Bill Clinton just said what Kerry should have said on the Sharon plan!

[Classical_Liberal]

He has picked up key endorsements by Israeli politicians in recent days following President Bush's decision to back the disengagement plan. The 200,000 members of Sharon's Likud party will vote on the plan May 2.

If Israel decides to withdraw from Gaza without restarting talks, then, Clinton predicted, the Israelis and Palestinians should brace for "a long, cold, grim winter of discontent in the Middle East."

Without an effort to work with the Palestinians, Clinton said, the Israelis would not be in a position to complain "if the people on the other side are not grateful ... for the morsels that are thrown off of your table and do not believe that anything better will ever happen."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--clinton-israel0419apr19,0,857942.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

If Kerry had said this, I would be a happy camper today!

[soleft]

1. Well - it's been floated that Kerry will send Clinton to the ME

Does that help?

[Classical_Liberal]

3. Yes it would help.

but if the Palestinians can't negotiate on the status of the settlements I don't know why Bill would want to cooperate.

[sangh0]

31. The Palestinians CAN negotiate on any issue they want

Businessmen (and women) know that "Everything is negotiable". Neither the US nor Israel can effectively deem something non-negotiable. They can claim that, but if they can't get a deal without negotiating over those issues, then they won't get a deal without negotiating over those issues.

If they want the deal, they'll negotiate. If they don't, then it doesn't make a difference what is and is not negotiable if there are no negotiations.

[mobuto]

2. Clinton isn't running for anything;

Kerry is. But you should note that the most right-wing faction on Kerry's team - his foreign policy advisers - are all Clinton people, and all participated to some extent with Clinton's diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. I think you'll find that as President, Kerry will be at least as balanced as his Democratic predecessor, campaign rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. I don't see where Kerry's endorsement of settlement wins any votes

Clinton never did this during his campaign. People who like settlements probably like Bush. Clinton had right and left wing advisors so I am not sure that it helps.

[mobuto]

9. "People who like settlements probably like Bush"

There you go again, Classical Liberal, making unsuported broad statements that sound just slightly ridiculous. You're saying supporters of Israel are Republicans? Based on, uh, what?

Clinton had right and left wing advisors so I am not sure that helps.

Well, I'm talking about Dennis Ross, Dick Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright and Rand Beers, all of whom helped lead the implementation of Clinton's ME policies. Together, they're well to the right of other Kerry factions, and yet they're still strong supporters of a negotiated settlement.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. Are you saying only people who support racist settlements

are supporters of Israel. Gotcha!

[mobuto]

14. ???

Your "logic," once again, escapes me.

How is Ariel, for example, racist? And if you want to call everything not in the interest of Palestinians racist, then why shouldn't I call Hamas and Fatah racist? After all, their bombs target Jews.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. He is a racist supporter of racist settlements.

. I don't care whether you call Hamas or Fatah racists.

[mobuto]

19. Oh, so now Kerry's racist

But I forgot - in your book, everybody's racist. In fact, it was only days ago that you accused me of being racist, sexist and something else for not having supported Carol Moseley-Braun's candidacy. Well boo-hoo.

Let me let you into a little secret: name-calling does not advance your beliefs.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Either that or pandering to racists.

How are settlements not racist? You kick Palestinians out of their homes just because they are Palestinians, then you move Israelis in who have a right to live in those homes just because they are Israelis.

If Kerry doesn't support this racism he should say so.

[sampsonblk]

29. Damn right

On the racism question, you're either with us or against us. Those who oppose racism ought to stand up and say so loudly.

[wasichu]

5. you are saying Kerry is lying?

he is either lying to us or to zionists, which is it?
How can it be ok to lie to anyone?

[Classical_Liberal]

8. Even two state solution people are zionist

Kerry's stated position is the israeli right wing's position.

[mobuto]

11. No, Kerry's states position is in line

with the position of the Israeli government. The United States cannot intervene in Israeli domestic politics; Israel remains vital to our national interest regardless of which party is currently in power. My guess is that Kerry would be more comfortable doing business with a Labour Government than a Likud Government - but it isn't his decision to make.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. We support Israel with our tax dollars

and it has nothing to do with our interests. It has to do with the interests of the milistary contractors who supply them more than anything. We have an interest in what that government does. When they are racist it implicates us.

[mobuto]

17. Who's "us"?

I'm a Zionist and I support a negotiated two state solution. I don't see the contradiction. Kerry's position in supporting the Gaza withdrawal does not preclude support for peace negotiations; in fact it may make them more practicable. His stance on right to return is only logical, and I believe his position on the settlements actually makes a peace more likely.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. The settlements on the West Bank make a two state solution

impossible. The Palestinian state will be an bantustan on only 45% of the west bank.

