Dean on Israel

[tinanator]

Whats the prevailing sentiment here among Dean supporters? Is he pro-Israel enough for you? Could Lieberman end up on his ticket?
Is there any concern that support for Israel might undermine his mission of peace? Im serious now, dont get bent out.

Have a great day!

[fabius]

1. Dean just needs to be firm with Israel.

And with the Palestinians. I don't know if he will do it or not.

Hate to say it but Bush is doing about as well as may be expected with Israel, but every time he scolds Sharon, Rove whacks him. I hate to say it again, but the best we can do is probably to continue with the so-called "roadmap".

[RapidCreek]

4. Nah the best we can do is to quit giving them

money. Since 1949 the bill to US taxpayers comes in at over $136,000,000,000....which works out to about 4 BILLION a year.

There are, however, those who feel that cutting off Israeli welfare just wouldn't be fair to those in our country who profit so handsomely from it. To them I say, if Israelis and Palestinians want to war, then let's send the Palestinians 4 billion a year as well and level the playing field. The military industrial complex will enjoy the prospects of suckling an additional 4 billion a year from American tax payers while the Palestinians will be able to purchase all the tools necessary to engage in a "properly fought, respectable-type war". Maybe they can buy a few Cat D-9s to bulldoze settlement homes, as well. I am fairly certain that this would bring an end to those nasty suicide bombers who murder civilians. Heck, if you're wearing a nifty green uniform, flying around in an AH-64A Apache, blasting 625 rounds a minute out of a M230 30mm chain gun, you can kill all the civilians you want and it ain't murder...it's called an unfortunate accident or collateral damage. The best thing is, you don't even need to blow yourself up in the process!! Being a live heroic soldier sure as heck beats being a dead evil-doing terrorist!

Hearing that Mr. Dean "supports" Israel is rather disturbing to me...I shall have to look into it further. If I find that his idea of support amounts to unequal financing of a conflict between Israel and Palestine...a conflict in which both parties are wrong, he can consider my vote, lost. The success of any Israeli/Palestinian peace initiative depends upon the levelness of the field on which it is implemented. Before the field is leveled, one way or the other, talk of achieving a true and lasting peace is nothing more than smoke up the poop shoot.

RC

[Classical_Liberal]

5. I really think that no electable American is capable of being a

dispassionate mediator here, so I won't vote on the issue. Both parties have big constituancies, that want to fund israelis madness. Perhaps instead of cutting off aid, offer more aid and alot more, if israel stops settlements, and goes back to the green line. They don't get the extra aid if the condition isn't fullfilled. We could also target the aid for building housing for the retuning settlers. That will disarm the proisrael lobby in both camps because they won't whine about punishing israel unfairly. It is true that we wouldn't be punishing israel unfairly, but the press will spin their side anyway, out of fear. The likudniks do successful boycotts. Perhaps entry into the Eu can be used to bribe them into giving up the settlements, as well.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Fortunately

Most Americans stand by Israel. To pick a candidate that does not is to guarantee a GOP victory.

[CWebster]

7. unfortunately

Most Americans qre NOT well-informed enough on the issue -- a situation that is deliberately promoted by hardline neo-con hawks:

"Right-wing Jewish neocons--and most prominent neocons are right-wing Jews--tend to be pro-Israel zealots who believe that American and Israeli interests are inseparable (much to the alarm of liberal, pro-peace Jews, whether in America, Europe or Israel itself). Friends of Ariel Sharon's Likud, they tend to loathe Arabs and Muslims. For them, the cause of "liberating" Iraq had little to do with the well-being of Iraqis, just as the cause of "liberating" Iran and ending its nuclear program--recently advocated by Shimon Peres in a Wall Street Journal editorial--has little to do with the well-being of Iranians. What they wished for was an improvement in Israel's military and strategic environment.

