Ned Lamont Statement on Israel

[oberliner]

"At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel’s security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united."

http://nedlamont.com/issues/627/situation-in-the-middle-east

[Armstead]

1. Arrrrgh!......

[dennis4868]

20. I take it that....

you are not for Israel being safe and secured from terrorist....

[jumpoffdaplanet]

24. What is wanted

is for Israel to be safe and secured from being terrorists.

At this moment they are the terrorists and we are helping them do it.

[CuteNFuzzy]

31. exactly

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. It doesn't seem that either of the candidates running for the Senate in CT

hold that view.

In fact, I don't beleive that any Democrats in Congress or running for Congress, have asserted that the Israelis are "the terrorists."

[Armstead]

29. I don't believe in unconditional support when Israel is wrong...

As the last five years have shown especially vividly, Israel's bringing down the hammer in a much larger way to retaliate is not a successful strategy in terms of making the region safer. Just the opposite. It just keeps getting bigger and more dangerous every time Israel ratchets it up.

By allying ourselves with that approach "unconditionally" the US also further widens the gap between us and the rest of the Middle East and the Muslim world and much of the non Muslim world too.

[dennis4868]

30. so basically you are saying that....

Israel should simply sit back and let the terrorist attack their citizens and soldiers because otherwise they might make some people back in the United States upset who don't understand what Israelis are going through on an everyday basis. If you had to worry everytime you left your home that you might get blown up by a terrorist, wouldn't you want your government to totally destroy these people from existence?

[CuteNFuzzy]

32. "destroy these people"

So far close to 400 civilians have been murdered. This is ok with you?

[Lindacooks]

35. Why is it that the rabidly pro-Israel are consistenly advocating

genocide? What's the matter with you people? You will NEVER be able to 'totally destroy these people from existence', which is a very poorly constructed phrase, btw, unless you annihilate the whole world.

Or is that what you want?

[Armstead]

38. No but...

You don't bomb rthe civilian population of a nation -- especially a nation that has the potential to be at least somewhat of a good neighbor -- to go after a certain segment of the population.

Should the US Government have bombed New York City to settle its' problems wioth the Mafia? Should they have sent bombers over thje entire south to enforce civil rights?

[treestar]

55. Nobody is saying that but

I would not expect another country's government to blow up all the terrorists.

I would even so be uncomfortable by the idea of innocent people getting blown up in the process, too.

[BillZBubb]

2. Ned's halo gets a little tarnished.

But on this issue, he's no worse than Holy Joe.

[insane_cratic_gal]

33. Ned's playing to a largely Jewish crowd too

Consider the make up of CT.. I'm sure his political adviser suggested it

[oberliner]

42. 3 percent of the population

of CT is Jewish.

[Emit]

50. And CT has a very successful cooperative with Israel

Likely, there's more to it than just the Jewish percentage of CT. Just saying.

Agreements with Israel

In 1988, Governor William O'Neill signed an agreement that led to the creation of the Connecticut-Israel Exchange (CONNIX). The purpose is to expand economic, scientific, educational, technological, commercial, industrial and cultural cooperation and exchange.

~snip~

In 1988, the Connecticut-Israel Exchange Commission was established to promote economic, scientific, educational, technological, commercial, industrial and cultural cooperation and exchange.

Today, trade with Israel is flourishing. Since 1991, Connecticut has exported more than $1 billion worth of goods. In 2005 alone, the total exceeded $82.6 million. In addition, Connecticut companies received $15,846,002 in 2005 for U.S. government-funded military contracts with Israel through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program (U.S. military assistance to Israel). Israel now ranks as Connecticut's 22nd largest trade partner.

~snip~

More than 250 Connecticut companies have also discovered the benefits of trade with Israel. Several own interests in Israeli companies or have subsidiaries there, including MacDermid, Brink's, General Electric and Branson Ultrasonics.

The Connecticut­Israel Exchange Commission, which is located in the Governor's office in Bridgeport, provides information about trade opportunities and helps match Israeli and Connecticut companies that are interested in cooperative ventures. One source of funds for such projects is the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD).

