Dr. James J. Zogby: More Americans vote for Middle East peace

[huckleberry]

Presidential candidates supporting multilateralism over pre-emptive unilateralism and favouring a balanced approach to Middle East peace-making will find strong support among US voters.

These were some of the conclusions from two recent polls conducted by Zogby International (ZI), a New York polling firm.

snip

In response to several other questions, at least two-thirds of all American voters surveyed show strong preference for a foreign policy that seeks "multilateralism and international co-operation".

This is the case with regard to Iraq and controlling the spread of nuclear weapons.

snip

When asked, however, how they feel the administration should pursue Middle East peace, only 16 per cent say that the administration "should lean towards Israel", and one per cent say it "should lean towards the Palestinians".

A substantial majority of 73 per cent says that the administration "should steer a middle course between the two parties". This decided tilt towards a balanced approach has been in evidence for a number of years, but has grown significantly in recent polling.

more at
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=100107

[Vikingking66]

1. ok- Dean should fax an autographed copy of this poll to Lieberman n/t

[Josh]

8. Dean and Lieberman have EXTREMELY similar views on Israel -

so what are you talking about other than to say "My candidate should autograph this and fax it to the JEW in the race!"

[Sean Reynolds]

11. Actually no they do not.

Lieberman wants the United States to continue being a puppet for Sharon. Dean actually wants a middle ground. He has stated many times that the United States should play an even-handed negotiator and should NOT take sides. Lieberman and Kerry attacked Dean for that statement stating that the United States must continue to be pro-Israel.

[Vikingking66]

13. umm...I am a Jew

What I meant was, after Lieberman bashed the hell out of him for being a crazy radical on Middle East policy, it's nice to see he's not really that radical. If they have the same view on Israel, than Lieberman should apologize for a fake bash.

[Brucey]

2. What?

So many people want a middle course, although the US has forever supported Israel? I don't get it. What do American sheeple think is a middle course? Could it be that the question is biased? I am heartened if it is true, but I find it difficult to believe that the US government gives such huge amounts of money to Israel (they get more than the state I live in - Minnesota) and yet only 16% of the public thinks we should support them. This seems fishy to me. Don't the Jews and Christians both support Israel? Who are these 73%

[SadEagle]

3. How is middle course contradicting to supporting Israel?

Realistically, this is the best way we can help them. The I-P conflict is slowly bleeding the two peoples to death, and if we don't help stop it, no amount of aid will help.

[sandnsea]

5. The peace plan

We do stay neutral in the peace plan. We are not neutral in our commitment to Israel's defense and right to exist. To pretend we aren't would be a lie, and that's not a good place to start honest peace negotiations from.

[Brucey]

7. I agree, but do you think that's what 73% of sheeple were thinking?

I would have expected a much higher support for Israel.

[sandnsea]

4. Totally skewed

Do you support the right of Israel to exist? Any poll that doesn't ask that question and have that premise as the context of the conflict, isn't going to get the true opinions of the American people.

In addition, the U.S. doesn't favor either Israel or Palestine in regards to the actual peace plan they choose. That piece of information is also conveniently missing from this poll, replacing being in favor of Israel's right to exist with playing favorites in the peace process.

Completely worthless information that will only serve to confuse the issue even more.

[diamondsoul]

10. Ok can you explain the significance of that question?

Because I'm really really ignorant about the history of the I/P dispute and I don't understand how "Do you support the right of Israel to exist?" is relevant today. Seriously, what is the REAL threat to Israel's existance right now? What is it that would happen if people don't support the right of Israel to exist? (And PLEASE do not think I feel that way, I'm sort of playing Devil's advocate with that question.)

[sandnsea]

14. War??

Off the top of my head, Syria has Israel's water. That's the main issue in the Golan Heights and the reason Israel won't release it. The U.S. is basically paying Egypt, and probably other countries as well, to make nice with Israel. Billions upon billions.

Almost every ME country is financially supporting the Palestinian terrorists and it's not because they give a crap about the West Bank. There is and has been serious anti-Israel hatred with a goal of ridding the ME of Jews. The extent to which that is still true, I don't know, but I think it is still strong. Not because of bad Israeli behavior, which contributes to it today, but mostly because they're Jews. Same part of the bin laden holy war, the U.S. was in Saudi Arabia, religious. It's sure not the whole picture, but it's a part of it.

But that's the basis of the U.S. guarantee that Israel has a right to exist and I don't see how we can change that basic policy. And as long as we have that basic policy, we can't really say we haven't taken sides, that would be a lie. On the framework for I/P peace, we can start at that basic position, but be an honest broker to both sides by not making overt demands on either side. And the words used have to be carefully chosen so neither side thinks they may have an advantage with a new President and quit working towards peace today. Not that they're doing a heck of alot in that regard anyway. I haven't seen Israel in such disarray since the 60's & 70's. They were fighting Egypt and other countries at that time, the Palestinians were just beginning to appear on the political scene.

There's as many views as there are people. I keep saying just give them Nevada. Israel was a desert when they found it and look what they've done with the place!!! Let them have Nevada, we'll never use it!