The Iraq crisis has made their names and organizations familiar to every newspaper and magazine reader: Wolfowitz and Feith, numbers 2 and 3 at the Pentagon; Richard Perle, former chairman and still a member of the influential Defense Policy Board, sometimes known as the neocons' political godfather and around whom a cloud of financial impropriety hangs; Elliott Abrams, senior director of Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, with a controversial background in Latin America and in the Iran/contra affair; and their many friends, relations and kindred spirits in the media, such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan of The Weekly Standard, and in the numerous pro-Israel think tanks, such as Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Project for the New American Century, the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (born out of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and many others. As has been observed by several commentators, 9/11 provided the neocons with a unique chance to harness (some would say hijack) America's Middle East policy--and America's military power--in Israel's interest by succeeding in getting the United States to apply the doctrine of pre-emptive war to Israel's enemies."



http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&s=seale

[JohnKleeb]

9. you are so right and I am neutral on this

I support the Israeli Labour party because Sharon is a miltarist the guy who ran against him was a former general too but it would be like running Patton no offense to him and a guy like General Omar Bradley.

[tinanator]

11. Doesnt that underestimate anti-semitism

not to mention traditional resentments toward foreign aid expenditures? I wouldnt presume to speak for most Americans unless there were fewer than 2 remaining.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

17. You are absolutely correct.

Well said.

[BigMcLargehuge]

15. Couldn't have said it better myself!

well written, well spoken, well done.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

16. Why would we send an enemy 4 billion a year?

Many of the leaders of the Palestinians hate us. They hate anyone who's not muslim. The more radical element within their ranks even hate muslims who don't worship like them. This will never change. They are CONVINCED their God rewards them for murdering women and children with suicide bombs.

Israel is our ally...Our most loyal ally in the entire world. They are our only friend in the middle east. Our support of them makes sense on numerous levels. Plus, our support of them is the only thing that keeps them from being "Pushed into the sea" as many radical muslim leaders would have it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. Why would we send terrorists 12bn a year? n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

19. That is utter bulloney

Israel could nuke the rest of the middle east into oblivion. Their existence isn't threatened in anyway. The Palestinians have the crazy fundies, but so do we. We have fundies that just want to support he israel so a nuclear war happens between them an the "A-rabs" and the "Joos" and Jesus comes back. Israel also has crazy fundies, and most live on west bank. Palestinians dislike israel because israel kicked them out of their homes, and continues to period! They dislike us because we support it. If you started bulldozing the houses of a bunch people like yourself we would have oklahoma city bombings every damn day against!. The relationship only makes sense for our politicians because the israeli lobby is motivated. It hurts the rest of us, including the israelis. Having said that bribery will work better than punishment because the pro-likud lobby is to entrenched.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

24. Really?

Their existence isn't threatened in anyway. The Palestinians have the crazy fundies, but so do we.

Please show me where "One of our crazy fundies" has straped himself with bombs and killed women and children in the name of his God.

And if you want to get REAL nuts, show where the organization that openly supports such actions.


WOW!!

[tinanator]

26. Tim McVeigh got away from his truck but they strapped him to a table

It couldnt be because the Palestinians dont have US taxpayer provided helicopters and missiles to fly up to political opponents with and assassinate with extreme prejudice and disregard for the safety of innocents? Nothing more extreme and inherently evil than that sort of continual assassination and then calling it a "democracy".
As to domestic "organizations" supporting terrorism, right wing radio has repeatedly encouraged NOT ONLY anti-government hatred, but (and I have personally heard, documented and responded to a local whack job mainstream asshole traitor on Limbaugh's AM outlet who) called for another 9-11 attack to stir up sentiment in favor of Bush. You must be very comfortable with that to ignore it.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

27. Good Ol' Tim McVeigh!!

What would Israeli Haters do without him??

Please...Show me proof (Hell, even SPECULATION) that Tim killed those people in the name of his God. And how about showing me an organization that sponsored his deed...

Tim HATED government, for whatever whacked-out reason, so he killed a bunch of innocent people. It had NOTHING to do with his religion.

You must be very confortable with dead Jewish women and children in order to defend Palestinian terrorists.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Eric Rudolf killed innocence for god!

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=C2B301AF-EC53-4B0C-8A95E2DBBE270BCABaruch Goldstein was a terrorst who killed for god too.http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein Prove all the Palestinians are doing it for religion and not because of the occupation, and the fact they lost their homes. Also nuclear armageddon would be the ultimate terrorism and there are fundamentalist christians and jews actively trying to provoke it.http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041502.html . In otherwords they have the governments of Israel and America to act out their horrifying visions.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

40. Show me...

...ONE of these so-called "Christians" who has taken his life while he's doing the killing like the radical muslims do and you'll have a point.

