Why exactly was Dean wrong with his Israel/Palestine remark?

[CentristDemocrat]

I mean, Lieberman goes on and on with how Dean is breaking from 50 years of a foreign policy relationship the United States has had, but where exactly has that policy gotten us? I mean, what is so wrong about being an "honest broker"? The situation in the Middle East is possibly the worst it's ever been, Joe, this "50 years of foreign policy" has gotten us nowhere.

[BurtWorm]

1. There's nothing wrong with it.

Lieberman is trying to use Dean's reasonable position as a wedge. Period.

[noonwitch]

4. Lieberman thinks he can appeal to fundies, perhaps

They support everything Israel does, without question. They also feel the same way about Bush, so why bother appealing to them?

[BurtWorm]

8. I think it's more like he's trying to shake some pro-Israel Deanites

loose.

[MaverickX]

66. he's using a smart strategy..

He's trying to show Dean knows little about foreign policy. Lieberman knows fundies won't accept a Jewish President or a pro-choice one.

[Khephra]

2. Not a thing wrong with it

It's Clinton's policy.

[StandWatie]

9. no, it wasn't

I know people want to believe that but Clinton was anything but broadminded and fair about the deal.

[MaverickX]

84. Clinton didn't trust the Palestinian side..

And frankly I don't either. They justify suicide bombings all the time.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Nothing.

What Dean is touting is exactly the same as Clinton's I/P policy. He merely wants to find peace for both sides and work with BOTH sides.

Hawkeye-X

[VermontDem2004]

5. Dean will be liked all around the world

once elected, he is just that type of person, willing to work with other countries to achieve a better world, unlike the sitting chimp in the white house.

[MaverickX]

82. this just proves...

He has no clue on foreign policy. He obviously simply follows left-wing demagogues on the Mideast like Bush just follows right-wing demagogues.

[goobergunch]

6. Nada, nil, zero, zilch. (n/t)

[sangh0]

7. Here's what's "wrong" about it, IMO

It breaks with 50 years of the Democratic Party's position. It will lose votes for Democrats. Furthermore, being a "honest broker" does NOT mean treating the two sides equally. The "honest broker" argument is what the media uses to avoid portraying the conservatives accurately.

[Malikshah]

10. If you have 2 unequal parties...

How can there be any solution.

This was the inherent failing of the Oslo process-- Any analyst worth their salt who has looked at the Oslo process will attest to this.

Negotiating from a point of overwhelming strength --sure, we'd all love that--but guess what--the solution will never be found that way.

Those who advocate this--- I would ask, what are you REALLY seeking? A just solution, or a just for me solution.

Just some food for thought.

[sangh0]

12. About Oslo

the reason why it failed was because Israel only offered the PA 75% of the West Bank, but that didn't stop Clinton (whose policy is supposedly just like Dean's) from lying about it and saying it was 95%.

It's not policy. It's politics.

[StandWatie]

24. you are right of course..

but as tired as the line "9/11 changed everything" it certainly changed some assumptions about how effective a US/Israeli alliance vs. the rest of the world.

[dfong63]

20. amen

one side held all the cards, most of them dealt by the US... that is not a recipe for finding a just compromise.

[StandWatie]

11. I assume you believe Jews would bolt

I don't believe that's true at all, as a matter of fact most American Jews agree that the occupation should end and the end will be an independent Palestinian state somewhere very close to the green line border. Jews who voted for Bush will continue to no matter what and Jews who voted against him won't change their minds over this.

It might mean the more chauvanistic elements of American Jewry will fill Bush's coffer more but that really depends on how serious Bush is about his little roadmap (I don't believe he is serious in any sense of the word but who knows), they may not have anyone to turn to.

As far as your concern about changing foreign policy, it's not 1950 anymore and I think most people understand that "supporting Israel" by nourishing the most fascist elements in Israeli politics and turning the place into the modern day equivalents of the Prussians wasn't really about "supporting Israel" at all.

[sangh0]

13. Decent points

However, none of it addresses the "honest broker" talk, which IMO is just politics, not policy.

[MrPrax]

52. It does address...

most of the concerns of 'liberal' democrats and most should read this post...Dean wants money from the AIPAC and the Cubans.

That's his policy in the grand tradition...

No change from the same with Dean and it really doesn't matter to the real powers who gets in...

Work for an alternative that might make a difference

[MaverickX]

96. you're mistaken a bit...

I don't believe that's true at all, as a matter of fact most American Jews agree that the occupation should end and the end will be an independent Palestinian state somewhere very close to the green line border.

They support this on pragmatic more than ideological grounds.


As far as your concern about changing foreign policy, it's not 1950 anymore and I think most people understand that "supporting Israel" by nourishing the most fascist elements in Israeli politics

Dean suggests doing more than just ending support for the right-wing in Israel, he wants us to view Palestine and Israel as equal in their relationship to us. It's silly to call the Likud fascist by the way, since they can be voted out of office. The Palestinian leadership on the other hand is unelected.

[w4rma]

32. It is my understanding that "honest broker" was used often by Clinton

Therefore, it is my opinion that you don't know what you are talking about, sangh0.

[sangh0]

55. Clinton lied

Have you ever heard a politician say he wants to be a "dishonest broker"?