~snip~

Institutions in Connecticut have shared with counterparts in Israel more than $2.4 million in grants awarded by the Binational Science Foundation (BSF) since 1987. BSF was established in 1972 to promote research cooperation between scientists from the United States and Israel. It has awarded more than 3,000 grants, involving scientists more than 400 institutions located in 44 states and the District of Columbia. Yale and the University of Connecticut are among the grant recipients.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/states/CT.html

I'd say it's in Ned's favor to be very selective with his stance on this ME issue.

[insane_cratic_gal]

54. It's still the top ten of the US states

that hold the largest jewish population, in fact it's number 7

If you want facts lets give facts.

Rank State Percent Number
1 New York 9.10% 1,654,000
2 New Jersey 5.50 436,000
3 Florida 4.60 641,000
4 Washington, D.C. 4.50 2,000
5 Massachusetts 4.40 268,000
6 Maryland 4.20 211,000
7 Connecticut 3.00 97,000
8 California 2.90 922,000
9 Pennsylvania 2.70 330,000
10 Illinois 2.30 268,000

United states hold the largest jewish population nationally

Top 10 Largest National Jewish Populations
Rank Nation Number
1 USA 5,602,000
2 Israel 4,390,000
3 Russia 1,450,000
4 France 640,000
5 Canada 350,000
6 United Kingdom 320,000
7 Argentina 250,000
8 Brazil 150,000
9 Australia 92,000
10 South Africa 70,000


Cooperation Between Israel
and the State of Connecticut


Exports to Israel in 2005: $82,635,188
Percentage change from 2004: 54.51
Israel's rank as trade partner: 22
Total exports since 1991: $1,011,742,353
Military Contracts with Israel in 2005 Using Foreign Military Financing: $15,846,002
Jewish Population in 2001: 111,000
Jewish Percentage of Total Population: 3.2


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/states/CT.html


Has I said, and I stand by it, He was playing to a crowd. Overwhelmingly, Israel gets support from the United States, its only natural that Lamont will be advised to Support Israel's bombing campaign.

I do not support it however, not because Its the jews or christians or muslims, as you can see by my little icon I don't subscribe to any of those religions. I can't in good faith support the suffering of millions of people who have no part in the actions of Hezbollah.

[cynatnite]

45. Try a christian crowd

Gawd said they're the chosen people and if the US turns it's back on Israel it'll be the end of 'murika.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Well, he has the political platitudes down pat.

Holy Joe could have, and undoubtedly has, said exactly the same thing.

[Tom Joad]

4. one-half million people uprooted in Lebanon, Gaza being destroyed,

Israel holds thousands in prison, many without trial or charge, some of them children, many tortured.

Israel's security is threatened?

[CTyankee]

34. I've seen this litany presented elsewhere and what I want to know

is whether Amnesty International or other human rights organization (not connected to Jewish or Muslim groups)has documented what you just stated as fact. I haven't seen it, but maybe I missed it.

It would be better if you backed up your assertion with a source.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. But make sure to read the next sentence:

>>>But for the first time since Israel’s founding, the United States has lost influence and the diplomatic initiative in the region. We can, and must, do better.>>>>

This is not Lieberman's position.

[xchrom]

7. there it is.

[Ms. Clio]

37. what, more selective quoting?

you don't say.

[oberliner]

43. It is not selective quoting

To quote the first paragraph and then include a link to the rest of the statement.

[OKNancy]

6. Click the link and read the whole thing

please.....

[Armstead]

10. Here's the problematic part from the release

"...It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself. Nor is it my place to make tactical recommendations to the president...."

No, since we are Israel's principal sponsor -- and are the ones who provided them with such a formadible military -- it is up to us to pressure them to use their power responsibly.

We can't have it both ways.

[Demit]

17. You don't see the difference between dictating and pressuring? I do.

And somewhere in the difference lies the concept of diplomacy. Of making the attempt to come to a resolution. Dictators scorn such "nuance"--as we know.

[Demit]

16. Really. Too many buttons being pushed around here.

Too many people wanting their buttons pushed, too, I think.