Show me their family members celebrating because they're now with "God" like the radical muslims do and you'll have a point.

Show me the official organization that supports such acts and you'll have a point.

Show me American clerics who promote such actions and you'll have a point.

Show me them targeting women and children in order to spread TERROR and you'l have a point.


The crap you're spewing embarrasses me. Why you and those like you have such disdain for Israeli Jews is beyond me. Is it because they are religious? Is it because they want to live in their 4000 year old homeland? Is it because they have made Israel the ONLY Democracy in the Middle East? Is it because Israeli Arabs have the highest standard of living in the middle east? Is it because they don't oppress women like muslims do? Is it because of their military mite? Is it because their skin color is not dark enough?

What is it???

[Classical_Liberal]

42. can't you click links?

? The only thing those links don't show is SUICIDE, but so what, the fact that they kill innocence is more offensive than kiling themselves. Goldstien and Rudolf targeted innocent civilians including children . They are supported by an organized religion. The red cow people are supported by evangelical christians and temple institute jews. The red cow breeders in the US are American Clerics. Rudolf was supported by the Christian Identity movement. Goldstien is supported by settlers. If you clicked the link, you would read about the shrine to Goldstien, He has become a hero among some of Israel's right-wing extremists. Some extremists set up a tombstone for him which read "To the saint Baruch Goldstein... who gave his life for the Jewish people, its Torah and his country; of clean hands and a pure heart". Members of the banned Kach organization, to which he belonged, glorify his mass murder

I have no distain for Israeli Jews. I just don't like the settlers who are stealing land and the israeli government that promotes it. Israel is no more democratic that South African Apartied, or the American South under Jim Crow. A large percentage of the people who are governed by them on the west bank are not allowed to vote, nor are they considered citizens.

Anyway, if you won't click the links you are not worth my time. You are just here to spout venem and not to debate fairly!

[tinanator]

46. excellent points all

the word debate really cant apply to that sort of posting, can it?

[Josh]

49. I usually stay away from these threads

because they make me angry and upset me, but you calling Israel's democracy no better than that of Apartheid South Africa is as tired a phrase as it is baseless.

The Palestinians and Arabs living *in* Israel have more rights than in any other Middle Eastern country, including the right to vote in elections - something Arafat denied his own Palestinians by cancelling the January elections.

I don't know where the far left gets its love affair with the PLO from, but it honestly makes me sick sometimes. There seems to be such a hatred directed on Israel all over this board and, with all due respect to your opinion (and you may find this statement outrageous, but it's the truth), the vitrolic anti-Israel hatred I see here offends me as a Jew.

I agree that the settlements have to go (as do something like 75% of Israelis) and that peace will never happen unless such a removal takes place, but people here *genuinely* believe that Israel doesn't want peace and the Palestinians - especially, it seems, Arafat - have always been the only people working towards peace, and *that* is what smacks of not knowing enough about this situation.


Peace.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. So what! Palestinians on the west bank have no right to vote

at all, and aren't allowed to become citizens. That is 90% of the Palestinians. There is nothing baseless about it. It is the plain truth. If 75% the Israelies thought the settlements really had to go, they wouldn't have voted for Mr Setttler himself Arial Sharon. He can't dismatle settlements and survive the election, that is a practical fact. I didn't say anything about Arafat always workng for peace and the Israelis never working for peace. I have no love affair with the PLO. The fact that israel is a jewish state doesnt' exempt them from criticism, and nobody is singling them out. I also was thrilled with the Taliban fell.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

51. You're a wise man.

It all offends me too and I'm about as far from being a Jew as a guy can get.

I just appreciate true friends of America and true friends of peace.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

22. Mairead

do you know what I mean?

[gottaB]

35. Many Palestinian leaders do not hate us.

Some are Christians. Many are Muslims. They look to us for leadership and honest mediation, and, I think it's safe to say, they have been a wee bit disappointed in our support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palistinian territories.