It's like taking a position on crime. Are you for, or against? :-)

[uptohere]

14. "honest broker" is not the extent of his views

he's further stating conditions (eliminate settlements) and thats not brokering at all. Honest or otherwise.

[sangh0]

27. Dean's conditions

are old hat. Eliminate settlements?

Gee, how original! (That's sarcasm)

[Classical_Liberal]

65. Dean's conditions

are old hat. Treat Gonorrhea with a shot of Penicillin?

Gee, how original!

[thomprentice]

15. Lieberman, Sharon, UN Resolutions and the Likud

Is Joe Lieberman the DLC candidate for President or is he the Likud candidate for President? I mean, is he really running for President of the US or is he running for Prime Minister of Israel?

He scolded Clinton for unauthorized torpedo polishing near the oval office but has yet to say anything about the militaristic policies of MassacreMan Ariel Sharon who apparently delights in unleashing horrific terror on Palestinians in order to keep Israeli settlers happily and illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza.

Perhaps it is time to hold Israel to the UN resolutions of 1967 and thereafter -- especially 242 -- and if Sharon doesn't comply, make continued US funding of Israel contingent on Sharon's compliance with those UN resolutions. Never once that I can find has Lieberman ever publicly urged Israel to comply with those UN resolutions. Oh for Rabin again. Even Begin.

In any case, enough from Lieberman, already. After all, the first syllable in Lieberman's name is L-I-E.

[TheYellowDog]

22. If the countries did not want their land taken,

perhaps they shouldn't have invaded in 67. :shrug:

[Malikshah]

38. Uh....

Who attacked who in the 1967 war?

Just the facts please. In other words, pick up a book and read the history.

[thomprentice]

56. Moshe Dayan

uh...how about Moshe Dayan's book. Does that count?

Plus not a single point I made was addressed and an attempt was made to change the subject...typical Bush/Rove tactic I'm sorry to say...

But, let's see, Egypt and Syria attack in 1967...so Israel takes the West Bank and Gaza and Sinai. And except for SInai, won't give it back. Hmmmm.

[no name no slogan]

72. Dayan <> "impartial observer"

Of course, you may have read "Mein Kampf" and thought Hitler had a point about those nefarious Jews, too.

Even former members of Israel's government and armed forces have said that Israel attacked first, to stop a supposed troop buildup in the Sinai which NEVER EXISTED.

[TheYellowDog]

75. Moshe Dayan

is one of my heroes.

[Tinoire]

88. Good because your own hero dispels your myth

IndianaGreen (18833 posts)
Mar-03-02, 02:23 AM (ET)
Israel's war hero, Moshe Dayan, dispels myths of 1967 war


Israel's war hero, Moshe Dayan, dispels myths of 1967 war
Israelis re-examine decisions that led to momentous victory
By DAVID LANDAU
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Excerpt:

Indeed, the 30th anniversary of the war is largely being marked in Israel under the shadow of jarring posthumous pronunciations by the architect and popular hero of that war: then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. In a series of interviews that Dayan gave journalist Rami Tal in the mid-1970s and which were recently published in the Israeli daily Yediot Achronot, Dayan states that the years of cross-border violence between Israel and Syria that preceded the war were largely a result of Israeli provocations.

According to Dayan, some 80 percent of the pre-war border incidents were the result of Israeli initiatives.

Moreover, Dayan told Tal, he strongly opposed Israel's broadening the war to encompass the Syrian front.

But kibbutz leaders from the border area sought to annex the lush farmlands of the Golan Heights, Dayan said, and for that reason they prevailed on then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to launch the IDF ground attack against the Golan on the fifth day of the war.

Until then, the Israelis and the Syrians had confined themselves to trading shell-fire across the border-line.

In the interviews with Tal, Dayan described his grudging agreement to fight Syria as one of the most serious errors of his life.

This version of events before and during the war flies in the face of some of the most cherished Israeli myths.

<snip>

Dayan's version also has direct implications for the Israeli-Syrian peace process, particularly the present Israeli government's refusal to agree to a withdrawal from all of the Golan, even in the context of a full peace and satisfactory security arrangements.

<snip>

http://www.jewish.com/israel/his_six_reex.shtml


Repentance from the Grave: The Dayan Memoirs
Interviews of Moshe Dayan by Rami Tal
Translated by Reuven Kaminer

In 1976 Israel's famous general and political figure, Moshe Dayan, was in the political wilderness. His status had been severely tarnished by the blunders in the preparation for the October 1973 Yom Kippur War. Dayan did hope for some sort of a political comeback and therefore expressly forbade the journalist and personal friend, Rami Tal, from printing the results of a long series of interviews that Tal held with Dayan.
Tal recently received permission from Dayan's daughter, MK Yael Dayan, to publish the material.

Fatal Mistakes

The interviews cover many central events in Dayan's career, all of which are of some interest to observers of the Israeli scene. However, Dayan's confessions regarding two central cornerstones of Israeli policy are utterly astounding. The information and the analysis contained therein are sufficient to completely demolish the foundations of declared Israeli policy regarding these vital current issues, i.e. the Golan Heights and the Jewish settlement in Hebron. We would certainly like to translate the entire document which was published in Yediot Ahronot on April 27, 1997, but are simply unable to do so. Here are the two most significant sections:

Greed, Simple Greed!
The first interview took place on November 22, 1976.

