I don't like any of the front runners' positions on . . .

[TeeYiYi]

. . . the Israel-Palestine situation. The only candidates that I am willing to consider for 2004 are the ones that are willing to work for global peace and a solution to the Israeli government’s policies of occupation, repression and colonization of the Palestinians.

I feel strongly enough about this issue that I've decided not to consider any candidate that is not willing to work toward a fair and peaceful solution to this problem.

TYY

[westman]

1. What would you consider

fair and peaceful?

[TeeYiYi]

3. Fair might consist of . . .

. . . equal military support and money for both sides from the United States until an equitable and unbiased solution can be reached.

TYY

[westman]

5. I can't agree with that.

The Palestinians are the primary beligerants. Any solution has to begin with their recognition and acceptance of Israel, and a repudiation of terrorism.

[TeeYiYi]

7. You can't take one side or the other . . .

. . . and expect an equitable solution. If the US would show unbiased support for both the Israelis and the Palestinians, both militarily and financially, it would go a long way toward calming the fears and suspicions of the people.

Like a parent with two kids fighting. You can't take sides. You have to show that you love them both and will not allow misbehavior from either.

TYY

[westman]

9. We're not talking about family.

Put simply, there are good guys and bad guys. The Palestinian terrorists are the bad guys. They have to be stopped.

[jonnyblitz]

10. yeah. sharon is the best!!

:puke:

[westman]

16. In comparison to Arafat,

yes.

[TeeYiYi]

14. Bias is part of the problem . . .

. . . not part of the solution.

TYY

[westman]

15. Siding against the bad guy is not bias.

The only certainty in global politics is that pacifism is never the solution.

[TeeYiYi]

18. Proclaiming that there is a bad guy . . .

. . . is bias. We're talking about neighbors and disputes over property lines that would be best settled equitably by an unbiased third party arbitrator.

TYY

[westman]

20. No, it's objectivity.

There IS right and wrong. The Palestinian extremists are wrong. We are rightfully sided against them. This ceased being a "property rights" dispute a long time ago.

[TeeYiYi]

27. Objectively biased.

We can't take sides and expect peace.

TYY

[westman]

30. That's naive.

If we don't take sides, the tyrants will dominate.

[TeeYiYi]

34. Which side . . .

. . . are the tyrants?

TYY

[westman]

38. The side we're not on.

My comment was a general one. Should world leaders have stopped Hitler when he took the Sudetenland? France? Holland?

The world watched, didn't take sides (your policy), and the tyrant grew in strength and boldness.

The Palestinian terrorists and their financial backers are tyrants. They'll be stopped.

We must learn from history.

[TeeYiYi]

40. Who is 'we' ? . . .

World leaders should have stepped in with Hitler. That is what I am proposing with Palestine and Israel — for the world to step in and stop the insanity. Palestine and Israel are incapable of settling this amicably as neighbors without an unbiased third party stepping in and arbitrating.

TYY

[westman]

42. You're still missing the point.

No one should have offered to "mediate" for Hitler. Similarly, the Palestinians are on the wrong side of this issue. Their extremists must be stopped, not understood.

[revcarol]

23. Straw man.

Is anyone suggesting pacifism? NO

But SOME think that arming the Israelis to the teeth so they can destroy Palestinian homes and bomb them whenever they feel like it is not a good use of our foreign aid, to put it mildly.

And SOME think that Israel putting up a wall inflames the situation, to put it mildly.

And SOME think that Israel should tear down the settlements they agreed to, and not build new ones.

And SOME think that the level of violence could be reduced if we stopped giving military aid to Israel.

And SOME think that giving the largest $$ in foreign aid to Israel without a lot of $$ to the Palestinians is unfair, and we aren't acting like honest brokers.

But, hey, let's go back to the straw man argument.

[westman]

32. Regarding your points,

I agree with the one about Israel abandoning WB settlements.

Palestinians will receive aid when they elect a leader who desires peace (no, they haven't already done so), repudiate terrorism, accept the existence of Israel, and negotiate a real peace in good faith.