"The Palestinian Christians see themselves, and are seen by their Muslim neighbors, as an integral part of the Palestinian people. The PLO, a secular organization under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, has always highlighted the Christian-Muslim dimension of Palestinian life, and their shared struggle for national self-determination in a state of Palestine. Chairman Arafat's wife, Suha, is from a prominent Christian family. Hanan Mikael Ashrawi, the popular spokeswoman, is Christian." source

Militant Islamists, assuming they are truly devout Muslims, believe the use of violence is sanctioned only to the extent that it is defensive. The Quran is pretty clear on in making the distinction between aggressive and defensive uses of force. That explains why a multitude of Islamic leaders from diverse denominations and sects condemned the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, but do not uniformly condemn suicide bombers in the occupied territories. It is very hard to make the case that such attacks against Israeli settlers are not defensive in nature, from an Islamic point of view. I could respect somebody who disagreed with that interpretation, but there can be little excuse for a literate adult with internet access failing to understand or grossly misrepresenting the perspective of modern Muslims.

Finally, you claim Israel is our only friend in the middle east. Presumably everybody else is an enemy? I don't know the cure for your particular brand of ignorance. However, for the sake of uninformed readers, it should be made clear that the U.S. has friendly relations with nations throughout the mideast. Follow this informative and authoritative link which demonstrates the fact that the US values its friendly relations with countries throughout the region. Tip: use the search box and enter a word like "friends" or "allies."



(on edit, caught a few typos, modifiying clause "from diverse...")

[Tinoire]

36. Very nice post!

Welcome to DU :toast:

Hope to read many more!

Peace

[TLM]

2. From Dean's site....

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


While we focused on Iraq, The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was neglected. The President, despite knowing how critical his personal involvement was, refused to engage for over two full years squandering the momentum he inherited from the Clinton administration.

I am truly optimistic about the chances for peace in the Middle East. Our strongest asset is that majorities of both peoples in this conflict actually accept a two-state solution guaranteeing both sides security, sovereignty and dignity.

Most Israelis recognize that they will have to give back occupied land and give up settlements. Most Palestinians understand that there will never be a Palestinian state as long as terrorist attacks continue. Yet the Palestinians have assets that are often misunderstood. They have a high level of education. Palestinian women play a more significant role in government than in almost any other Arab society. And a large number of Palestinians have a significant experience with democracy having lived in Europe, the United States, and of course in Israel. Yassir Arafat is not the answer, but Abu Mazzen and Salim Fayed, who I met with in Jerusalem, may well be the answer.

Finally, the United States must reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil and we must have a President who is willing to confront the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis, and others who send money to Hamas, and finance a worldwide network of fundamentalist schools which teach small children to hate Americans, Christians, and Jews.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. He is rather vague on this point

It really doesn't matter that most israelis understand they have to give up the settlements if they continue to elect governments that represent settlers. The settler politicians in israel are obviously more motivated as well. I propose a two state solution, with the settlers becoming Palestinians or resident aliens in the New Palestine. If they don't want to live under a Palestinian government they simply move, no dismantlement involved, and of coarse Palestinians can move into those neighborhoods if they choose.

I really think both republicans and democrats have fairly entrenched groups that are an obsticle to peace. Jewish groups may want to dismantle the settlements, but they don't want israel to suffer any consequences for not doing so. Republican constituancies, just flat out don't want dismantlement of the settlements. Sharon, who represents settlers, has absolutely no incentive to dismantle them politically without consequences applied. Mazon maybe a better alternative, but if the palestinians don't see him has their representative little can be accomplished.

[CWebster]

8. This again...

With the exception of possibly Kuchinich, they are all in the same boat, but even Chomsky, in his recent C-Span interview, doubted Kuchinich's broad appeal.

[Mairead]

10. I took away a different impression

...which of course might have been biased by my pre-existing views.

The impression I took away was not that he thinks Dennis's policies won't broadly appeal, but that his message won't get to enough people for its appeal to manifest as votes.

The reason I think that is because of his writings generally. He frequently points out that (e.g.) when people are asked if they want their taxes raised, they of course say no. But if they're asked whether they want universal healthcare or some other public good even if it means raising taxes, they resoundingly say yes. (A finding borne out by the internationally respected polling folks at Chicago, too.)

In endorsing Dennis, Granny D says that during her walk across the US, people told her that they have been waiting for someone with Dennis's policies. I believe that, because it fits with my own experience talking with people too. People want someone gutsy who's not in bed with the elites and who cares about working people. That's Dennis.