[sandnsea]

27. Generally good statement

Strikes the right balance between support for Israel and the need for active diplomacy in the region and Bush's failed foreign policy.

[Larkspur]

8. Lamont would get creamed if he didn't say something like this

I think that Lamont has a similar attitude that Howard Dean had on Israel/Palestinian conflict -- recognize that there are a minority of hotheads on both sides who don't want peace and America support an evenhanded approach to resolving the conflict. America will have to play the referee in this situation and until we remove the Bush Admin, this situation won't happen.

There are a lot of us Lamont supporters who think that Israel is part of the problem in the Middle East. It's apartheid policies against the Palestinians will be a source of terrorism until they end. But the big problem right now is the lack of leadership by the Bush Admin on this crisis. By allowing Israel to bomb Lebanon with impunity, will increase terrorist acts against the USA in the future.

[saltpoint]

11. THANK YOU for nailing the Bush administration for its TOTAL lack of

leadership regarding the Middle East, and not just for the past couple of weeks, but from the SECOND they took office.

Thank you for that. It shifts the context to people who ought to be leading and aren't. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rice. Etc.

An administration that presumes to "bring democracy" to the Middle East can by god stand up and work toward peace. Instead they argue AGAINST a cease-fire.

Before ANY U.S. Senator considers foreign policy initiatives pro or con, members of PNAC and the Bush administration usurped Congress' role and made war plans.

Deciders are supposed to be leaders.

Bush has failed.

[BurtWorm]

15. I agree. Why imperil a good shot to win the primary and the general

by giving Lieberman a toehold to gain back support. A nice vague statment about Israel as ally is what was required.

[Poll_Blind]

9. Brought to you by AIPAC. When a member of the Party of Human Rights...

...supports the criminal actions of a conservative government one raises an eyebrow and thought turns to what influence must be exerted for such a thing to happen.

AIPAC. Very well-organized. Very well-funded. Anyone who does not toe their line is politically f*cked by that machine.

PB

[oberliner]

12. BS

Ned Lamont takes no money from AIPAC or any other lobby group.

[Poll_Blind]

13. Oddly, money isn't everything in politics. Constituents who call in...

...write, write letters to the editor have a tremendous influence on a politician.

PB

[Demit]

18. Watch out you don't trip backpedaling on your assertion so fast. LOL!

[Poll_Blind]

19. "AIPAC. Very well-organized. Very well-funded." What backpedal?

I realize it's point-scoring that you're more interested in than actual discussion but even then, how do you see this as backpedaling?

PB

[Demit]

25. First you said "brought to you by AIPAC". Then you switch to "constituents

who call in & write LTEs". Ok, you didn't assert, in the first post. You only implied--that AIPAC's money was the influence on Lamont to "toe their line". You mutter darkly about what influence "must be exerted", that AIPAC is very well-funded. In your second post you switch to saying oh, money isn't everything, there's also what constituents do that has influence (which I would call the normal exercise of democracy, as opposed to lobbyist influence). That's the backpedal I meant.

[Poll_Blind]

26. AIPAC's organization and mobilization of constituents is second-to-none.

AIPAC's sole existence is to influence American laws and foreign policy favorable to Israel. AIPAC donates money to candidates but their teeth are in the organization of their constituency. I still have no idea what you're referring to as a backpedal, I covered this in the original post. If you still believe that somehow I was referring to AIPAC merely influencing candidates via donations there is nothing further I can add to change your mind on the matter. Keeping AIPAC running at full steam takes a great deal of money ($13-15 Mil, annually) but they don't buy off candidates outright with it- they use it to mobilize their members, sponsor fundraisers for the candidates, etc.

  I don't know why I'm continuing to argue this, really. Anytime I run across someone who chooses to so-myopically focus on an absurd interpretation of my post, especially as I have been extremely vocal on the matter in threads over the last 5 years at DU, is beyond convincing.

