87 senators urge Obama to pressure Abbas

[shaayecanaan]

"Now that the Israeli settlement moratorium has expired, the world is looking to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to see if he will follow through on his threats to step away from the negotiating table. Here in Washington, lawmakers are looking to President Barack Obama to lean on Abbas to stay put.

Eighty-seven U.S. senators have already signed on to a letter, which was initially circulated only three days ago, calling on Obama to publicly pressure Abbas to continue with the direct peace talks begun Sept. 1 in Washington.

The senators sent the letter (PDF) to Obama on Monday. It stated that "Neither side should make threats to leave just as the talks are getting started," a thinly veiled reference to Abbas's multiple statements that he would leave the talks if the moratorium was not extended."

more: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/27/87_senators_urge_obama_to_pressure_abbas

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

The 87 senators to sign onto the current letter are the same 87 senators who have signed other letters recently promoted by AIPAC.

The 13 senators who have not signed the letter are the following:-

Akaka
Dodd
Gregg
Harkin
Leahy
Merkley
Sanders
Udall (Tom)
Webb
Bingaman
Bunning
Goodwin
Kerry

[chimpymustgo]

1. They need to urge Obama to pressure Israel to stop stealing Palestinian land.

[Arctic Dave]

2. I would think that putting pressure on nutty not to lift the "ban" would

have been more productive.

[msongs]

3. meanwhile Israel is going all in for its lebensraum policy against arabs nt

[hendo]

4. The US needs to pressure Israel, not Abbas. NT

[howaboutme]

5. Josh Block resigning AIPAC to become an anti-left wing Democratic advisor

From your link: "AIPAC strongly applauds this overwhelming, bipartisan statement supporting these important direct talks, and making crystal clear to President Abbas that staying at the table -- without preconditions or threats -- is the only path to peace," said AIPAC spokesman Josh Block.

BTW Josh Block is resigning from AIPAC to become an anti left wing Democratic Party strategist. What he really wants is to get the USA involved in another neocon war, and not for the USA.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/09/28/2741068/block-leaves-aipac-for-democratic-consultancy

To quote the jta article: " A former Democratic activist, Block told Politico that he is re-entering the fray to counter what he said were the left wing's deleterious effects on the party."

"There are actually Democrats out there these days calling themselves 'progressives' who don't care about the debt we're laying on our children, who think it's a good idea to let Iran get nukes and no longer see America as the leader of the free world, and these guys are so out of touch with reality, they actually think those positions will help get folks elected," he said. "It's incumbent upon those of us who know better to stand up and be counted."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9218363&mesg_id=9218363

[shaayecanaan]

6. "the left wing's deleterious effects on the party"

Incredible.

[oberliner]

11. That's not actually a quote from him

That appears to be the author of the article's attempt to paraphrase from Block's actual remarks.

In those remarks, Block identifies himself as "a life-long Democrat in the true liberal tradition."

Maybe the JTA writer is taking the SATs this year and is excited about learning a new word.

[azurnoir]

10. thank you n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Let's hope he stands up to them.

The only hope for peace is if Obama puts pressure on Israel and supports the Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. That letter is one-sided garbage. Not a mention of Israel killing innocent civilians or settlements.

Do those senators not think or just not care how ridiculous they look to the rest of the world? Reading that one-sided cheer-leading for Israel is especially sickening considering the US has just imposed sanctions on Iran for its human rights violations. Human rights violations by Israel, otoh, seem to be applauded by some US politicians...

[Tripmann]

9. In other words, lean on the side who have not just resumed breaking international law. Incredible

[Jefferson23]

12. Kudos to those who did not sign. n/t

[oberliner]

14. Wow - kudos to Jim Bunning from a DUer?

Will wonders never cease!

[shaayecanaan]

16. Apart from Bunning

(who I suspect didnt bother to sign because he's leaving anyway) they are all Democratic senators, and indeed consist of some of the more principled Senators in the upper house.

The only omission that surprises/disappoints me is Feingold. I was disappointed when he did not proceed with his presidential bid last election as he seems to be a very principled man. Unfortunately as far as Palestine goes he tends to hew the line pretty closely.