DAYAN: ...But what I wanted to say was that in two cases I did not fulfill my duties as the Minister of Defence, in that I did not prevent things that I was certain had to be stopped. The first case was on the fourth day of the Six-Day War, when a delegation from the kibbutzim met with Eshkol in order to convince him to begin a war against Syria. Dado had sent them; he was the commander of the northern district and feared that he was going to be left out of the war, so he sent the kibbutzim members. The kibbutz members came and put on a big show for Eshkol: "What is this, you are abandoning us, and how are the Syrians going to get away clean, and all this kind of rubbish."

TAL: And you say this was superfluous?

DAYAN: It was more than superfluous. You see, you can talk in terms of the Syrians are scoundrels, they should be screwed, and it's the right time, and other such talk, but this is not policy. You don't screw the enemy because he's a scoundrel, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.

TAL: But they were sitting on the Golan Heights and...

DAYAN: Leave off. I know how at least 80% of the incidents began there. In my opinion, more than 80%, but let's talk about 80%. It would happen like this: We would send a tractor to plow someplace of no value, in the demilitarized zone, knowing ahead of time that the Syrians would begin to shoot. If they did not start shooting, we would tell the tractor to keep going forward, until the Syrians in the end would get nervous and start shooting. And then we would start firing artillery, and later also the airforce, and this was the way it was. I did this, and Laskov and Tzur did it. Yitzhak Rabin did it when he was there (as commander of the northern district at the beginning of the sixties), but it seems to me that it was Dado, more than anyone else, who enjoyed these games.

TAL: I'm pretty astounded at what you say. What was it all for?

Dayan prefaces his answer with an analysis of the armistice agreements and adds:

DAYAN: What do I want to say by this? We thought then, and this continued for quite a long time, that we could change the lines of the armistice agreements by military actions that were less than war. That is, to grab some territory and to hang on to it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us. It can be said absolutely that this was sort of naive on our part, but you should remember that we did not have the experience of a state...

TAL: So all that the kibbutzim wanted was the land?

DAYAN: I am not saying this. Certainly they wanted the Syrians to disappear. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they lived in the kibbutzim, they farmed, raised children, lived and wanted to live there. The Syrians opposite them were soldiers who shot at them and they certainly did not like this. But I can tell you in absolute certainly: the delegation that came to convince Eshkol to attack the Heights did not think about these things. It thought about the land on the Heights. Listen, I am also a farmer. I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel-Aviv, and I recognize this. I saw them, and I talked to them. They did not even try to hide their greed for that soil. That's what guided them.

Dayan discontinues this part of the interview by pointing out to Tal that he doesn't want to publish any of this, since he may somehow return to the political arena. And indeed Dayan joined the newly formed Begin government in the summer of 1977.

http://www.hagalil.com/GuShalom/maamarim/dayan.htm


http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1562&forum=DCForumID30&archive=

By the way Yellow Dod- no need to send me little love-note PMs because I don't believe in quadrupling military aid to Israel, a non US state.

[Forkboy]

101. Great post Tinoire

thanks!

[Tinoire]

107. Always my pleasure :) n/t

[TheYellowDog]

110. If you don't want the PMs,

then put me on ignore. I don't think I'll miss conversing with you. :puke:

[damnraddem]

16. Dean's sounding better than ever on Israel/Palestine.

He seems open to learning from history, unlike the U.S. in 50 years of foreign policy toward the region.

[sandnsea]

17. Once again, wishy washy

Just a week ago, people were lamblasting him over the wall and his pro-Israel views. Now, he's tried to 'clarify' his position and has blundered again. He's made a demand on Israel, that they must remove 'enormous amounts of settlements' which defies his own claim to be an 'honest broker'. Contradictory. He has said there should be no favoritism given to either Israel or Palestine, ignoring the longstanding US policy of the defense of Israel and Israel as a a strategic ally in the region. In fact, Clinton is the one who specifically designated Israel as a 'strategic ally'. He either doesn't know what he's talking about at all or hasn't understood foreign relations and that speciic words have specific meanings. Just like when he said nations should ahere to 'American' labor standards. He needs to get it together or he's going to go down in flames. Dean supporters ought to be glad Joe Lieberman is challenging him on these things, better he learn now then be humiliated by George freakin' Bush in the general election.

[dean4america]

18. nothing wrong with his policy

he's coming up on Wolf Blitzer (CNN) to discuss it - maybe he will slap Lieberman around again, but likely play it straight

[blm]

19. Dean's position keeps changing

depending on who is criticizing him. He is adrift on this issue. This was his recent ProSharon position.

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

That is 4x the loan guarantees ($2 billion to $8 billion) and 4x the military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion).

and noted by hippywife
in Dean's policy statement on I/P:

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.

How is that a balanced policy for all concerned? Israel gets billions in military aid but as a newly formed state the Palestinians are to have no defense capabilities?

[Sean Reynolds]

21. First article from almost a year ago....

Second article uses its base from that article you posted above.

It's not being adrift, it's growing with the issue. I'm sure when Dean was governor of Vermont he didn't look too much into the Middle East, thus his quotes from a year ago. Could it be that Dean possibly read up and thought the best way in fixing the problems in the Middle East would be by not taking sides?

[blm]

23. He went to Israel in January, didn't he?

That last paragraph is from his website.

