and not war is where we should direct our vision, energy and lives.

Jewish Voice for Peace
URL: http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
Description: "A Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is a San Francisco Bay Area grassroots organization dedicated to the human, civil and economic rights of Jews, Palestinians, and all peoples in the Middle East. Beyond our focus on the Middle East, JVP aims to build a community of activists working together on issues of social and economic justice."

Meretz USA
URL: http://www.meretzusa.org
Description: Meretz USA: for Israeli Civil Rights and Peace is a tax-exempt educational organization that works to support full and genuine peace between the State of Israel and its neighbors in the Middle East, including the Palestinian people. The agency supports full civil and human rights for all who live in the State of Israel, as well as the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, regardless of in whose political authority they dwell. Meretz USA firmly believes in and supports those both within and beyond the borders of outside the State of Israel working for a fair and just society for all within Israel.

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
URL: http://www.pchrgaza.org/
Description: The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) is an independent legal body based in Gaza City dedicated to protecting human rights, promoting the rule of law, and upholding democratic principles in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Prospects for Peace
URL: http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/
Description: A compelling and thought-provoking analysis that portrays the peace process as doomed to fail as long as it remains inconsistent with the national goals and identities of both Israelis and Palestinians. According to this article, both sides see a continuation of the conflict as preferable to the painful compromises that might bring about peace.

Rebuilding Homes
URL: http://www.RebuildingHomes.org
Description: The Rebuilding Homes Campaign brings together Palestinians, Israelis and Internationals to rebuild homes in Palestine. In the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, this Palestinian and Israeli partnership is peacfully resisting the policies of Occupation by rebuilding demolished Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, the West Band and Gaza.

Speaking Tours
URL: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/2000-026.html
Description: The 70-year-old-plus wife of a former American diplomat organizes speaking tours of America by Middle Eastern women through her small organization called Partners for Peace. These women relate their personal experiences of living with the fear, war, and violence in their homeland, in the hope that Americans will gain a better understanding of the situation and want to help. The speaking tours have been phenomenally successful.

Ta'ayush Arab-Jewish Partnership
URL: http://taayush.tripod.com
Description: A group of Israeli citizens, both Arab and Jews, involved in direct action in and out of the territories.

Time line for Israeli / Palestinian conflict
URL: http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm
Description: A time line of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from 1914 to 2001.

U.S. Involvement in Israel / Palestine
URL: http://peace.moveon.org/r.php3?redir=80
Description: 2006 will be the 50th year of American efforts to bring about an Israeli/Palestinian peace. The BBC's article on this coming anniversary summarizes these diplomatic efforts, and their failure thus far.


http://peace.moveon.org/middleeast.php3

is what I call it. If you do not accept the line coming out of West Jerusalem, then you're denounced and called all sorts of names.

it's too bad that MoveOn decided to align themselves with the DNC instead of just being "progressive" and non-partisan.

Now they are going to hear a lot of flack about what points they don't seem to mesh with on the DNC party platform.

>>The material, in a MoveOn June bulletin that is permanently posted on the site, "is totally slanted, biased, factually inaccurate and gives comfort to those who would say progressives are not pro-Israel," said the council's executive director, Ira Forman. "It's totally out of sync with the attitude and policy stance of the Democratic Party and its leadership."

The outcome of this will be an indication!

when they only listed Democrats on their primary ballot.

I would have rather seen a slew of progressives regardless of party. What if there is a particular person out there that voters would rally around, but the poll didn't show that because the person wasn't named? (This is hypothetical, really. I am not sure who that person would be. But I do know that the green/progressive online primary is coming up with interesting results. http://www.iswitched.org/dc03/dcresults.php?poll=DC )

They needn't have given their endorsement unless the winner had an unimpeachable first-choice majority, but they made a mistake by not doing IRV

on the evidence, not ideology.