[mobuto]

24. That's a made-up number

There are a very few settlements that it would be virtually impossible for Israel to withdraw from; the rest should be abandoned. The small sections of land - approximately 3% of total West Bank land - not given up should be compensated for with land inside Israel elsewhere. That was what Clinton supported in 1998, and its what Kerry supports in 2004. The Green Line simply does not reflect current reality.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. Not true. Kerry supports the Sharon plan

The Sharon plan would takes much more without negotiating with Palestinians on the issue, or any offer of compensation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x65744

Sharon wants to incorporate in Israel 55% of the West Bank - the area where most of the settlers are located and the Arab population is relatively sparse. The plan spells it out: "It is clear that in the Judea and Samaria region there will remain areas that will be part of the State of Israel, including civilian localities, security areas and other places where Israel has additional interests" (Article 1c)*. This definition could include ??practically anything.
* Since the plan has been leaked only in Hebrew, I have made the translation.

Almost all the Palestinian population in the West Bank, some 2.5 ??million people, will be crowded into the remaining 45% of the area, which, together with the Gaza Strip, will constitute about 10% of the country called Palestine under the British mandate, before 1948. This area will be a kind of archipelago in the big Israeli sea. Each "island" will be cut off from the others and surrounded by Israeli areas. The islands will be artificially connected by new roads, bridges and tunnels, so as to create the illusion of a "viable, contiguous state", as the Americans demand.

[mobuto]

26. You can cite yourself as many times as you want

but there's still no evidence to support your 55% figure. Nor, even if there were, does the Sharon plan preclude eventual final status negotiations.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. I cited Uri Avery.

.

[Nicholas_J]

30. Nope inf fact all of Kerry's foreign policy speeches

Reject favoring one sides plans over another's, going back as far as his op ed peice in the New York Times in September of 2002.As well as his speech at the CFR ithe following January in which he insists that all parties must meet at the table with no pre-determined conditions. Absolutely no preconditions on ewither side and the U.S> must not favor pre-conditions from any side for the raod map to go forward:

Israel's security will be best assured over the long term if real and lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East. I know from my own trips to Israel that the majority of the Israeli people understand and expect that one day there will be a Palestinian state. Their frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental building block of the peace process. The Palestinian leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.

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. When I visited the region last year, in meetings with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, it became clear that September 11th had changed the imperatives of these countries. The Bush Administration has missed an opportunity to enlist much greater support in the peace process and needs to focus on this urgent priority- now.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerry.html

Kery has been consistant in his policy and absolutely opposes the U.S. supporting pre-determined conditions be established supporting either side in the Issue of Israel/Palestine.

[montanacowboy]

6. Thank you for saying what I have been

stewing about

I am not hot on Kerry one bit, and his siding with * over this middle east thing has all but turned me totally off him -

It is really sad to see him be so craven for the Jewish vote without even considering the consequences of aligning himself with Sharon the war criminal

[Classical_Liberal]

7. I don't think it is the jewish vote

I think it has to do with donors, particularly military contractors. They like the war on terror as is.

[barbaraann]

15. Whatever it is, it's killing me.

n/t

[PROGRESSIVE1]

13. Kerry is VERY dissapointing. I wish we had Wes Clark right now.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. We need to push up some less front loaded primaries

in the future, so this can happen. Iowa and NH killed Dean and Clark.

[mobuto]

22. You don't think Clark supported Israel?

"A strong, democratic State of Israel is the key to the future of the Middle East. For 50 years, Israelis stood side by side with Americans in fighting against communism and terrorism. We forged a unique relationship based on common interests and a common dedication to the principles of democracy. In the aftermath of September 11, and with Israelis facing a fresh campaign of suicide bombings, this relationship is more firmly founded then ever before. " --WKC

[Classical_Liberal]

23. Note Clark said nothing about settlements

Settlements have nothing to do with supporting Israel. They sure as shit have nothing to do with democracy since they undermine democracy in every way. They sure as shit have nothing to do with Israeli security since they are harmful to it.

[Nimble_Idea]

28. Umm, that didn't help much

lol

The whole fuss here is about Sharon's plan on how to bring peace.

I doubt Many here are against Israel. Just like many people on here who are against the War aren't against America, you can take your Shrub logic elsewhere

oh, keep talking, I just said that to be cool

[CityDem]

32. The Big Dog casts a long shadow

Kerry should keep his distance from Clinton because he looks so dull and uninspiring compared to the Big Dog.