I could swear that Gary Hart said that Dean called him last January before he went to Israel and said "Gary, what do I do?" Was he wrong about the month?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Link?

for "Gary, what do I do?

[blm]

43. You know the Denver Post pulled it.

And you also know that Hart said it.

But, here's the original post:

>>>>>>>>
While resisting a request to handicap the remaining contenders for the White House, the former Colorado senator offered these observations about some still in the field:
Bush is still "inexperienced" as the chief executive, having pushed ineffective tax cuts that have failed to kick-start the economy. Bush is hiding a "stealth agenda" of radical federal cutbacks from the American people. In evaluating Bush on three key leadership areas, Hart gave the president nearly failing grades on his stewardship of the economy and as a head of state but relatively high marks as commander-in-chief, based on successes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, lacks crucial defense or foreign policy experience.
Joe Lieberman, U.S. senator and former vice presidential candidate, is making a futile appeal to the "amorphous middle" by parroting Bush policies.
>>>>>
Dean, the former Vermont governor, is so inexperienced on defense and foreign relations that before his first trip to Israel in January, he called Hart and said, "Gary, what do I do?" Hart said.
>>>>
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E64%257E1373786,00.html

[blm]

76. No reply? The proof is here if you're serious.

.

[sandnsea]

36. I'm not raising a teen-ager

My 17 year old has time to grow on an issue. The President of the United States doesn't. He either gets his shit together or he's going to be sunk. If not now, certainly next year. And I could understand it if it were one issue, but it's not. It's every single one. And he's biggest issue, Vermont Healthcare, is going to be in deficit territories next year or require restructuring and cuts. So he can't even fall back on that in his campaign. Serious problems with Dean, very serious.

[gully]

25. Dean's position has not changed...

People are simply frustrated that the 'box' they try to put him in is not accurate.

There is nothing contrary about what has been posted here, and the formal position that Dean has, stating the US should remain neutral.

[blm]

26. Increasing military aid to Israel and telling

Palestinians that they should be demilitarized is evenhanded to you?

[TLM]

28. Wil you bashers make up your minds?

You attack Dean for being too pro-Israel, as others attack him for not being pro-Israel enough.

And where did Dean say the Palestinian state should not be allowed to have a defense force once it is established?

[tinnypriv]

40. I'll help with the citation

"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"

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

[gully]

42. Gosh, you all seem to have left out 'this' from Deans site

"The Israeli government will have to work to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people and ultimately will have to remove a number of existing settlements. These issues and others will all be elements of a final agreement negotiated by the parties."

And many other statements Dean makes about what Israel should/must do.

[tinnypriv]

48. I left that out

Because it has nothing to do with the point I addressed.

[blm]

54. Too bad they conflict with his other remarks

at times. His problem isn't with what he says in bits and pieces, it's what he is saying when you put them all together it makes for inconsistent policy.

[TLM]

58. Worng BLM, as ususal.

His statements are consistant. What is inconsistant is the lies the Dean bashers tell, because they take one fucking word and try to spin it into something it is not so they can attack Dean. Then when the rest of the things Dean has said are pointed out to prove the basher is lying, the basher tries to accuse Dean of being unclear or inconsistant. When the fact is that the accusations were bullshit from the start.

[blm]

61. Tell that to the muslims who see through Dean's game.

Tinoire has a few sites to share with you.

Dean should be applauded for softening his stand with his latest remarks, but, please don't pretend they are consistent when he just recently supported the wall and supported greater funding for Israel's defense while the Palestinians, he posited, must form a state without a military.

[TLM]

68. Everybody in the region wants to kill Israel...

They need to maintain a military.

However the biggest threat to Palestine is Israel.

Seems to me that if a peace can be established then a demiliterized Palestine is a good idea, provided they are allowed to have a domestic police force of some kind.


But i know you'll attack anything that comes from Dean, regardless of how reasonable or fair his position, and regardless of how consistant, because that's what you bashers do.

[StandWatie]

71. eh..

That's not even really true, the Arab Leaders don't give a shit about Palestinians and they just wish Israel would tone down the occupation and quit killing so many people because it shows off just how worthless they are to their subjects.

The thing you really, really, need to watch out for as far as "demilitarized" Palestine (I don't know why this matters, no one is going to arm them in any significant way) is that it's an excuse for Israel to retain control of the borders, imigration and land by means of Israeli military bases and Israeli troops guarding their borders. They want to make a fake state in other words.

[no name no slogan]

73. Tell that to the UN and the rest of the world

The Israeli government will have to work to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people and ultimately will have to remove a number of existing settlements

Just SOME of the existing settlements? Why not ALL OF THE EXISTING ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS on territories occupied since 1967? Why does Dean think that Israel shouldn't abide by UN Resolution #242?

So once again, the US and Israel get to shit in the Palestinians' yard, and then bitch about them not being grateful for the fertilizer.

This "plan" will work about as well as all the others (i.e., it won't).

[TLM]

57. No I'm talking about a defense force, like a police force.

not a military force.

Of course they're not going to want Palistine to have a big offensive military build up as soon as they are a state, but there has to be some level of defense force to police their own people to prevent the terrorist attacks.

[blm]

41. post 19

and its from a statement found at Dean's own site.

[Andromeda]

45. There's nothing you can do to

discourage the Dean-bashers. They'll find fault with everything Dean does. It's just sour grapes.