I trust him to weigh both sides of the I/P problem. He probably took the AIPAC trip because one of his weakeness is foreign policy, and since AIPAC paid for the trip, he accepted it. That doesn't mean that he is an AIPAC stooge. The trip gave him time to see in-person what he's only read about. Yeah, AIPAC only showed them their side, but I'm sure the Arabs and Europeans will give him lots of information for him to consider from the Palestinian side after he is President.

Once AIPAC finances you, you can forget any independent thought or action! Not to say Dean isn't a bright man but Larkspur, AIPAC is VERY GOOD at what it does no matter how devious they have to get.

They are heavily financing Dean, I'm sure of it judging by who the chairman os his finance team is.

Scratch my back...

Can you provide any proof that AIPAC is "financing" Gov. Dean? (Other than speculation on your part....?)

According to the FEC filings, AIPAC has not financed his campaign. Do you have evidence otherwise?

based on who the chairman of his finance team is ("I'm sure of it judging by who the chairman of his finance team is".)

But I think it's pretty clear how this works.

Candidates at AIPAC affirm Jewish political might

((Snipped that Howard Dean was there and well recieved))

<snip>

Political analysts often say that the Jewish community's influence in politics goes well beyond its percentage of the electorate: American Jews are more apt to give money to presidential candidates than are other demographic groups, and also do the grassroots work that campaigns thrive on.

<snip>

Officially there is no fund-raising at the AIPAC event, as both the candidates and AIPAC staffers often remind people. In fact, none of the contenders was invited to speak at the conference, though all were offered the opportunity to host a reception and attend Monday's celebration.

Still, more than half of the candidates made their presence known, largely because the next hand a candidate shakes at an AIPAC event might lead to a check in the future.

"It's a good way to get influential, high-profile and often wealthy members of your core constituency," said Ken Goldstein, a professor of political science and Judaic studies at the University of Wisconsin. "Grassroots are important but grass tops are important, and these are grass tops."

That theory does not hold just for presidential candidates but for anyone with political aspirations. That's why half of the Senate and close to half of the House of Representatives came to AIPAC's Monday night celebration.

<snip>

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030404/uswar15b.shtml

The fact is, there is no data that would prove an assertoion that Gov. Dean is "financed" by AIPAC. Just trying to be fair here.

I hosted Gov Dean in my home and listened to him answer questions on the Israel/Palistinian issue. He seemed pretty balanced to me. In fact having heard he had a "bias" I was somewhat surprised that his remarks didn't appear to show a bias one way or the other. They were lengthy and i can't recall them verbatim, but he seemed to be prety balanced.

If I recall properly, AIPAC can't legally give direct financial contributions to candidates since it's not a political action committee so it gets around that by a process called "bundling," where they call on their members to support a particular candidate.

A question for you... What did Gov Dean say at your affair that so impressed you about the I/P issue? I haven't seen anything of substance but I must be candid and admit I haven't actively looked. My weariness of Dean on this issue has a lot to do with the fact that he's too close to AIPAC (most of our Dems are and that really appalls me). The other thing that doesn't reassure me is that when he went to Israel on that AIPAC-paid trip he met with & seems to have learned all he needed to know about the I/P conflict directly from Sharon. It would have been good for him to meet with Arafat who is still the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people but ok, we've demonized Arafat, how about meeting with Abbas? He didn't even do that. He met with Sharon, the US ambassador Martin Indyk, and one of Clinton's people. I find that a little one sided. I also find it telling that he accepted an AIPAC-paid trip. Doesn't that bother you a little as a progressive?

Did he go to Bethlehem where a "lockdown" curfew has been in effect for a total of 112 days since March 28? Did he see the malnourished Palestinian children? Did he see the Palestinians' uprooted olive trees and livelihood destroyed? Did he visit families whose homes have been demolished by Israeli bulldozers? Did he go to Ramallah to see the Palestinian headquarters in shambles?