[Scoopie]

43. Uhhhh

Are you smoking something?
Yes - terrorists are bad, but what Israel does to the Palestinians is also terrorism - only it's sanctioned by the UN and the US.
Look - make Israel abide by UN resolutions NOT to build on any more Palestinian land - then we'll talk.

[westman]

47. Israel exists,

and the Palistinians have to get over it. In that region, terror starts with the Palis, not the Israelis. I do agree that Israel must abandon the WB settlements.

UN resolutions are not the answer. That organization is a paper tiger--consider the 12 years of resolutions on Iraq.

[brainshrub]

70. The Palestinians are not the primary belligerents anymore.

Take a look at the daily casualty figures if you don't agree. (I have a link showing the comparison between Palestinian & Israeli. I can't find it...but it's something like 11:1.)

The Palestinians cannot threaten the Israeli government anymore. All they have are rocks, sticks and human bombs.
The Israelis have guided missiles, trained assassination squads, guns that can shoot around corners, free money from the United States, aggressive settlers, water-rights, helicopter gunships, roadblocks and now a huge wall.

[sandnsea]

29. I think we did that

In the nineties I think we gave money to the Palestinians for security and humanitarian efforts. Or at least it was part of an agreement. I don't remember the details right off the bat. But I'm reading Albright's book and I know there was talk to that affect. PM me so I will remember to get you the info when I get back to the book. It's kind of heavy reading, at least for me, so I take it a chapter or so a day. There really has been efforts to consider the needs of both sides and clear acknowledgement that the Israelies have often been as obnoxious as the Palestinians. And total acknowledgement that Sharon was a hard-ass that was going to be tough to deal with. At least within the Clinton administration it was that way.

[TeeYiYi]

39. Heavy reading . . .

. . . funny you should mention that. I picked up Albright's book on CD because I knew I wouldn't be able to get through it in book form. I haven't listened to it yet but if you want to point me in the direction of which chapter you are referring to, I can skip to that part.

TYY

On edit: typo

[sandnsea]

51. Well, don't skip everything

It would be my personal preference if you listened to the first couple of chapters so you get to know this really fascinating woman. I had no idea. I think it helps to develop a trust in what she says.

But if you must, Chapt 18 & 19 is where ME & I/P stuff is. Chapt 17 is Migraine Hussein, for additional info.

She's very funny, in an understated sort of way. Does the CD have pictures? There's a hysterical picture of her doing a performance with Yevgeny Primakov - An East Side/West Side rendition of West Side Story. Another one of Clinton teaching her to bowl. Whoda' thought?

I don't agree with absolutely everything she has to say. But I must say I'm impressed and she's much more honest about our putting governments in power and a few other things then I would have expected. Although she never does quite say how she personally feels about it all. But she does admit it so I was pretty pleased about that. It's really excellent reading, but not a page-turner by any means!

[TeeYiYi]

54. I'm a little pensive . . .

. . . about even reading (listening to) her book as I've not been a huge fan of hers ever since her comment about sanctions in Iraq. In 1996, when questioned on CBS's '60 Minutes' as to whether the death of a half million children was worth the price, her response was, 'That's a tough question, but yes we think the price is worth it.'

It was not worth the price. Genocide is not worth any price and her comment was very telling. It revealed a callous side of her previously unknown to me and her obvious support for big oil and corporate greed. IMO

But I do intend to listen to the book at some point. And with interest. It just won't be with the same blind approval that it might once have been.

TYY

[sandnsea]

58. She addressed it directly

"I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations. Instead, I said... As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That was no one's fault by my own. There are many times in everyone's life when the mouth works faster than the brain; there was no more regrettable example in my own career than this ill-considered response to Leslie Stahl."

Like I said, once you get through the first few chapters about this woman, you know full well she doesn't mean this. She was a huge champion of women and children at every step throughout her life. There is no way she thought that the deaths of children was an acceptable trade-off.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Fortunately

None of our candidates will do that. Nor would they be elected if they did.

Have a nice day.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Any politician that veers too far from Gary Bauer on this issue

will find themselves unceremoniously dumped in Cynthia McKinneyLand.

Unconditional support for whatever the administrators of the US weapons dump in the Levant is a cornerstone of US foreign policy and extremely popular with evangelical Christians, who tend to be affluent, frequent voters, and campaign contributors as well.

