Lieberman and Dean Spar Over Israel

[Herschel]

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman is hammering former Vermont governor Howard Dean over remarks he made recently about the Middle East conflict. But Dean maintains that he hasn’t retreated from the strongly pro-Israel positions he articulated early in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The squabble produced fireworks Tuesday at a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, with Dean accusing Lieberman of demagoguery.

On the campaign trail last week Dean said that “it is not our place to take sides” in Middle East negotiations and that Israel would need to dismantle “an enormous number” of West Bank settlements.

“His statement was without precedent — it was irresponsible,” Lieberman told the Forward in a telephone interview Tuesday. “We criticize President Bush – all the Democratic candidates — for having separated America from its values and having broken alliances. Dean’s statement would do the very same with regard to Israel.”

“He said Israel should get out of the West Bank,” Lieberman, who has supported a two-state solution, continued. “That’s a predetermined outcome that ought to be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians. That’s taking sides.”

The thrust of Dean’s “no sides” statement, Lieberman said, “divided the Democratic Party from the mainstream of American foreign policy. People have to judge this.”

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.09.12/news.lieberman2.html

Howard Dean has damaged himslef and the Democratic party. He waffles on issue most Democrats are firm with.

[Forkboy]

1. Dean is consistant with Clinton's policy

Joe is far more damaging to the party with his endless remarks about how we "deserve to lose",etc.

Not that it matters...Joe is toast.

[w13rd0]

2. Funny...

...just last week I was hearing his position was 4x as pro-Israel as Wolfowitz, now the SAME POSITION is an incredible departure. Pfft...

[Herschel]

8. Correct

He has waffled on the issue, as the article indicates.

[a_random_joel]

3. I disagree

The Democratic process requires looking at all sides of any issue. Dean is simply advocating this in regards to an issue that is fundamentally not an American issue.

No question that there are many Americans who are supportive of Israel, myself included, but to attempt to drive such a wedge into the party at this time, when there are far more critical issues at stake in this election is absolutely reprehensible by LIEberman.

[newyorican]

4. Which state do you vote in?

And when is the primary?

[vierundzwanzig]

5. Dean, Lieberman

where exactly do they differ. Dean's head campaign adviser is a former head of AIPAC.

Don't need the weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[rini]

6. we can only hope

I was pro-Dean, now I'll have to see. I still think he has the best domestic policy going.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

25. They don't

It is such a phony issue, and people on both sides are pissing me off. People in Lieberman's camp and other campaigns are pissing me off by acting like Dean intends to cut off aid to Israel and reverse 54 years of support, and people in my own camp are pissing me off by cheering Dean for "standing up to the evil Zionist lobby that is conspiring to take over the country." Okay, so I am exaggerating a little, but I am really upset about this whole thing.

[Resistance]

7. oh my gosh

Dean said that the illegal settlements should be dismantled? Wow what an anti-semitic "leftist retard" he is. Good thing we've got Holy Joe to keep the radicals in check, eh Democrats?

[Herschel]

9. The dismantling of settlements

is an issue to be negotiated. To approach the situation with Dean's assumption is biased toward the Palestinians.

[Forkboy]

10. I'm sure with his Jewish wife and Jewish raised child

that he has a bias for the Palestinians :eyes:

[Herschel]

12. A Jewish wife and child are irrelevant

Some Jews have misguided views on Israel. I will leave it at that.

[jos]

14. I'm sick of your sanctimony

I'm Jewish and consider your views to be "misguided." They show how much Zionism has distorted the ethical precepts of Judaism.

[Resistance]

16. The Zionist hawks

who are engaged in a campaign of dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by any means necessary certainly could learn a thing or two from Judaic moral principles. Was it not the greatest of Jewish rabbis who taught us "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

[EFF BrandyWine]

35. Actually, it was an ancient rabbi named Akiva that first wrote it...

Jesus re-worded it...not that it matters. The concept of caring for one's fellow human being with the same love and regard as for one's self is still pretty good advice. I wish more people followed it.

[Darranar]

41. Actually...

it first appears in Leviticus, Chapter 19 verse 18.

[Forkboy]

17. you're right

I will leave it at that.

[durutti]

21. Judaism Does Not Equal Zionism

Some Jews are not Zionists. Other Jews are Zionists, but still support the Palestinian cause to some extent. And still other Jews think that Zionism and Judaism are actually incompatible.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

24. 90% of American Jews consider themselves Zionists

That is, 90% of those who identify as Jews. Being a Zionist primarily means supporting the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. There is nothing right wing about being a Zionist. I know many people on the left who consider themselves Zionists, and rightly so.

[Resistance]

11. oh now you want negotiation

you didn't want to negotiate the internationally recognized Right of Return for Palestinian refugees living in the OT ... well that is another issue. Back to the topic at hand.

Dismantling of settlements is simply the right thing to do: you don't steal someone's land, then demand to negotiate on giving it back. You just do it. To state this is to be biased on the side of JUSTICE - something I thought Democrats were all about, but sadly disappoint me on time and time again.

[Herschel]

13. The Democrats

Stand with little Israel in spite of any notion of justice you may have. The glorious congressional resolution made this clear.

[StandWatie]

15. are you maybe an ex-communist?

[Herschel]

39. Explain yourself

-

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

18. considering that you cheer extrajudicial killing

I'd say your notion of justice is rather weak.