Before George Bush picked up Sharon's line, and now Dean's, that Arafat must go, a serious movement toward leadership reform was shaping up within Palestinian society. But to place the burden for peace on the weaker party is a cop-out.
http://www.vtjp.org/letters/One_Side_of_the_Story.htm


EXCERPT FROM LONDON TIMES ARTICLE BY TIM REID
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-516722,00.html
DECEMBER 18, 2002

An Outsider Worth Backing

(Excerpt)

Perhaps Dr Dean's most unequivocal policy stance is his staunch, hawkish support for Israel, which will attract the support of America's hugely influential Jewish lobby. Earlier this month Dr Dean, whose wife is Jewish, travelled to Jerusalem for a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, declaring afterwards: “I do not think that as long as Yassir Arafat is president there will be peace.”

That Sharon agreed to meet him at all shows how seriously the Israeli leader takes Dr Dean as a political force. Just as significant is that Sharon asked him to support the Israeli request for new loan guarantees from Washington, “and I promised him I would”. Israel is asking the Bush administration for up to $10 billion in loan guarantees to shore up its economy.

http://www.kingchuck.com/Dean.background1.html
(or www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-516722,00.html)

----
(Excerpt)

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




This excerpt kind of sums out how I feel about that trip

Last month 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.” He went on to say that he “did not fully appreciate the scale — how everything is right on top of each other” and that “my assessment also is that terrorism is an enormous problem here and no peace is going to be made as long as the terrorism is going on.” Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

(From a Burlington Free Press letter to the editor by former ABC News correspondent Barrie Dunsmore:“How is it that Gov. Howard Dean has suddenly become a Mideast expert. Evidently he has been in Israel three whole days, learning at the feet of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, on a trip paid for by the American Israeli Political Action Committee. As someone who spent several decades reporting from the Middle East, I am frankly embarrassed for Dean. Does he really think he is going to shore up his lack of foreign policy experience by accepting a free trip from one of this country’s largest Jewish lobbying groups, having a chat with right-wing Prime Minister Sharon and coming out spouting Sharon’s hard line?”)

http://www.arabamericanbusiness.com/January%202003/washingtonfile.htm

Anyway, I would very much like to hear what he said that impressed/reassured you because this is one issue where I won't, can't budge. Thanks

BTW...he did meet with Palistinian reps on his trip. Salem Fayed, Finance Minister and someone else...

If you go to www.vpr.net listen at about 48:00 minutes into the show. He'll be answering a question re I/P.

He essentially said tonight what he said here. Israel and Palistine should be two independant demilitarized states. Israel should be out of the occupied territories in the WB. They know that they need to do this. The US must be fully engaged in the peace process. * has not been engaged for two years. The US must have an energy policy that does not depend on ME oil, because profits are used to fund terrorism, which only exacerbates the violence in the ME.

Can't recall everything, but like I said, he seemed to be rather fair and not biased toward any side...

edit: At my home, he did NOT say that there will be no peace as long as Arafat is there, he did discuss the problem with outside countries funding Hamas and other's who attack Israel. As far as who sponsored his trip...I don't have a big problem with it. Just because he accepted the trip doesn't mean he is competely aligned with AIPAC...

He said Israel should be a demilitarized state?! Or just Palestine?

There is NO way AIPAC or even some of the pro-peace more liberal groups would support anyone who advocated de-militarizing Israel.

As far as Israel being out of the territories, did he use the words "a few settlements" (which is what I heard he originally had on his web-site but that's since been removed) or all settlements? These questions are important to me because there's a lot of word play going on with the peace process. Thanks for the info. Will listen closely when I get home.

Btw, I am any candidates worst nightmare when it comes to I/P...

Both.

Two states, both demilitarized and independant.

I ca't exactly remember if all settlements, but I think he said Israel out of the West Bans...

Listen and let me know what you think.

I am sure you are much more into this than I.