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Dean Is Hardly The "Honest Broker"

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

And, finally, Dean's foreign policy speech at Drake. Note how one-sided it is.

When they have bothered to state them, the Administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel. Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years. To be viable, the Palestinian Authority must become democratic and purged of corruption.

But none of this will happen naturally. The United States is the only country with the ability to give both sides the confidence to move toward a future of coexistence. Appearances matter, and if we are not engaged, it looks like we simply do not care and that we have condemned the entire Palestinian people because of their leadership. In my view, this hurts the United States, it hurts Israel, and it makes it less likely the violence and the terrorism will end.

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

---

To sum up: Dean says we shouldn't "take sides" - despite promising a leader of another country unconditional financial aid (more than even Paul Wolfowitz would concede). That's 4x the military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion) and 4x the guaranteed loans ($2 billion to $8 billion). He also supports unilateral concessions from the Palestinians, and a "separation" wall that even George W. Bush has reservations about.

How very Presidential.

Now let's compare to Kerry's foreign policy speech at Georgetown:

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

[JohnKleeb]

9. Well if we want even better lets go for Kucinich :)

(Rep. Kucinich's statement on House Resolution 392, expressing "solidarity with Israel" as it battles "the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas" -- May 2002)

I declare my support for the State of Israel and for the security of the Israeli people. I also declare my support for a Palestinian state and for the security of the Palestinian people. So I will vote present today because I believe the security of Israel requires the security of the Palestinians.

I will vote present because I believe the United States can do better through honest brokering, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence.

Today, we are missing an opportunity to lead people of the Middle East toward a secure and stable future together. This resolution equates Israel's dilemma, which is the outcome of the Palestinian's struggle for self-determination, with the United States' campaign against the criminal organization, Al Queda.

Unfortunately, our own policy is undefined, amorphous, without borders, without limits, and without congressional oversight. For this Congress to place the historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context of the current fashion of US global policy pitches Israelis and Palestinians alike into a black hole of policy without purpose, and conflict without resolution.

The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom?

If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?

There is a role for Congress and the Administration in helping to bring a lasting peace in the Middle East; however, this resolution does not create that role. After today we will still need to determine a course of action to bring about peace. This course will require multilateral diplomacy, which strengthens cooperation among all countries in the region. It will require focused, unwavering attention. It will require sufficient financial resources. And it will require that our nation have the political will to bring about a true, a fair, and a sustainable resolution of the conflict.

When this Congress enters into the conflict and takes sides between Israel and Palestine we do not help to achieve peace, but the opposite. Similarly, the Administration should consider that when it conducts a war against terrorism without limits the principle of war is quickened everywhere in the world, including the Middle East. When it talks incessantly about invading Iraq, the tempo of war is picked up everywhere.

If we truly want peace in the Middle East, this resolution is counter-productive. I will vote present because I do not believe that this resolution dignifies the role towards creating peace, which this Congress can and must fulfill.

[Sean Reynolds]

12. Old links, Mr and I've told you this before.......

Your first link was dated almost a year ago, December of 2002. Your second link is based off information from almost a year ago, December of 2002. Your third link doesn't state a date, but I'm guessing it was quite a while ago. Your fourth and final link was given in February of this year.

Since then Dean has stated he's changed his views on the issue because he's become more aware of international conflict. Back when he made the visit with Sharon Dean wasn't totally aware of the situation, as I'm sure most politicians outside Washington aren't. But I do think RECENT remarks speak more volume than those made a year ago, or hell even TEN months ago.

Remember, it was YOUR man Kerry that attacked Dean for stating the United States should be an even-handed broker in their negotiating with I/P. So where does Kerry really stand? Read for yourself.....

http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/September/10%20n/Pro-Israel%20Lieberman%20and%20Kerry%20Blast%20Dean%20Mideast%20Statement.htm">Pro-Israel Lieberman and Kerry Blast Dean Mideast Statement

Why don't we actually take a look at Dean's beliefs from his campaign site, ok?

Governor Dean on Middle East Peace
Wednesday September 10, 2003
By: Press Office

(September 10, 2003)

Governor Dean believes that the only way to find a truly lasting and comprehensive settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through direct negotiation.

The Governor recognizes and supports the historic, special relationship that the United States has with Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security.

The U.S. has another important role to play in the region - that of an honest broker who has the trust of both sides and a facilitator of direct talks between the parties. A Dean Administration will be committed to following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton from day one and to making every effort to bring peace to this troubled region.

Playing the role of honest broker is consistent with the special relationship that the U.S. has with Israel and preserving that role is key to achieving peace. A secure Israel is not only more likely to take risks for peace, but also underscores to the region that there is no alternative to peace.

Governor Dean is disappointed that Senator Lieberman would seek to further polarize this issue by questioning his commitment to Israel's defense and security.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8978

Also take a look at this too:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/Policy_-_Foreign_-_Mideast.pdf?docID=861">Statement on Principles on the Middle East Peace Process