[Herschel]

40. I applaud

murderers meeting justice. Others would rather sympathize with them. Oh, my.

[Forkboy]

42. I dont sympathize with them

I respect the rule of law.You dont...it's that simple.

Oh,my.

[Herschel]

45. Circumstances do not warrant

a trial for these killers. If they were to surrender themselves, it would be feasible. Instead, Israel must hunt them and deliver justice. Will they offer themselves for trial? I think you know the answer.

[durutti]

22. International Law is Non-Negotiable

Why don't I kill someone and "negotiate" whether or not I'll be punished?

According to the Red Cross, settlements are equivalent to war crimes.

[Forkboy]

23. It's our wacky notion of justice

that makes us think the way we do :)

[UnapologeticLiberal]

26. No, he is not - he is fine on Israel

but some in his camp originally made me a little uncomfortable with their Israel stances. Luckily most of them have abandoned him for Kucinich.

[drewb]

19. Another Litmus test???

Pro Choice?
Pro Gun Control?
Pro Affirmative Action?
Pro Israel?

4 for 4 or you are not a democrat!

Oh my?

[Jackie97]

20. Actually, Joe's right to a point....

Dean needs to admit that to a point, he's taking sides.

Other than that, vote for Dean for president!

[Darranar]

27. "No sides?"

Dean has strong AIPAC concnections. Anyone who criticizes him for not being pro-Israel enough is radically pro-Israel - like Lieberman. As long as they carry on this little duel, I must say: GO DEAN!

Kucinich is the best choice for this issue.

[Fight_n_back]

28. It is a healthy debate

there is no debate in the Republican Party.

[Darranar]

29. A "healthy" debate?

A right-wing DLCer DINO is accusing a Democrat with connections to AIPAC of lack of support for Israel? That's not a healthy debate; that's bullying.

[Forkboy]

30. It's pandering and fear-mongering by Joe

[Darranar]

31. Exactly

[Tinoire]

36. What a breath of fresh air you are

You are one of the few who's seeing clearly through this. There's no debate here. You just perked me up after reading Indy's news about Arafat possibly not lasting another 24 hours.

on edit: typo

[IndianaGreen]

34. A healthy debate would not be confined to the I/P forum

Is your side prepared to ask Skinner that this debate be allowed upstairs?

I didn't so...

[Tinoire]

37. Of course not

Best keep it hidden away under lock and key- continually underestimating the extent of the anger caused by this conflict and thinking 'if we just hide it and control the debate it will go away". Well congratulations to those who sought to stifle the discussions!

It not only did not go away but it threatens to explode at the most inopportune time for getting Bush out of office because there are certain lines millions of anti-war activists will not cross.

[BushHasGotToGo]

32. Bashing Lieberman for his faith is not the answer

It's not anti-zionism, it's anti-semitism.

You have a relative baked in an oven and then come back and tell us how it feels.

But Dean does support a state of Israel and I support Dean.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Strawman argument

No one has bashed Lieberman for his self-proclaimed "religiousity."

I personally think that Lieberman is a self-pontificating asshole pretty much along the same lines of his buddy, that compulsive gambler and "author" of the Book of Virtues, Bill Bennett.

[StandWatie]

44. are they friends?!

I know he rubs elbows with Falwell and Robertson (and that's enough to make him scum right there) but I didn't think even he would be low enough to hang with Bennett.

[IndianaGreen]

46. They are friends

and political allies.

[IndianaGreen]

33. So, Lieberman opposes Israel's withdrawal from West Bank?

Is Lieberman endorsing keeping all the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza? That's the only rational explanation for Lieberman's extremist position on the I/P question, a position which I will point out has never been officially endorsed by any Israeli government, Labour or Likud! It is a position, however, that is advocated by the most extremist and racist elements among the settlers, including those that support the late hatemongering rabbi Meir Kahane.

(West Bank)...a predetermined outcome that ought to be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians.

Negotiations can only take place between equal parties at the peace table. There is no equality when it comes to Israel and Palestine. Israel is a nuclear power with a powerful military. Palestine is not even a state! Palestine is a fledging nation under brutal Israeli occupation, its people subjected to daily indignities and abuses the likes of which we have not seen since South Africa's apartheid.

The only way in which Palestine can sit at the peace table as an equal to Israel is by having a neutral third party, a facilitator, guarantee such a status to the Palestinians. The United States is such third party. From the Camp David accords, to Oslo, to the Roadmap for Peace, American Presidents have worked hard to bring the two parties in the I/P conflict to the peace table. It is a road full of pitfalls, twists and turns, and many failures. The tit-for-tat cycle of violence, intensified in the last few days by the bombing of civilians by both sides is just another bloody chapter in the history between Israelis and Palestinians.

The fact that Lieberman has chosen to demagogue the Middle East conflict in order to salvage his pathetic and losing campaign for President, is more evidence of his unfitness for higher office and how far Lieberman has strayed from the Democratic party.

Many of those that are trumpeting Mr. Lieberman's demagoguery of Dr. Dean's positions are neither liberal nor Democrats, and some are not even Jewish but Christian fundamentalists. We can expect to see them voting for Mr. Bush next year. We might even seen them joining Mr. Lieberman when he forms his "Democrats for Bush"!