PB

[Demit]

28. I don't often tell people to get over themselves, but

anyone who refers others to their various posts over the last five years--in italics, yet, as if we are falling down on the job of not knowing where he stands--should take a break from arguing and reexamine just how important he really is. This is the General Discussion forum, buddy, and each thread and each post in it stands on its own. And stands or falls on its own merits. Your two posts were pretty wobbly.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Define "security" . . . n/t

[NNN0LHI]

21. I don't dislike Lieberman because of his Israeli position

I dislike him because he can't seem to manage to remove his lips from Bush's ass.

Don

[ulysses]

23. well said. n/t

[jsamuel]

22. not surprising at all

98.5% of congress voted that way... 100% of Senators

Israel has nothing to do with why I don't like Joe.

[Ms. Clio]

36. why do you keep presenting these guys as if they should speak for all?

I don't fall into lockstep with anyone on anything.

[oberliner]

46. I don't

All I did was present his position on Israel.

I think it's important to know what statements Lamont and others have made on the issue.

Others seem interested as well.

[Emit]

51. oberliner

With all due respect, you presented an excerpted portion of his position on the current Israel/ME crisis.

In fact, it seems many of your OPs have been presented in similar fashion in the last two days.

Based on our previous exchange, I would think that you would have chosen to excerpt portions that offered up a more balanced version in your OP of Ned's position. The fact that you didn't leads me to believe you may have ulterior motives.

Could it be that you enjoying the controversy that results here at DU?

[oberliner]

53. Emit

With respect, it was the first paragraph of the statement with a link to the rest of it. It was not taken out of context.

I am not enjoying the controversy that has resulted at all. In fact, it is quite dispiriting for me as a new member to read some of the comments here that I and many others have found to be hateful and in some cases which haved contained antisemitic overtones which have led to their deletion.

My motive in sharing this and other statements made by progressive Democrats about the conflict in Israel is to provide some evidence that expressing support for Israel does not make a person a neocon.

Those on this board who argue unpopularly that Israel had a right to defend themselves and that this conflict was initiated by Hezbollah are presenting opinions that are shared by many leading progressives in the Democratic Party.

Just as those who argue that Israel's response was disproportionate and that there should be an immediate ceasefire are presenting opinions that are shared by many leading progressives in the Democratic Party.

Those who make arguments that Israel is a terrorist state and that Israel is committing genocide are presenting opinions that are not shared by those same progressives in the Democratic Party.

I think it is important to bring these perspectives into the discussion.

[Ms. Clio]

57. it has also been disturbing to read the hate speech posted here

about non-Jews, also deleted.

[Gloria]

39. Term "honest broker" officially tossed out the window, I guess...

It was a beacon in the world for us for so long.....

[DYouth]

40. Jonathan Tasini > Ned Lamont > Hillary and Joe

My opinion.

[cynatnite]

41. If he said anything but that, he wouldn't get elected

I'm not surprised at all.

[Marie26]

44. Can anyone name

one major Democrat who has condemned Israel's actions?

[oberliner]

47. self delete nt

deleted due to snarkiness

[JackNewtown]

48. Good question

I don't know of any. Frankly, I would be shocked if a major Democrat criticized Israel to any significant degree.

The only Senator that I know of who has not been a blank-check cheerleader on this is Sen. Warner--a Republican...

[Ms. Clio]

49. How long was it until a "major Democrat" condemned the Iraq war?

took quite a while, as I recall.

[Clarkie1]

52. Good statement, Mr. Lamont. nt

[LWolf]

58. I'll put on my flame-proof shield now:

I don't think there is any excuse for Democrats to pretend that Israel is "the good guy" in this conflict.

Is it not true that Israel already holds thousands of Palestinians? Yet it's ok to attack because the country of those you've taken hostage takes one of yours?

Is it not true that the current mess started with the Israelis shelling a beach in Gaza, killing Palestinian civilians?

Most of the U.S. didn't want to see the underlying agenda of the current Iraq occupation. I believe that it is just as true for this situation; why not provoke the situation, then use a captured hostage to destroy a democratically elected government that you don't like?

One doesn't have to side with Hezbolla to see the writing on the wall, and to know that they are merely a pawn in the current action.

It has nothing to do with "defense," and Democrats supporting Israel in this conflict is no more excusable, imo, than supporting GWB in Iraq.