We should all of us be able to see by now where we're headed--the despotism is already visible and some of it's in place, and if we're adults we should be able to evaluate what's needed to stop it. We need a 180 right now if we're to avoid having to choose between despotism and blood in the streets. When someone talks about tweaking this or cancelling part of that, that's not a reversal, that's merely slowing the pace. With such a person in charge, our destination would remain the cliff and disaster. That should frighten the hell out of everyone who can think.

We have a lot of examples from history of people failing to act while there was still time. I certainly hope we'll have the sense not to become another example.

(edit: This post really isn't as much a non-sequitur as it might seem at first reading. :evilgrin: )

[JI7]

12. mairead, you are right

right about chomsky on kucinich

[CWebster]

20. Not so much his message

but the entire package.

You have to remember--it is not the Left that you have to get on board---they already know -it is the vast uninformed, if not misinformed population who respond to slick, expensive campaign soundbytes, wrapped in the patriotic veneer of god and country, who vote against their own best interests because of the dominant bandwagon perception. Look at how many of our own party representitives fell into line by the obvious Right-wing facade. Change can seem to happen over night, but often, only after a long drawn out incremental shift in consciousness--as is happening with the inclusion of Gays into the mainstream. Still, look at Israel--how can it be resolved, when so often the truth is still taboo to speak? You can see politicians who have been mowed down for straying off the official line. It's just the way it is. So, you can claim that we must believe we should aspire to more, to better and I agree, but I recognize these undeniable realities that are real obstacles

Another thread asks if people grow more conservative with time....I don't know about a shift in ideology, but for myself, at age 25 I might have fully rallied around Kuchinich, today at 48, that enthusiasm is tempered with some practical considerations.

But still, I do appreciate those who are steadfast on the better side of the cutting edge.

;-)

[DemBones DemBones]

44. I'm no naive young radical and I am supporting Kucinich despite

all the comments at DU about "practical considerations" and "pragmatism." I've been voting since 1968 and I can't see that pragmatism has done much good for the country. All these years, under Republican or Democratic administrations, the very rich have been steadily working toward becoming richer and making this a country with an upper class (them) and a lower class (the rest of us.) They've allowed us to have some "wins" in social areas (civil rights, women's rights) but income levels have been declining for decades, unions have been de-clawed and de-fanged, costs of goods and services (especially health care) keep rising, and now, with Bush* in power, Social Security is in danger, environmental regs have been relaxed (Too bad if you people get asthma! We must protect industry!), the US has decided to come right out and say "We'll invade any country we want to."

I'm tired of selling my soul for "practical considerations." If we keep believing that someone who wants to make a real change will never get elected, and thus we obediently vote for someone who wants to preserve the status quo, we shouldn't be surprised if nothing ever changes.

Change happens when people will it and work for it.

[CWebster]

47. Absolutely

and it is appreciated that you stand by your convictions. My mother voted for the socialist rather than hold her nose, while I voted for Gore. Actually, I preferred Bradley and thought Gore was a smacked ass throughout that debate. Nader was where I was going, until I read a full page Green Party appeal in the NYTimes, for the voters in swing states to weigh their decision carefully.

So, we all fall somewhere along the scale. It will be very difficult for me to vote for some of the candidates if they are nominated to vote against Bush. Others don't seem to have that problem, but with Dean I see the ideal compromise that could appeal to a greater percentage of the population as a whole to oust Bush. Because of Dean's approach - to confront the Republicans and defend the Democrats, first and foremost, I have contributed, with many others more than $100 to a political campaign for the first time in my life. In the best of times he may not be my first choice, but I do not feel we have that luxury.

So it is twofold, one to lend momentum to the best shot we have to beat Bush, but also to instill the energy and meaningful leadership back to the party, rather than accept the status quo candidates who went along and enabled this horrorshow for the country and the party.

[GeronimoSkull]

13. Dean is positioning himself

to be the perfect little AIPAC whore

[DrGonzoLives]

14. As opposed to who?

Edwards, who refuses to condemn Israeli atrocities? Liberman? Who is the "non-whore" candidate, in your eyes?