[oberliner]

17. That is incorrect

Judd Gregg is also a Republican and Bernie Sanders is an Independent.

Edit to add: Also, Republican Lamar Alexander did not sign the letter (the OP incorrectly lists Akaka who did sign it instead of Alexander who did not).

Further Edit: The list of non-signers, as it turns out consists of six Republicans, six Democrats, and one Independent - see my post to the OP with the corrections.

[Jefferson23]

19. LOL, nice try oberliner. n/t

[oberliner]

21. Also Jeff Sessions and Tom Coburn

Who woulda thunk it!

[Jefferson23]

22. Yea, who would of thought Bernie Sanders would vote like those guys.

Maybe there is something lingering underneath it all..hmm.

You crack me up.

[oberliner]

23. There wasn't any vote

They just all decided not to sign the letter.

For different reasons, I would imagine.

[Jefferson23]

24. Vote, agree to sign or not, you know what I meant about the letter.

Perhaps different reasons.

[shaayecanaan]

15. Interesting make up of senators...

Bunning is a fairly corrupt Republican who is leaving the Senate shortly and doesnt give a rats arse anyway. Interesting though that he didnt sign this or the earlier Reid-McConnell letter.

The remainder are all middling-to-left Democrats. Akaka is a native Hawaiian who voted against the Iraq war and whose sympathies would naturally reside the Palestinians. The rest are predominantly Catholic senators, suggesting that the old alliance between Palestinians and Irishmen still has legs.

The two senators from New Mexico are interesting, particularly Tom Udall who is shaping up to be an interesting member of the Udall family.

Its a pity the Senate isn't more representative in terms of Black and Latino senators. A few more Blacks and Latinos to add to the Catholics and there would be a real fight on I suspect.

[oberliner]

18. Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, and Russ Feingold all signed the letter

They are some of the most left-leaning Democrats in the Senate, I think you would agree.

Also, the OP is mistaken - Akaka did sign the letter.

[shaayecanaan]

26. I think Al Franken is a lightweight and utterly feckless (nt)

[azurnoir]

13. Perhaps Obama should persuade Abbas to stay in the talks

and as a carrot Netanyahu could be persuaded to drop the recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" condition from his end of the table especially seeing as how we're told that the PLO has already recognized Israel's "right to exist"

[oberliner]

20. OK - a lot of the names on the list of "non-signed" are incorrect

The following senators listed in the OP as having not signed the letter, actually did sign the letter:

Akaka, Harkin, Merkley, and Udall (Tom) - all Democrats.

The senators who did not sign the letter who are not on the list in the OP are:

Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn, Richard Lugar, and Jeff Sessions - all Republicans.

[shaayecanaan]

25. Which list are you working off?

nt

[oberliner]

27. The one on Barbara Boxer's website

Here is a link:

http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/092710.cfm

Edit to add: Which list were you using?

[shaayecanaan]

28. One I found on a other forum...

which obviously was wrong. Apologies to all and to any Senator that felt defamed or faintly praised.

Accordingly, the senators that didnt sign are:-


Coburn (R)
Dodd
Gregg
Alexander (R)
Leahy
Lugar (R)
Sanders
Sessions (R)
Webb
Bingaman
Bunning (R)
Goodwin
Kerry

I dare say the Republicans might have peeled off because the letter praised Obama. The Democrats who peeled off are mostly from the dovish side of the party.

[oberliner]

29. Judd Gregg is a Republican

Edit to add: Which other forum had the inaccurate list?

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Do you think what party they're from is relevent?

It's just that at least in the US, there seems to be a competition between pollies of the two parties as to who can show the most unconditional and OTT 'support' of Israel. It doesn't appear to be an issue that's divided along party lines...

Do you find the US Congress to be remarkably one-sided and biased towards Israel in the letters and stuff it comes out with?

[oberliner]

31. Yes I do

First, just for the sake of factual accuracy, I think it worth correcting the inaccurate list of names and parties that was included in the OP.

Second, I think that if those who did not sign the letter were almost uniformly Democrats (as was falsely implied in the original incorrect list), or almost uniformly Republicans it would indicate that a particular faction from within one or the other party opposed the content of the letter rather than what turned out to be about a 50/50 split.

