For Clark supporters, I have a question.

[La_Serpiente]

What is Clark's posistion on the Israel/Palestine issue? Also, are there any questionable advisors?

Nevermind, found it

http://www.meetclark.com/faq/index.asp?faqid=20

[WillyBrandt]

1. "The road to Baghdad is through Jerusalem"

He's very pro-Israel. But that can mean two things: like Bush et al, pro the demands of right-wing Israeli nationalism; or like Clinton, pro a sense of American responsibility towards the well-being of the Israeli state and people.

The two are very different. Witness Clinton's pursuit of peace, and Bush's abandonment of the same.

So he does not at all subscribe to anti-Israeli chic, and he seems to have a moral and strategic view of America's aid of Israel. But that does not mean Likudnik: it means aiding the peace process, the only thing that can guarantee Israelis survival as a free people, and Palestinians' future as a people with dignity and sovreignity.

When I saw him, he spoke of the neocon fantasy that by invading Iraq we could set the grounds for a new Middle East, that toppling Saddam would lead to a peace, that "the road to Jerusalem is through Baghdad."

He vigorously disagreed and said our top priority must be to help establish the conditions of peace if we wish to help the Middle East reform and change its (honestly) anti-democratic and unfree ways. He said it's not that "the road to Jeruslem is through Baghdad. The road to Baghdad is through Jerusalem."

[La_Serpiente]

2. So based on your post

I am right to assume that he wouldn't take the Likudnik path to peace. Instead, he would take the path to peace where both sides are talking to each other?

[WillyBrandt]

3. I would guess a Clintonite approach

Everyone in the world--except for large portions, of course, of Israelis and Palestinians--know what the final settlement should look like. Split Jerusalem. Removal of settlements. 67 borders with adjustments. Lots of money for both sides. Right of return in the new Palestine. Right of return in special cases to Israel; monetary compensation for others.

Only a couple of nuts in the US think this is bad.

Clark said his top priority would be to place senior people--not some punk undersecretary--and give it his top attention, like Clinton did, getting personally involved.

It's not a matter of revolutionary new approaches. It's basically putting sincere effort and energy to getting pretty commonplace ideas implemented.

[La_Serpiente]

4. That's the approach I agree with

It is just that during Clinton's tenure, they continued to build the settlements.

However, that is heck of a lot better than having the president of AIPAC as an advisor })

[WillyBrandt]

5. I am worried what Clark can do

If Arafat and Sharon are still there. Those two are worthless. If Clark's victory were accompanied by a Labour victory and Arafat moving to Peru, then I think we'd be set.

[Aidoneus]

6. why would a Labour victory bring anything better?

.

[GabysPoppy]

7. For the same reason that

A Democratic President, duly elected in 2004, would give Americans a better chance to get out of the fucked up mess that the current Resident has created.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

8. In case you haven't been paying attention,

and that would be the 'collective' you...Clark is very tight with the Clintons and their people, advisors, etc.