[Tinoire]

23. In answer to your question - 2 Articles and yes, HD not even-handed enough

for me. I hated snipping these articles and recommend they be read in their entirety. 3-6 million US Muslim votes in the US. Then there's the Black Muslim and Black vote to consider.

****************************

Dean Not Progressive on Mideast

By Ahmed Nassef, AlterNet
June 30, 2003

<snip>


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


"At one time the Peace Now view was important, but now Israel is under enormous pressure. We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations," he said.


<snip>


Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 billion in U.S. 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.


On the illegal Israeli settlements, Dean seems to be waffling of late. A pro-Dean blog quotes his campaign as calling for the ultimate removal of only "a number of existing settlements." (The link back to the official site was no longer operational as of this writing.) However, in what may signal a softening of his position to woo progressive voters in the just passed MoveOn.org PAC Democratic "primary" vote, Dean called last month for "ultimately dismantling the settlements." So which one is it?


<snip>


In fact, Dean's alignment with AIPAC and their right-wing politics goes much deeper than aligning with the group’s platform. Last year, he named Steven Grossman, a former AIPAC head, as his campaign's chief fundraiser. Soon after, he flew to Israel on an AIPAC-sponsored junket.


<Hawkish views on Iran and Saudi Arabia snipped>


Ahmed Nassef is editor-in-chief of Muslim WakeUp
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

*********************************

Published on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Howard Dean: Hawk in Dove’s Clothing?
by Stephen Zunes

((Hated snipping this one also))

<snip>

In his major foreign policy address to date, a February 17 speech at Drake University in Iowa, Dean blasted the Bush administration’s foreign policy regarding Iraq and several other areas, but – when it came to Israel and Palestine – the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental objections with President George W. Bush’s policies. Dean called for an end to Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, but he did not call for a cessation of Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians. Similarly, there was no call for an end of the Israeli occupation, for Israeli compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, or a withdrawal from Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied territories or even a freeze on the construction of new settlements.

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."

<snip>

Dean also appears to reject the widespread consensus among Israeli peace activists and Middle East scholars that Palestinian terrorism is a direct outgrowth of the 35-year Israeli military occupation. Instead, Dean seems to argue that terrorism itself is the core issue. He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional. Pushing for such a dramatic and unconditional increase in financial support for the incumbent government just before Israelis went to the polls in January was widely seen as a not-too-subtle endorsement of Sharon’s re-election.

By the time Dean would become president, Israel could have a different prime minister. Despite his recent election victory, Sharon’s government is not likely to last very long and new Israeli elections could take place within a couple of years. Israeli opposition leader Amram Mitzna, who could become the next prime minister, takes a far more moderate position toward the Palestinians than does Dean. For example, Dean opposes Mitzna’s call for Israel to unconditionally return to peace talks with the Palestinians. One could therefore envision a situation where a President Dean, being even more anti-Palestinian than the Israeli government, would – instead of pushing both sides to compromise for peace – end up pressuring the Israelis to harden their position. Israeli peace activists fear that electing someone like Dean as president of the United States could end up sabotaging a renewed Middle East peace process.


<snip>


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

***********************

[jiacinto]

29. No Democrat is going to run on an anti-Israel platform

That's like asking the GOP to run against the NRA. It isn't going to happen.

[ryharrin]

30. pro israel enough?

His support of israel is one of his downsides to me. It's not really one of my big issues though, so I pretty much just ignore it.

[jiacinto]

32. Is any Democrat going to run on an anti-Israeli platform

That just isn't going to happen.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. I wish they would seriously try to stop the settlements though

.

[jiacinto]

39. I try to avoid most I/P threads because your eally

can't say something without offending people. That being said I think that the Palestinian Authority would get a much more sympathetic ear here in DC if it renouned terrorism strongly, was not corrupt, respected women's rights, was secular, and governed like a true democracy.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. The PA hasn't done anything to women. It may be corrupt

but then so is the settler government is israel. They renounced terrorism for a long time, with very little affect. They should renounce it because it is wrong, but it won't make a damned bit of difference is Washington. The settler interests are like the NRA.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. About respecting women's rights. . . one criticism of Islam is that

women are veiled, but that's a cultural custom, not practiced by all Muslims (obvious, if you think about it.) Because it's cultural, not religious law, it varies greatly. In some Islamic cultures, women are not covered at all, in others, from head to toe, in others, only their hair must be covered in public. Mosques seem to always be sexually segregated and I don't think women can become clergy, though I may be wrong about that.