When Dean wins the nomination they're just going to have to accept it.

[gully]

37. Link please...

I've read much on this subject from Howard Dean and he says emphatically it's a two state solution. PERIOD.

[blm]

39. post 19...

and its from Dean's own site

[Cha]

29. "50 years of foreign poicy relationship the United States has

had" with Israel? And what exactly is working? Maybe it's time for someone to get in there and shake things up a bit!

Get rid of the stodgy ol network that is stuck in their proberbial ruts!

[dolstein]

31. I think it all comes down to what you think is a fair bargaining chip

The Palestinians act as if cessation of terrorist activities directed at Israeli civilians is simply a bargaining chip, not a precondition to negotiations.

The Israelis, likewise, act as if cessation of settlement activity in the West Base is a bargaining chip. I do think the Israeli's have some legitimacy here, since they acquired the land during a war that they didn't start, and therefore shouldn't have to give it back until they've reach agreement on issues that guarantee Israeli security under the new borders.

But the fact of the matter is that peace negotiations won't get anywhere are long as the Palestinian Authority turns a blind eye to all the terrorist activities being conducted by Palestinians. Nor will progress be made as long as Israel continues to build settlements. So the dismantling of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be a precondition to peace talks, as must the cessation of settlement construction. These have to be preconditions, not only because it's the "right" thing to do, because because you'll never be able to reach a meaningful agreement as long as these activities continue.

I think Dean's statements implied that he was willing to continue peace talks even if Palestinians were continuing to bomb Israeli civilians. And then he made matters worse by suggesting that Israel needed to start tearing down the settlements.

[w4rma]

34. Even Sharon says that Israel should tear down some settlements, dolstein

Settlements may go, Sharon hints

Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, shocked hardline supporters yesterday by suggesting for the first time that he might dismantle Jewish settlements in the occupied territories in exchange for real peace with the Palestinians.
…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/14/wisr14.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=126737

[tinnypriv]

50. This may be the most idiotic thing you've posted on the subject

<< The Palestinians act as if cessation of terrorist activities directed at Israeli civilians is simply a bargaining chip, not a precondition to negotiations. >>

Essentially correct.

<< The Israelis, likewise, act as if cessation of settlement activity in the West Base is a bargaining chip. >>

Exactly correct.

<< I do think the Israeli's have some legitimacy here, since they acquired the land during a war that they didn't start, >>

1. Israel started the 1967 war.
2. Israel has no legitimate claim with regards to building settlements in the West Bank.

They're both facts, and not in dispute outside of non-lunatic circles.

<< But the fact of the matter is that peace negotiations won't get anywhere are long as the Palestinian Authority turns a blind eye to all the terrorist activities being conducted by Palestinians. >>

Correct.

<< Nor will progress be made as long as Israel continues to build settlements. >>

Correct.

<< So the dismantling of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be a precondition to peace talks, as must the cessation of settlement construction. These have to be preconditions, not only because it's the "right" thing to do, because because you'll never be able to reach a meaningful agreement as long as these activities continue. >>

That puts you to the left of Dean on this issue.

<< I think Dean's statements implied that he was willing to continue peace talks even if Palestinians were continuing to bomb Israeli civilians. >>

Which would be a sensible policy.

How far do you think the NI talks would have got if every time the Real IRA blew the hell out of something the UK bombed Belfast with Tornados and cut off all peace talks?

<< And then he made matters worse by suggesting that Israel needed to start tearing down the settlements. >>

He said nothing of the sort.

[Nicholas_J]

33. Because

This is another Flip Flop of Deans positions from 6-8 months ago.

[Woodstock]

35. He just said

“The position I take on Israel is exactly the same position the United States government has taken for 54 years.”

That's kind of clear and a direct rebuttal to Lieberman.

I just talked with a Jew who feels strongly about this. He said "evenhandedness" is a code word for "anti-Israel" (I said, you mean the same way "quota" is a code for for anti-minority? he said yes.) So it was the word that bothered him. Dean said he wasn't aware of this, and he shouldn't have used that word.

[TLM]

59. "evenhandedness" is a code word for "anti-Israel"

I just don't understand that.

It is almost as if the israeli hardliners are offended by the very idea of the palistians being treated as human beings who deserve the same rights and freedoms that israelis have.

[MaverickX]

63. uhmm...

As a supporter of our relationship to Israel I don't think "evenhandedness" is anti-Israel I just think it's naive. How can you be evenhanded when one side hates us?

[TLM]

67. Easy, because the other side hates right back...

Both sides of this hate each other, kill each other, and need to knock their shit off.

Seems like an evenhanded approch is exactly what's needed.

[MaverickX]

78. yeah but Israel..

Doesn't hate us.

[ModerateMiddle]

91. there is a tremendous amount of feeling

in many of the Middle Eastern countries, Palestine included, that Israwl has no right to exist. The 50 year policy of the US is that Israel DOES have a right to exist - that question will never be part of the negotiations. Without the US support these 50 years, Israel would NOT exist.

There is nothing wrong with being fair and an "honest broker" in the negotiations. However, this is yet another example of Dean speaking first, and then realizing what he said later, after it blows up.

Much like W.'s "Crusade".