The question for this election is who supports Ariel Sharon the MOST.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

4. Well, I don't know what to tell you.

I think we should continue to support Israel, as well as try for a workable state solution. The fact is, that if any Dem candidate gets even the hint of a perception of being anti-Israel, or pro-PLO, they're done. Look what happened to Dean.

[Bombtrack]

8. Dean's chief fundraiser and co-chair used to run AIPAC

he just said something that was meant to pander to the hard left pro-palestinian people even if it contradicted his own positions

I don't critisize Dean for supporting Israel I critisize him for being a big hypocrite

anyway anti-Israel chic has really dug in deep on the hard left and I hope you havn't fallen for too much of their propaganda.

I think the fair, realist, centrist, position is that both the Likudniks and christain fundementalists on the right who want to make borders according to thousands year old biblical texts, and the "anti-zionists" on the left (and the paleocon right) who's propaganda often does border on soft-antisemitism and sympathy for terroristsm, ARE BOTH DEAD WRONG

there are many good people in our goverment today, in addition to most of our candidates I beleive, who are working productively towards justice in the region

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. "Justice" sounds so much nicer than "killing all the Palestinians"

I bet all the candidates will use it, It really does sound a lot better.

[TeeYiYi]

12. Which candidate do you believe . . .

. . . would surround himself with an administration that would work productively towards justice in the region?

TYY

[Bombtrack]

19. I'd say Clark

he has the most history of working with Muslim leaders for justice

even if it was in Eastern Europe

It will really matter who they select as secretary of state. I think picking Fareed Zakaria, a muslim, who espouses empowering moderate muslims, and wilsonian solutions, would make a world of difference

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

50. Indeed

I'm glad we see eye to eye. The pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli government talk I hear from the Hrad Left and Paleocon Right always did bother me, as well as the "all liberals hate Israel" rants from the likes of David Horowitz and Tom DeLay. Most clear-thinking people understand that we must continue support of Israel. The fact is that Dean shot himself in the foot with that remark, and hurt himself more by trying to clean up his mess. I think you're right, he's just trying to energize the Hard Left.

[TeeYiYi]

55. We must support . . .

. . . Israel AND Palestine. Not either or. Hence, the premise of this thread.

TYY

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. No, we don't have to

There is a right and wrong to this issue, why choose both when we can simply choose the correct side?

[bluesoul]

62. So the Palestinian people

are on the wrong, for being occupied, bulldozed, their homes demolished, their agriculture destroyed, daily suffering, putting up with constant raids and the IDF. Give me a break!

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. The Palestinian people

Are in the wrong for continuing to support terror or, in many cases, for continuing to actually be part of terror and their leadership for not continuing to talk peace and not shutting down terror.

[bluesoul]

64. What a crock

of BS...

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. More cutting debate

[bluesoul]

66. Says those

that demonize an entire nation or even continent...

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Never done either

The Palestinians are not demons. Only the terrorists are. Nor are the Europeans. I have several European customers who are great folks and had a great time when I was in Europe.

[GabysPoppy]

67. Sorry

I don't find terror a "crock of bullshit"

[bluesoul]

68. I find a crock of BS

demonizing an entire nation, calling them all terrorists or terrorist supporters/fillinyourfavoriteword...

Sorry, I just find that offensive. I do not generalize. I wish other's wouldn't when Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims are concerned. Unfortunately FR isn't the only site I witness it. Ah well...

[arewethereyet]

6. Good luck then

this search of yours has no end.

[La_Serpiente]

13. I find it appaling

that some candidates don't even acknowledge the oppression the Palestinians live in day to day.

[TheMiddleRoad]

17. Assumption

There seems to be a big assumption that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a solution.

Like white southerners, Palestinians are being misled by a leadership that assumes attacking Israel is the answer. The Palestinian leadership is 100% corrupt and 80% in control. The other 20% are organizations that want to completely obliterate Israel. It's like trying to make peace with a rabid dog.

Now I don't like some of the things that Israel does. But, you have to respect their condition. If Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Honduras, Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Chile, etc... all were militant and bent on the destruction of the USA, we would have a somewhat different foreign policy.