It is my understanding that Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs, covering their hair, when they go out in public. They also worship separately from men, in a different part of the synagogue. Women are never allowed to pray at the very important holy site, the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. I don't think women can be Orthodox rabbis, either. So perhaps Israel also needs to be called upon to respect women's rights.

My opinion is that, up to a point, all religious faiths have the right to observe their own customs, however strange those outside the faith may think them. When you get into something like vastly different punishments for men and women committing the same sin/ crime, then it's a problem. If women are to be killed for adultery and men punished only slightly, that's clearly unjust. Another injustice would be if women are not allowed to own property. By the way, Muslim women have always been allowed to own property, a right which women did not always have in the US!

[JohnKleeb]

33. well can I just say something

Israel and Palestine both have committed atrocities can we admit that. There tends to be more lives lost on the Palestinian side. We got to promote a Palestinean nation they deserve one and Israel deserves to exist. Unileterally supporting Israel is wrong and the same goes for opposing it and Palestine.

[Tinoire]

34. And hence...

KUCINICH 2004! :) :) :)

[ieoeja]

37. I heard one interesting thing from him.

He suggested that Palestinians are probably more prepared for democracy than any other Arab country in the region. Albeit, he suggested this was in large part due to Israeli influence in their lives, but it sounds like he is certainly ready to embrace a Lands-for-Peace deal.


But the bigger question is "what is he willing to do about it?". When Israel agreed to return the Sinai to Egypt, the United States governed the Sinai during an interim period. Is he ready to put US soldiers into the new country of Palestine to protect each side from the other? Will Palestinians accept this, or will they turn on us?

I believe Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank when they and Israel reached their peace agreement some time ago. Did Egypt renounce their claim to the Gaza Strip? Are the Palestinians interested in the Golan Heights, or is that purely a Syria-Israeli issue? And are their still Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon? Do they want Lebanon to give up their land like Jordan and Egypt?

[killbotfactory]

41. I generally approve of his positions

Basically:
He believes there Palestine has the very good chance at becoming a functioning state, and supports a Palestinian state.
He believes that the terror should stop against Israel, as it's unrealistic to expect Israel to not react to such provication from Hamas or whoever.
He wants the settlements removed where the Palestinian state would be.
Even if he thinks one side is a bad actor or doesn't care about peace, he thinks it's irresponsible to problaim it and would continue working towards peace regardless.
I like that he doesn't demonize either side and appeals to their better nature, and draws a line between normal Palestinians and terrorist organizations funded by islamists in other nations.

What I would like to see is an acknowledgement that one person with a bomb around his waist will not have a veto on the peace process, and denounce the Israeli's who provoke the Palestinians.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Dean supports the Roadmap

The Roadmap is the only peace process at play in the Middle East. The Roadmap calls for an independent Palestinian state, at peace with Israel.

Dean's views on Israel are no different from Presidents Carter and Clinton.

I don't know of any Democrats that are opposed to the 2-state solution to the I/P conflict, nor do I know of any Democrats calling for the erradication of Israel or for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (as some Republicans have called for).

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
April 30, 2003

A PERFORMANCE-BASED ROADMAP TO A PERMANENT TWO-STATE SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

The following is a performance-based and goal-driven roadmap, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political, security, economic, humanitarian, and institution-building fields, under the auspices of the Quartet . The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005, as presented in President Bush's speech of 24 June, and welcomed by the EU, Russia and the UN in the 16 July and 17 September Quartet Ministerial statements.

A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel's readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below. The Quartet will assist and facilitate implementation of the plan, starting in Phase I, including direct discussions between the parties as required. The plan establishes a realistic timeline for implementation. However, as a performance-based plan, progress will require and depend upon the good faith efforts of the parties, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined below. Should the parties perform their obligations rapidly, progress within and through the phases may come sooner than indicated in the plan. Non-compliance with obligations will impede progress.

A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah — endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit — calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks.

The Quartet will meet regularly at senior levels to evaluate the parties' performance on implementation of the plan. In each phase, the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated.

More....

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text2003/0430roadmap.htm