Listened to about 30 minutes and then had to go to sellp. Will try tonigh- I bookmarked the link for the archives. Thanks

There is no way on earth that Dean is going to stick with the position of a demilitarized Israel. If he really said that, and I take your word for it, I would bet anything that he won't stick by it. This whole I/P issue and Dean is representative of Dean on foreign policy in general: He's just learning about it now. He's been sucked in by the overwhelming pro-Israeli politics we have here in the U.S. because he hasn't spent enough time thinking seriously about the conflict. That's a bad sign. I think he's an amateur.

Edit: Tinoire, your posts have been great on this. You should check out Kerry. He really knows the conflict and has a good position.

I've heard that he was biased as well, although, I could be wrong. I would like some actual info on him. Thanks in advance.

Here's a few selected statements by Kerry on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

This one's from a major foreign policy speech earlier in the year:

"Fifth, and finally, we must have a new vision and a renewed engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This Administration made a grave error when it disregarded almost seventy years of American friendship and leadership in the Middle East and the efforts of every President of the last 30 years. A great nation like ours should not be dragged kicking and resisting - should not have to be pressured to the task of making peace. A great nation like ours should be leading the effort to make peace or we risk encouraging through our inaction the worst instincts of an already troubled region."

***(snip)

"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. American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war against terrorism."


This is an excerpt from an appearance on Meet the Press last December:

SEN. KERRY: Now, one of the great criticisms that I have of this administration is its disengagement with the Middle East for almost the first 14 months of the administration. I think they gave the green light, if you will, to the most negative instincts of that region to begin to take hold and that is one of the reasons we've seen such a diminution, if you will, in the effort to try to be able to move the peace process forward.
Now, we're not in a situation where we can because there are elections shortly in Israel. This is not the moment and there are other pressing issues, but I think the administration has to re-engage. It has to offer stronger vision of peace. And it has to do so in a way that doesn't require any unfair or inappropriate or before-the-fact concessions from Israel, but at the same time legitimately pays respect to the need to honor the rights of people who are disenfranchised and oppressed in the region. And I think we have to be a fair broker in the way that every president--from President Nixon all the way through President Clinton--was a broker in that effort.
MR. RUSSERT: Will these Israelis have to give up settlements in order to obtain peace?
SEN. KERRY: Not unilaterally and not before the fact, but the Mitchell proposal and American policy is that those settlements must stop and no one can sit with a straight face and look anybody in the eye and suggest that you cannot have those settlements be part of whatever a solution is going to be, but you need someone to negotiate with. You need an entity. I think the administration has been correct to fault the Palestinian Authority for its inability to stay the violence and to begin to show the kind of leadership necessary to be a party to that.


If you want to read the rest, it's on John Kerry's web site. Here's the address for the Meet the Press transcript: http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2003_0123

Here's the address for the speech: http://www.johnkerry.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6109&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

This is one issue where I'm a real pain in the a** for any candidate. It's not just Dean. It's actually a redeeming point for me that Dean has Steve Grossman by his side- better Steve Grossman than someone like Steve Emerson or Daniel Pipes!

I prefer Kucinich's position because it seems the most even handed.

What can you tell me about Kerry's position? I know he's well-versed and pretty strong though I'm a bit concerned about anyone who's CFR since they all seem to be sharing a blue-print and Kerry, Dean, Gephardt and Lieberman are all CFR. That's not necessarily a bad thing for this since the CFR is currently an end to this conflict via the 2-state solution- but it does kind of bother me. Of course, most of our Dems are CFR so I may just have to swallow that one.

I think sfecap mis-heard because Dean probably said 'de-militarized Palestinian state" like Israel has been pushing. Saying demilitarized and Israel in the same sentence would be political suicide for any candidate regardless of party. I still haven't listened to the broadcast but it's on my list of things to do. I sent an e-mail to the Dean HQs last week and hope I get a clear answer. Besides who could force Israel to dismantle their nukes? Let alone de-militarize.
If Dean had said that, he wouldn't have the AIPAC support he has.