[Andromeda]

44. I watched the debate...

and Dean doesn't want to break with our alliance with Israel and intends to maintain our relationship with them---he just wants the U.S. to be a facilitator in peace so Israel can stop living in fear.

He wants to continue Clinton's policies in the ME. Clinton was working on a two-state solution but was never able to get Arafat to follow through. He said that Bush went on an eighteen month holiday in his term as pResident and ignored the I/P crisis entirely and that just made things worse. The United States has to get involved and talks have to include both sides in order to work out a peaceful solution.

No way did he say he would turn his back on Israel and it's nonsense to say that he did.

[_Jumper_]

46. What benefits has America derived from this "alliance"

All I see is a multibillion dollar handout to a small foreign country for votes...

My personal view is that we should just extricate ourselves from the I/P conflict. There is no major strategic U.S. interest in that battle.

[MaverickX]

64. I'm sorry but Clinton certainly

Favored Israel. His wife is the one who didn't.

[LastDemInIdaho]

47. In the eyes of most Americans you can't be evenhanded with suicide bombers

I won't argue if the terror lable fits Palestine or not but that's what most Americans see.

[_Jumper_]

49. True

But that is because they don't know the whole story. Let's not forget that the vast majority of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11....

I personally believe that a settlement should not be finalized until terrorism from the Palestinian side ceases. However, to wait for a cessation of terrorism to negotiate is a mistake IMO. The only way to reduce terrorism is to give people hope via a progressive peace process.

[MrPrax]

53. Most Americans think Iraq was responsible...

for 911 or that crop circles might be an extraterrestrial phenomenon...maybe Americans have been brainwashed by bad 'news' reporting...

Why aren't most Americans, like say the UK, and just get tired about paying billions to support the northern part of an island across the Irish Sea?

Why is it that when it comes to 'chump change' americans will fight tooth and nail over school funding but never even suggest that supplying Israel with WMDs is a 'political issue' without asking for some sort of resolution?

[Classical_Liberal]

69. Most American also think the settlements should

go.

[Clete]

51. I think Holy Joe is going to be attacking a lot more.

He sees Dean as the only threat he has to be the Democratic candidate. He is that deluded that he doesn't see that no one is going to vote for him except his wife. Also, I think what happened with Pelosi and company today is the same thing that happens at DU when a new member comes in. Let's face it. Sometimes we aren't very nice with upstarts. In Washington it's brutal when you aren't an insider. Of course back in the bat cave the Republicans are loving this.

[MaverickX]

62. I disagree with you...

He sees Dean as the only threat he has to be the Democratic candidate.

Lieberman isn't playing to the liberal activists or peace activists, he is playing to the Democratic leadership and hardcore partisan Dem insiders. He's trying to show that Dean doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about. The only fear Joe Lieberman has is that Dem leadership and insiders were taking Dean seriously. I think you're wrong that Lieberman will get no support in this process, however liberals also said the same about Clinton. Dean's only real support would come from grassroots liberals who have no freaking clue how to run a campaign or play the game. Lieberman isn't my number 1 choice because I do want a candidate that balances ideology,electability, experience, ability to govern and I think Lieberman may bend too far away from ideology.

[MaverickX]

60. you may be wrong..

Dean was wrong because the "Palestine" side of the conflict isn't clearly defined. Also, every other Arab state is either a theocracy or a pseudo-socialist police state, so why do you assume a Palestine state will be pro-West or a liberal democracy that we can consider a friend?

Israel on the other hand is a clearly defined entity, is pro-West, and is more of a liberal democracy than any other Mideast state. As far as being neutral, it's impossible to be neutral when we have no clue who represents Palestine and the vast majority of Palestinians hate the United States. I know political correctness would have us be friends with every nation, however we should be expected to try to be friends with people who hate us.

You say that the fact the Mideast is in chaos is because of our support for Israel. However, I feel the region is in chaos because Bush ignored the situation and even now only intervenes there by words alone.

Honestly, if we become neutral and favor Palestinians more than we do Israel it may force Israel to feel it must handle the situation all by itself and if that occurs the region will really erupt.

I support a Palestinian state, however I seriously doubt it'll be a liberal democracy, pro-West, or anything more than a state dominated by terrorists. However in 20 years Palestinian population in Israel/West Bank will surpass Jews and the Palestinians will accept voting power and will be able to dominate Israeli govt. If this occurs there would be a civil war.

A Palestinian state is in U.S. and Israeli long-term interest however Israel would only accept this if America is willing to defend Israel from the security threats a Palestinian state may offer. As you see re-organizing our policy in Israel would arguably lead to total chaos. The same is true for Hawkish neo-con policies that encourage Israel to expel Arafat, etc.

[kentuck]

70. Bush didn't touch the subject for 18 months....

Look what happened. The perception of fairness must be in any negotiation. We are not going to do anything that is not in the interest of Israel but the Palestinians must perceive that we are an "honest broker", operating with good intentions. In my opinion, this is how Bill Clinton came so close to a dramatic settlement between the parties and, I think if he had had 6 more months, he would have been successful. But then along came Jones....

[CWebster]

74. it iis generally overlooked that

many ME states, especially the oil producing ones, have been thwarted by the West in their attempts to evolve -with US imposed tyrants or assorted bastards to do the master's bidding. Chalabi is just the lastest in a long line...And, of course, populations who struggle for autonomy are cast as terrorists. Israel is little more than a repressive militarized apartheid state sucking on the US teat.