Israel is a democratic country surrounded by dictatorships that all want to utterly destroy Israel. That tends to produce a certain mindset.

I wouldn't say that Israel is without fault. Some of their policies are pretty draconian. At the same time, those policies are often drafted from experience of what militants operate. Bulldozing buildings and olive groves is shitty. But when your being fired at, a policy of knocking out cover is prudent.

The biggest thing that Israel does wrong is the settlements. They are incendiary and send a clear signal that Israel wants to gradually push the Palestinians COMPLETELY off their territories.

The bottom line is I don't live in Israel. I'm not in fear of my local Starbucks being blown from the face of the earth by some terrorist. These guys don't go after military targets. They go after busses and cafes.

It is a war and it's effectively non of America's business. Just imagine if Mexicans were launching suicide bombers over the Rio Grande. Your attitude could be different. You might even favor occupying nothern Mexico just to try to root out the problem at it's source.

Those two peoples hate each other. They will have to find the strength within themselves to find a solution. Perhaps when enough blood is spilled they will eventually become weary. Who knows. All I DO know is there is nothing that we can do to preserve Israel AND free Palestine.

[windansea]

22. right on

they need to solve it

[arewethereyet]

25. like white southerners ?

You made some sense apart from that asinine comment. I'm afraid your bigotry is showing.

And you have your percentages backwards on the degree of control the PA exerts.

[Scoopie]

45. Like white Southerners???

I'm a white Southerner!!
I'm voting for Clark!
Stop it with the name-calling, will ya?
No wonder the South is suspicious of Democrats. I have been on more Dem boards recently that do NOTHING but put down Southerners. Reach out to us - don't accept the stereotypes or your party is sunk forever down here.
(I'm an Independent, btw, not registered, because, guess what, we don't have to register with a party to vote in the primaries in all the Southern states).

[anti-bush]

21. Take a look at Edwards

Edwards has actually been to Israel and Palestine to talk with the leaders there. He has a plan of action to send representatives there to help fix the problems. He wants to arrest the terrorist leaders of the parties, and tear down the walls that Israel has contructed to allow free movement for the Palestinians.

He has a plan for peace in Israel/Palestine.

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. Which terrorist leaders of Israeli parties does he want to arrest?

[TeeYiYi]

31. That was my thought. ....n/t

TYY

[anti-bush]

35. Well

I didn't mean to suggest there were terrorists in one party or the other. Any person from either party known to be involved in terrorist activities will be arrested. If it so happens that there aren't any Israeli terrorists, then there will be no arrests.

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. Does Edwards consider anything Israel does to be terrorism?

[anti-bush]

46. I can't speak to that

And it's a political landmine. The question is so loaded, I don't think any candidate would answer it.

[arewethereyet]

26. its funny how Edwards has had a solid plan for everything all along

and the others have to make it up as they go. and change it all the time.

Its like he already did his homework and thought about his positions before he came to us with them.

How unique !

[TeeYiYi]

28. I've looked at Edwards . . .

. . . and he's probably my second choice behind Kucinich.

TYY

[sandnsea]

33. I hate me-tooing

Edwards is a very nice guy. But Kerry most certainly knows what he's doing with I/P, met with both sides as well. Has a well-laid out plan and has been involved in the whole thing for much longer than Edwards. He has openly criticized the wall and called for a parallel process quite a long time ago. His foreign policy speech was hailed as the most brilliant in years, focused alot on I/P. We really have someone who is ready to go, knows what to do and knows the people and issues intimately. I swear I don't know why this party absolutely refuses to get behind the guy who is ready to do the job. I'm getting exasperated.

[DuctapeFatwa]

36. Are you suggesting that Kerry doesn't support Israel unconditionally?

[sandnsea]

53. I'm saying he supports a parallel process

There is never going to be a U.S. President who doesn't support the right of Israel to exist and states clearly that we will always defend that right. The extent to which different people are willing to negotiate and respect Palestinians varies from there. Kerry would most certainly be one to bring the kind of respect to the process that Clinton tried to bring. Certainly much much more than Bush. Dean, I have no idea. His statements lead me to believe he just doesn't have the vaguest idea how complicated the whole thing is.