I'm finding him weak on foreign policy, especially on this issue which is very important to me because I think it says a lot about one's committment to justice.

I wish we had a way to compose a good comparative chart on people's positions! You know, foreign policy, weak, xxx / budget, strong, xxx so we could see it all across the board. Of course with all the tweaking people would demand to make their candidate looks better, it would never work. Might as well write an encyclopia! Peace :)

i really do n't think dean ever said he wants israel demilitarized. if he did, can you provide a link, or some other information on where he said this ?

demilitarized. How is Israel supposed to defend itself?

(excerpt)
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.


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_mideast

I think sfecap just mis-heard that part...

No one in their right mind would ask that, though I do wish we could get rid of the nukes, in Israel and everywhere. I don't even want us to have them!

I think he made a mistake

http://www.vpr.net/vt_news/switchboard.shtml 48 minutes into the show

Literal transcription: (50:49 minutes into the tape for this part)

<snip> Everyone understands that the only viable solution in the Middle East is two states, independent, de-militarized (seems to stutter) that the West Bank is not a staging area for attacks on Israel and then we can have true peace.

It's pretty obvious he tripped there. There's NO way that's what he meant. That would be political suicide in this country.

---

Thank you sfecap. Dean spoke well but there really wasn't anything there. It's the same thing Sharon says, first the Palestinians stop the violence and then... Both sides need to stop at the same time, that's the only way a battle can end. The problem is that while we're stalling like this, that huge fence is going up (which Dean supports) appropriating more Palestinian land. I also noted with interested that when he talked about Israeli withdrawal from the territories, he
mentioned that Sharon's was already working on this by identifying the "indefensible settlements". So I need to dig on this... Does this mean all Sharon has to do is removed the settlements he can't defend and that will be enough? Based on this interview, Dean needs to work on this one. But like I admitted, I'm a real nightmare on this !

Thank you for the link. That was interesting and when I have time, I'll listen to the whole thing.

He definitely gets an A in speech!

at http://dean2004.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to phase II: Steve Grossman and Howard Dean

This blog also has concerns about Dean's AIPAC affiliation and the column posted above gives us a better clue of Dean's AIPAC connection. It doesn't completely answer our misgivings about Dean's association with AIPAC, but it helps alleviate my worse fears.

Yes, Dean's Israel/Palestinian stance is one of the issues I have concerns about with him, though I do support his general stance of a 2 state solution for both and that both sides are at fault over the violence there.

But Dean's overall strength -- his leadership, making sound judgments and having the courage to stand by them even when others grill him -- are what I want in my President and the I/P issue alone isn't enough for me to change my support for him.

So Grossman had it from '92 - '97 and is credited for

During his four years as AIPAC's president, Grossman remained on excellent terms with both Clinton and Rabin. In 1993, after Rabin signed the Oslo peace accords and shook hands with Yasir Arafat in the White House Rose Garden, Grossman coaxed from his board a unanimous declaration of support.

That seems to be positive (can you tell what 2 years of non-stop politics have done to my freshness?!) so I'll check this out tonight. Thanks...

I went to one of my favorite sites for Jewish theology and right-wing political talk. Did a search on Steve Grossman.

I liked what I found....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1995

As a former member of the Executive and National Board (before it became the popular place to be), I had watched the demise of AIPAC in silent dismay. I was wrong to keep silent. I had hoped AIPAC would self-correct and improve, as I believed AIPAC was the only defensive voice Israel had in Washington. Under its present leadership, AIPAC has become the plaything for those who espouse a radically Left political position. I have heard that new leadership is being considered, and it too will be selected for its pacifistic orientation and alliance with the Rabin concessionaire government. The present leadership has dedicated themselves to promoting
the Oslo "peace process" and the evacuation of the Golan Heights. They have transformed AIPAC operations into what is essentially a Public Relations firm for Israel's Labor Party. They wish to have their successors follow the same program they have embraced.

What can the dues paying members of AIPAC do?