[MaverickX]

79. keep repeating the myths dished you

populations who struggle for autonomy are cast as terrorists

Bombing Jewish school children isn't a struggle for autonomy. Palestinians have mainly rejected all peaceful methods of autonomy.


repressive militarized apartheid state

How exactly is it an apartheid state when there are Arabs in Israeli government. What in the heck do you mean by military state? The fact Israel defends itself militarily? If say Cuba sent suicide bombers to Washington and killed 23 people at a university are you saying we wouldn't send military forces to kill those responsible? It's nice to hear you criticize how Israel defends itself from the safety of your home. Pacifism is so naive.

[StandWatie]

80. why it's apartheid?

Because Israel does everything it possibly can to make sure life sucks so bad for Israeli Arabs that they will emigrate. They get an Arab party that has never even had a cabinet position. Because they took over the West Bank and Gaza and refused to offer citizenship much less voting privleges to the millions of inhabitants of these places based on religion/ethnicity. Because they pay a bunch of settlers to go out to Hebron and go on shooting rampages while the IDF watches them and does nothing.

[MaverickX]

87. answers

...

[MaverickX]

92. ....

Arab party that has never even had a cabinet position.

This is the nature of parliamentary politics. Majority parties are the only ones who get in the cabinet.


Because they took over the West Bank and Gaza and refused to offer citizenship much less voting privleges to the millions of inhabitants of these places based on religion/ethnicity.

Yes they have offered them citizenship but they have refused.

[StandWatie]

98. rebuttal

"Demographics" is a hot issue in Israeli politics, they manipulate the population through not giving services to Arab communities that they give to Jewish communities and "right of return" so "democracy" is a fraud.

Earlier this year Palestinian negotiators warned that if settlement continued it was going to create a situation where it would be impossible to form a Palestinian state and they would start sueing for equal rights with Israeli's and Bush and the Sharon government both freaked out because in essence if they did this it would create Palestine reborn through the ballot box with Yasser Arafat Prime Minister so I'm fairly positive there is no way in hell Israel ever offered this.

[MaverickX]

99. borders on hilarity

"Demographics" is a hot issue in Israeli politics, they manipulate the population through not giving services to Arab communities that they give to Jewish communities and "right of return" so "democracy" is a fraud.

Any evidence the Israeli government has discrimination as a general policy? Do Israeli Arabs not get to vote or own businesses? The "right of return" simply means any Jew has an open invitation to be an Israeli citizen. What services are denied to Arab citizens of Israel? Arab citizens are even exempt from the military draft.

[StandWatie]

100. of course there is

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/

Most importantly Israel's own "Orr Panel" from 2003 found "The government treatment of the Arab sector was characterized by prejudice and neglect," but Israel wouldn't know I suppose, I have to learn about Israel from an American on a message board.

[MaverickX]

102. yeah and there are US "commissions"

That are willing to call American police to task for so-called excessive force. It's not necessarily true. This isn't necessarily an objective report. Did you use Google or something? Any specific examples of excessive Israeli force?

[StandWatie]

103. yeah, I just stuck it in Google

the excessive force was in using live ammo to put down Arab demonstrators and since they never, ever, ever do this to Orthodox Jews no matter how many rocks they throw or windows they break you know damn well it's racist or at least sectarian. It's also damning that the Orr Commission (which was set up by the Knesset, it isn't some think tank) didn't recomend that anyone be fired at all.

Excessive force is just barely the surface. The "no military" sounds great except that the Israeli government and Israeli business have found that by stipulating "veterans only" on various social services or employment they can keep the araboushim out.

Israeli banks will carry specific policies against giving Arabs mortgages

[MaverickX]

104. if I policed an Arab demonstration that got out of hand...

And people started throwing rocks at me I'd shoot them too.

[StandWatie]

105. but not Jews?

[MaverickX]

106. How many Orthodox Jews have protests?

And how many attack Jewish soldiers?

[StandWatie]

108. for awhile every Saturday in Mea Shearim

The Orthodox and the Secular would start hurling rocks at each other over driving or playing music or something and the Riot Police were there every day catching rocks from both sides. Last I heard they finally fire-bombed one the yeshiva's and things calmed down but

[CWebster]

89. Myths

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article865.shtml

[LoneStarLiberal]

77. U.S.S. Liberty tells you all you need to know

The main criticism, as discussed in other posts on this topic, is basically that Dean used language that is understood as code for official neutrality on the issue of Israel and Palestine as opposed to official support of Israel only.

You have to play to the choir as an outsider: Even if he was going to do something officially neutral about Israel and Palestine once he was President, it's a bad tactical error in a big field of candidates to stumble into the "Levant Rhetoric" trap this early.

There is no tolerance for anything other than official support for Israel no matter what they do to the Palestinians. There hasn't been since LBJ's administration (when we bit our official lip when they sunk the U.S.S. Liberty and murdered U.S. Navy sailors and NSA electronics officers) and make no mistake about it, this intolerance of anything other than official support is one of the few bipartisan issues you will find in American politics.

[MaverickX]

81. ....

There is no tolerance for anything other than official support for Israel no matter what they do to the Palestinians.

Oh so I guess the State Dept. criticizing Israel's decision to expel Arafat is an example of this.