Do you know that at one point they were arguing over land. Would it be 11% or 13%. Do you believe that? People allowing their citizens to die over 2% of an area of land. Do you know how they resolved that issue? They made 3% an environmental refuge. The Palestinians stated they got their 13%. The Israelies claimed they gave 10% and gave 3% to mother nature. That is how petty both sides are.

[Tinoire]

41. I like Kucinich's position the most (despite its short-comings)

absolutely HATE Clark's position and think that Dean's is window-dressing what with his back-room promises that if/when everyone gets back to the negotiating table, the Palestinians won't get E. Jerusalem.

This is a major issue for me and I'm afraid I won't[/b[ budge on this one.

[TeeYiYi]

44. Kucinich does espouse . . .

. . . a desire for world peace. I can't support a military solution through preemptive strikes and occupation in either Iraq or Israel. That's what makes me leery of any candidate that gave Bush* the nod to invade and occupy Iraq.

Regarding Dean and Clark:

General Wesley Clark on Israel's defensive posture:
He called the Bush administration's approach to the Middle East ''halfhearted,'' and said he supports Israel's right to establish security through preemptive strikes.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7395537.htm

And Howard Dean is in bed with AIPAC:
"Apologists for Dean claim that taking such a hard line position is necessary to win the "Jewish vote." However, according to a recent poll on attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 52 % of American Jews surveyed advocate viewpoints comparable to APN while only slightly more than 30% -- most of whom would probably vote Republican anyway – support the AIPAC position."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

This issue is a deal breaker for me as well Tinoire. I suspect that there are many peaceful warriors in this country who care passionately about human rights that will not be willing to budge on this issue either. The democratic front runners would do well to pay closer attention or risk losing discouraged Democrats to the Green Party.

TYY

[revcarol]

48. What gets me is Kucinich's thorough knowledge of the issues around I/P.

When I was in Santa Fe, people asked questions about I/P. And, off the cuff, he told his positions. And one of the issues there is WATER.
Israel has control of all the water supplies there and they can just cut off water to the Palestinians at will. Plus, the water issue is one that concerns all Israel's neighbors.He said that regional diplomacy among the region's nations, in concert with an honest broker U. S., must decide about water supplies, that Israel cannot continue to hog the water.

Before, when I thought of I/P, I had thought of I/P alone, but Dennis sees the big picture; he realizes that many nations are affected, and they would be brought into negotiations as needed or as they have concerns and issues.

Thank God for this intelligent man.

[TeeYiYi]

49. I know . . .

. . . Kucinich is amazing. He's truly a peaceful warrior.

The issues surrounding the ME are intense and volatile. That's why it will take an unbiased third party arbitrator to step in and resolve the issue peacefully. Basically, it needs to be heard and ruled on by an unbiased international court.

TYY

[diamondsoul]

52. And that there is no solution possible

except a two state answer. Palestinians have to get at least the portions of their country back that they've been promised.

I hate the blood-letting, but there's a part of me that can't completely condemn the anger that I believe it stems from. I have difficulty believing much of what I've heard about why this conflict has dragged on so long. I know Palestinian-Americans who just want to see Palestine as their home country again.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

56. "except a two state answer"

That is the right answer!

There was another thread I just saw where Dean said he would guarantee the defense and security of Israel. No mention of the cost or of Palestine. That does not cut it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=97057


TWL

[Gimel]

59. Re: Water

The history of the region is woven with issues of water supply. Notice the number of documents that this takes on the us-israel.org site.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/watertoc.html


Israel has developed the water resources and helped maintain water for the population, including the Palestinians. The building of a water desalinization plant in Aqaba is under way, to supply water to both nations - Israel and Palestine.

Israel has contracted with Turkey to import millions of gallons of water this year to help with the chronic shortage. The history of the water situation and it's various effects is covered on this page:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Environment/water.html#Water%20supply%20projects
It takes an intelligent man to realize the importance of water, but a concerted effort and application of technology to develop the resources.

[BigDaddyLove]

57. Good for you!!!!!!!!!!

:bounce:

[undergroundrailroad]

71. Locking per I/P Guidelines.

New Threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source.