1. You can demand the resignation of AIPAC's President, Steve Grossman.
2. You can demand that the Executive Board start a serious search for a Director who meets AIPAC's requirements to truly defend Israel- and remove overtly "Peace Now" type lobbyists that permeate AIPAC's staff.
3. You can demand that the Board ask the membership to approve its criteria for President and Director,
4. Before selection, the search committee should send to the membership the candidates' qualifications and ask for a write-in-vote like any stockholders in a Company whose only interest is in making money. Israel's survival is far more important than money-making and therefore these choices should be voted on. (Note: Up to now, AIPAC's grassroots members have never been asked to participate in anything but fund-raising and a once a year meeting for show in Washington.)

http://shamash.org/listarchives/amcha/log9505




but I did not like this excerpt (it does not reflect badly on Grossman, but it does reflect very poorly on AIPAC now and it's AIPAC now that sponsored the Sharon-meeting junket).
-----

Since 1996, when Steve Grossman stepped down, AIPAC has had three presidents: Melvin Dow, a Houston attorney; Lonny Kaplan, a New Jersey insurance executive; and Tim Wuliger, a Cleveland investor. Together with ex-presidents Asher, Levy, Mitchell, and Weinberg, this group, holds the real power on the board, according to current and former staffers. And while most of the recent presidents have been Democrats, all share the Gang of Four's unyielding stance on Israel. These board members, in turn, work closely with a handful of AIPAC staff members, including Howard Kohr, the executive director, and Steven Rosen, the head of research. Whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, all members of this policy-making core subscribe to one main principle: that there should be "no daylight" between the government of Israel and that of the United States.

While Clinton and Barak were in office, AIPAC's influence was limited; with both leaders committed to the peace process, the organization often found itself on the sidelines. But, with the election of George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon, AIPAC is back on the front line. That has been especially true since September 11. In waging its war on terrorism, the Bush administration has come under strong pressure from European and Arab leaders to push more aggressively for peace in the Middle East. For Israel and the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, it's widely believed, the United States must get tough with both Sharon and Arafat, demanding not only that the Palestinians cease their terrorist attacks but also that the Israelis ease their tough policies in the occupied territories.

AIPAC, however, has pressed the administration to crack down on Arafat --and to leave Sharon alone. In November, for example, it got Senators Christopher Bond of Missouri, a Republican, and Charles Schumer of New York, a Democrat, to circulate a letter praising President Bush for refusing to meet with Arafat and urging him not to restrain Israel from retaliating against Palestinian violence; 89 senators signed it. Meanwhile, as Secretary of State Colin Powell was preparing to announce a new peace initiative with retired U.S. Marine General Anthony Zinni serving as a special envoy, AIPAC was seeking to torpedo it. AIPAC's main vehicle was a "talking points" memo sent to its members in the field urging them to meet with their congressional representatives and press them to keep the administration off Israel's back. Titled "America-Israel Standing Together," the memo provided members a point-by-point agenda to follow in theirmeetings. "We are concerned about recent subtle shifts in the administration's policies toward Israel," it stated. While the United States is "actively seeking to eradicate bin Laden and his terrorist network," it added, the administration has "routinely criticized Israel for taking actions to defend itself from terrorists Arafat refused to arrest." The memo went on to note concern over the "poor timing" of the administration's statements in support of a Palestinian state and over the pressure Washington was applying to Israel "to negotiate with Arafat before he fulfills his commitments to combat terrorism." The memo, says a former AIPAC official, was part of "an aggressive campaign to get AIPAC members to call on their congressmen to put pressure on the administration not to send Zinni to the region. Their emphasis was clearly to try to minimize any effort by the administration to say Israel must exercise restraint."

<snip> Nonetheless, AIPAC's activities over the years -- its cozy ties with the Shamir government, its support for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, its efforts to keep Washington from leaning too hard on Sharon -- leave the unmistakable impression that it, like the Presidents Conference, does not want to see the United States become too involved in pushing for peace in the Middle East.