U.S.S. Liberty tells you all you need to know


Our own investigation said it was an accident.

understood as code for official neutrality on the issue of Israel and Palestine as opposed to official support of Israel only.

Dean wants to be as good of friends with Palestinians as we are with Israel. However why should we be friends with people that justify suicide bombers and celebrated when we were attacked on 9-11. Neutrality expects us to forget how anti-America one side is. Why must we be neutral?

[sangh0]

83. ...

Oh so I guess the State Dept. criticizing Israel's decision to expel Arafat is an example of this.

Actually, yes. The State Dept's response was nothing more than a repetition of it's earlier statement that expelling Arafat would be "counter-productive". It was NOT a criticism of the specific action the Isrealis just took in voting to "remove" Arafat, and it threatened no action on our part.

In technical terms, it's called "a slap on the wrist"

Our own investigation said it was an accident.

Read James Bamford's Body of Secrets The NSC taped radio intercepts from the planes that attacked the USS Liberty. They clearly state seeing the US flag flying on the ship, which the crew had put up specifically in the hopes that the Isrealis would see it and refrain from attacking.

Dean wants to be as good of friends with Palestinians as we are with Israel.

Bad move. Foreign policy is pursued on the basis of interests, not friendship.

[MaverickX]

85. yes but...

Foreign policy requires values too. Being allies with Israel is in our interest.

[LoneStarLiberal]

90. It Requires Values All The Way Around

I agree. In the interests of peace we need to quit treating all Palestinians like they are terrorists. Israel has a right to defend itself and I don't think that should be disputed by anyone. But in invoking that right to defend as they have with pinpoint helicopter gunship rocket attacks on Hamas targets, Israel must understand that it is doing nothing more than perpetuating the problem. Sure, you kill a Hamas militant each time, but you also kill civilians each time. At the best this policy is a wash. Kill the present leadership and offer the best recruitment for future bombers and leaders all at once.

I had a previous reply that I deleted accidentally with a "button mishap" on the keyboard that gave a longer response to your previous post, specifically the U.S.S. Liberty. The Liberty inquiry was a joke; only the sailors and technicians whose views conformed with the government's (and the officers conducting the inquiry, specifically Admiral Kidd) were called back for the inquiry after the blanket pre-inquiry interviews. Instead of awarding McGonagle his Medal of Honor at the White House by the President as was and is customary, the ceremony was shunted to the Navy Yard and the presentation was made by the Secretary of the Navy. The citation only mentions combat but not the national origin of the attacking forces.

[MaverickX]

93. ....

treating all Palestinians like they are terrorists.

We don't treat them all like they're terrorists. We didn't treat Abbas like a terrorist.

Israel has a right to defend itself and I don't think that should be disputed by anyone. But in invoking that right to defend as they have with pinpoint helicopter gunship rocket attacks on Hamas targets, Israel must understand that it is doing nothing more than perpetuating the problem.

By protesting Israeli military going after Hamas leaders you certainly aren't demonstrating you support Israel's right to defend itself.

You expect Bush to get bin Laden right? Unless you oppose any use of military force why is it wrong for Israel to use it in self-defense.

[LoneStarLiberal]

109. Protesting vs. Alternatives

By protesting Israeli military going after Hamas leaders you certainly aren't demonstrating you support Israel's right to defend itself.

You expect Bush to get bin Laden right? Unless you oppose any use of military force why is it wrong for Israel to use it in self-defense.

I'm not protesting Israeli tactics. I'm merely trying to develop the argument that it's not a case of pinpoint attacks being morally sound and ground forces and re-occupation being morally bankrupt: Those pinpoint attacks, no matter how "pinpoint," still kill innocent civilians. Just like suicide bombers kill innocent civilians, but rarely do the pinpoint attacks kill more than the recent average for suicide bombings.

The point isn't who kills more but the fact that innocents are killed on both sides.

That perpetuates the problem.

I do expect our adminstration, whether this one or a future one, to go after Osama bin Laden. But the thing that our policy makers and others' policy makers and pundits in general miss out on is that in addressing the issues of national security you often at the very least perpetuate a problem and in the worst case exacerbate it instead of the professed goal of solving it.

The Israeli administration, the Palestinian administration, and the U.S. government have not applied the full range of possibilities to bringing all parties to the table under conditions of a cease fire. Instead we get made-to-fail stuff like the Bush administration's roadmap.

In summation, I am not protesting Israel's right to defend herself; I am merely trying to point out that the current policy responses that Israel uses perpetuates the problem they are trying to solve and that all three major players involved need to work a hell of a lot harder at generating a responsible, cooperative solution that has a chance of working.

[farmbo]

86. No Israeli supremacy= No new Temple= No End times

That's what has all the Fundies'shorts tied up in knots.

[MaverickX]

94. Lieberman..

Is not a Christian fundamentalist is he?

[Evanstondem]

95. LIeberman is not a Christian fundamentalist, but...

he is clearly partial to one of the parties in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

[MaverickX]

97. really?

clearly partial to one of the parties in the Israel-Palestinian conflict

Well why shouldn't he be? Most other Arab states are anti-democracy, anti-West, and are basically dictatorships, so why do you assume a Palestinian state would be any different? That's why Lieberman supports Israel, it is a pro-democracy, pro-West liberal democracy.