I do think that the US Congress is generally receptive to issuing letters that are supportive, rather than critical of Israel. Not sure that I would use the word bias as that implies an unfair prejudice.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. But you argued very recently that it wasn't relevent when it came to Pollard...

You seriously don't think the US Congress is one-sided and biased towards Israel?? You don't think it's showing unfair prejudice towards Israel????

[oberliner]

33. No, I didn't - I argued that their being Jewish wasn't relevant

In fact, I specifically mentioned that their political party was relevant and asked why the issue was being promoted by progressive Democrats rather than non-progressive Republicans.

You seem to have been the one who thought their political parties were not relevant.

From the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x333269#333278A

My comments (#29): I don't think their being Jewish is relevant.

And (#10): Why, for instance, are four relatively progressive Democrats the ones pushing the issues rather than more obviously non-progressive Republicans?

Your comments (#17): This isn't an issue that divides people on party lines...

[azurnoir]

34. really and what did you say that in relation to?

and how is being Jewish relevant to party lines? VC did not ask anything about Jews is there some other impression or point you are trying to make, if so be clear about it please

[oberliner]

35. In relation to the congress members who circulated the letter about Pollard

I don't think being Jewish is relevant to party lines.

I thought maybe the poster was mixing up some of my posts in that thread.

[azurnoir]

43. well that is an accurate observation except that the post you

answering on the thread you linked was not about being
Jewish as relevant to party lines even though you answered here it as if it was, sadly though that the post was deleted shortly after you replied for reasons I am not quite sure of especially seeing as how it had been posted 3 days earlier and in fact your answer to the shortly there after deleted post did not actually address the post itself and could have created the impression the post said something it did not

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Yes, you did.

'I'm just not sure why coming down one way or another on this issue is progressive or not respective with respect to Palestine.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=333269&mesg_id=333290

That wasn't about being Jewish - that was about Pollard. And that comment was from a post you linked to...


I'll ask again. You seriously believe that the US Congress isn't biased and one-sided towards Israel?

[oberliner]

37. No, I didn't.

The comment you cited is in relation to my opinion that one's position on the Pollard case has nothing to do with whether or not is progressive with respect to Palestine. People can in favor of releasing Pollard and still have progressive views with respect to Israeli and Palestinian issues.

The political parties of the people who circulated the letter illustrate that fact, and thus are relevant, as I point out in the very next sentence:

"Why, for instance, are four relatively progressive Democrats the ones pushing the issues rather than more obviously non-progressive Republicans?"

In that comment, I am noting the political parties of the people who are pushing the issue - if I thought their parties were not relevant, I would not have mentioned them.

And I am not sure why you feel the need to ask a question again that I already answered the first time (adding the word "seriously" is not going to result in a new answer to the same question).

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I just posted a link to where you did it...

I feel the need to ask the question again because I'm stunned that you could try to claim that the US Congress isn't biased towards Israel. I just want to clarify that I'm not mistaken in what I read, so I'm sure you won't mind clarifying that you don't think the US Congress is biased and one-sided towards Israel...

[oberliner]

39. No you didn't

I explained what that post meant. It had nothing to do with my saying that the political parties were not relevant. If you took it that way, you were mistaken. If it came across that way to you, then you misread my intention. I just clarified for you what I was saying. It is the exact opposite of saying that the parties are irrelevant. It is precisely that their parties are relevant. I cannot imagine how you could have read it any other way.

You are not mistaken, however, in what you read with respect to my response to your question about the US Congress.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. It does have to do with the relevence of someone's politics...

That's why I posted the link....

How can you claim the US Congress isn't biased and one-sided against Israel when they constantly heap praise on Israel and rarely criticise it, yet are vitually silent when it comes to attacks by Israel on Palestinians and the Palestinians are always criticised?

[oberliner]

41. I think the US Congress is supportive of Israel

I wouldn't use the term bias, as I mentioned previously, since that implies an unfair prejudice.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. There most definately is an unfair prejudice from the US Congress...

Just curious, but what would you use the term bias in relation to when it comes to the I/P conflict?

[LeftishBrit]

44. Obama needs to put pressure on both/all sides, not just on Abbas