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2002-May/003359.html

i agree, this issue is one of Dean's "weak spots", but it's not enough to cause me to switch candidates. if i wanted a candidate who agrees with me 100% on the issues, i could run for president myself. but what's the point? i'm not electable, and i don't think anyone who agrees with me 100% or even 95% is either. i think so far, Dean is the candidate who best meets my criteria for a balance of progressivity and electability.

are they objecting because the site had an online primary for democrats and feel their stand is not in line with most democrats, or objecting just in general regardless of the primary ?

At the National Jewish Democratic Council site, I did not see an action alert for how to contact MoveOn to ask them to remove the material. Does anyone know how to contact them if I want to join in the call to remove this material?

<<Asked to comment on the MoveOn material, Dean policy director Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote in an e-mail message to the Forward on behalf of the campaign: "The only positions that should matter to voters in this election are those taken by the governor himself.>>

Gee, would any Democrat accept this kind of response from the Bush campaign regarding questions about Bob Jones University? Would the "I'm not a racist even if my supporters are" defense fly? I should think not.

Sorry, but I find Dean's refusal to speak out against the thinly veiled anti-Semitism being peddled by MoveOn.org to be cowardly, and downright inexcusable for anyone seeking to lead the Democratic Party.

Honestly -- blaming Barak for the failure of Camp David???!!!! The next thing you know, they'll be blaming Israeli civilians for the homicide bomber attacks. I can imagine it -- "Gee, nobody MAKES these people go to the shopping mall . . . they know the risks . . ."

I'm not clear on what you mean by anti-Semitism here. What position is being proferred that condemns the Jewish people. Let me be clear before you answer - not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are Likud party members (it is even possible that not all Likud members support Sharon's agenda and tactics). To suggest that a condemnation of Likud party methods is a condemnation of all Jews is itself an inherently racist position.

I won't even dignify with comment your straw man on the slippery slope regarding Israeli mallrats.

And has repeatedly made the point that the 'Barak offered the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted but they turned him down' claim is a crock of steaming foecal material.

Barak could have offered Arafat 1% of what he wanted... the point is that Arafat staged a walk-out, having been told (and being so stupid as to believe it) by the Bush-Cheney campaign that he would get a better deal from them.

If you and I are haggling over the price of the car I want to sell you, and I suggest a price of $10,000, and you really want to pay $8,000, do you A) suggest another price, or B) walk away from me and stop talking to me.

That's what Arafat did - he REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE, which is why he has failed (yet again) the Palestinians as a leader. To not even negotiate shows that he is either incredibly stupid or not seriously interested in peace.

What was on the table at Camp David is immaterial if one party never had any intention of negotiating. Arafat let a lot of people down that day.

When shopping for my current car, I asked the price of a Toyota. The salesman said some number, I don't remember. I said 'is that really your best price?', he said 'yes', I said 'thanks' and left. The next morning he called me to offer a little better price and asked if I would buy it for that amount. I said 'no, I took you at your word that you'd quoted me for your best price, so I bought the Honda instead'. Dead silence.

He failed to understand his prospect.

It was the Israeli team that walked out after having been promised a better deal by Bush's people.

Anger at peace talks 'meddling'

Political scandal in US as Bush advisers tell Israelis to be ready to walk out of Camp David negotiations

Israel and the Middle East: special report

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday July 13, 2000
The Guardian

(Excerpt)

The Middle East peace talks at Camp David became the subject of a political scandal in the US last night when reports emerged that one of George W Bush's foreign policy advisers had warned the Israeli delegation to be prepared to walk out of negotiations.
Richard Perle, a veteran cold war warrior and former assistant secretary of state, urged the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, not to agree to any settlement which left the future status of Jerusalem unresolved, according to the New York Post website.

The website quoted a message received by Mr Barak yesterday from two of his emissaries, Yoram Ben-Ze'ev and Yossi Alpher. The two men said Mr Perle "asked us to send a clear message" to Mr Barak that it would be a "catastrophe" if the Jerusalem question was not dealt with, and urged him "to walk away" from the Camp David negotiations if faced with that outcome.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html
----

(Excerpt)
In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton were meeting at Camp David, Perle made news when he warned Barak not to let Vice President Al Gore become involved in the peace summit, for fear it would boost Gore's election prospects. He also told Barak to "walk away" from a peace plan if it left the thorny issue of a divided Jerusalem unresolved. Working as an advisor to candidate Bush, Perle warned Barak he would urge the Texas governor to condemn any peace plan that gave the PLO a foothold in Jerusalem.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/index1.html


----
Richard Perle Sabotaged Mideast Peace Talks in July 2000
11-Mar-03
Richard Perle
In July 2000, Richard Perle contacted the Israeli government and deliberately tried to sabotage President Clinton's Mideast Peace talks at Camp David, when Clinton worked around the clock with Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat to find a formula for peace. Barak's people reported the matter to Clinton, and Bush was forced to publicly disavow the efforts on his behalf to sabotage negotiations. Bush said he 'disagreed' with what Perle did, as if his campaign had not directed and/or approved of it. At the time, there were demands that Perle be prosecuted for illegally interfering with American foreign policy. Naturally, Bush's new AG John Ashcroft scrubbed the case.
http://www.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Richard%20Perle

And this interesting tidbit from an old DU thread that came up during my google: http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID30/7925.html

So what was to be the crowning foreign policy achievement of the Clinton administration collapsed under the weight of obstructionists from both sides of the conflict, including Bush supporters undercutting America's commander in chief.

Richard Perle wasn't just urging then Prime Minister Barak to hold off for Bush. Perle must have known that an Ariel Sharon tenure in the Israeli PM's office wasn't far off. ((:scared: Wasn't there an big election scandal in Israel?)) Sharon's Likud party is the spiritual, fundamentalist and politically bankrupt equivalent of the Bush Cartel Republican Party. They even agree on the same style of crony capitalism offered under the bait and switch euphemism of opening up a "free market economy" (i.e., reward my campaign contributors with contracts and screw everyone else). The Likud and the Bush Cartel are two birds of the same feather. Actually, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was educated in the U.S. and used to be a regular television pundit on American news shows, is the favored Israeli politician of the American extremist right (AKA, the Republican Party), but Sharon will do.

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/quote

and I'll admit I want to read more into it, it doesn't change the fact that Arafat never offered any kind of counter-proposal. It's all well and good to say, "We don't accept what you're offering," but he never came back with any kind of viable offer of his own.

Say what you will about any of this, but I've MET Barak and I believed he wanted peace at Camp David whereas Arafat wanted a political statement - you understand, don't you, that if there's peace in the middle east, Arafat becomes useless. Under a truly democratic government he would not be the Palestinian leader because they're sick of him screwing up every opportunity they've had for peace over the years.

And how can we believe that Arafat was genuinely interested in peace if he REJECTED the Camp David deal yet now says that he will agree to what was on the table back then. Very disengenous. The guy is a terrorist who hasn't been "legally" elected since his term expired in 2001. He has refused to hold new elections. You can say whatever you want about the Israeli government (and I can say quite a bit) but at least they were elected. It is Arafat's refusal to implement democratic and education reforms (text books in the West Bank depict Jews as Arab-eating baby killers - they are the same in many Arab countries and TV programs like this appear in Jordan and Egypt every week) that is holding things back at his end. As long as there is a refusal to do this sort of thing, the Palestinians will always be at the mercy of terrorists who claim to speak for them and their interests, and the Israeli population will do what it ALWAYS does in situations of fear: elect far-right wing governments that physically punish the Palestinians.

It's a never-ending cycle, but there's a lot that can be done in the Palestinian Authority that isn't being done. I only hope Abbas can be some kind of new light.