Correct Democratic position on Israel/Palestine please.

[cindyw]

I see a lot of people attacking Kerry on his position on Israel, so I would like to know the "correct" answer here. Please add in how Kerry should address the issue with both Israel and Palestine.

Is it okay to say as Kerry did today that Israel is the ally of the US? What is wrong with saying that giving back some territory is progress? I think we can all agree that Kerry would not say it is the end all be all, but as Progressives, should we not agree that some progress in the scheme of things is progress. As far as Palestine, who is the proper leader to bring to the table for progress?

If you intend to answer this by talking about the assassinations or any of the other stuff Sharon is doing, please show proof that Kerry condemned the actions specifically or that Kerry is supporting Sharon specifically and not just Israel. I happen to think it is not a coincidence that Kerry always talks about Israel and not Sharon.

[tinanator]

1. support for Israel is tantamount to support for Apartheid South Africa

YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

[corporatewhore]

5. yep dems shouldnt support a racist apartheid statelike israel

just like desmond tutu says
http://www.spub.ksu.edu/stories/092302/opi_isreal.shtml

[mmm]

8. that sums it up pretty well

[blondeatlast]

17. With a slight change in phrasing, I completely agree.

We must support both sides; while being clear that the Palestinians MUST be allowed sovereignity.

And we MUST hold Sharon's feet to the fire the same way we do Arafat's.

[Cassandra]

19. You don't believe that there should be...

a Jewish state?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

46. Nazis were into genocide. Apartied, Jim Crow are appropriate

Nazi is over the top, and i should warn you it get's you in trouble with the mods pretty quick. I don't approve of that kind of heavy handed moderation but that is what this board is like.

I recommend the two of you do some editing though.

[Cassandra]

58. Your ignorance regarding Zionism...

is duly noted.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. I believe there should be two states. Jewish and Palestinian

This can't happen under Sharon's plan. So in the end their can be no Jewish state is Sharon's plan is it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I Have A Major Problems With Sharon's Ham Handed Policies

but I don't think a Jewish homeland in the place of their bith is inherently racist or the equivalent of the Afrikanner's situation in South Africa as you imply...

I believe the Dutch Afrikanner's emigtrated to South Africa some six hundred years ago. The Jews have been living in the area we now know as Israel for some six thousand years....


Also, if the Dems were to adopt such a radical position on Israel they would be alienating one of their most loyal constituency groups.
A group that backs the Democratic party with not only their votes but money...

A two state solutuion is in order.... How we get there is for another day.... Another thread....


Peace04

Go Dems....

Brian

[corporatewhore]

41. i think Tutu is a better judge of what a racist apartheid state is

[Cassandra]

48. A better judge of what's good for Jews?

I don't think so.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. I trust his judgement more than Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell

Beside most American Jews are against the settlements.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/6%20o/Arab%20Americans%20and%20American%20Jews%20agree%20on%20path%20to%20peace,%20By%20James%20Zogby.htm

[Cassandra]

52. I wouldn't trust Robertson or Falwell..

to give me directions to cross the street. But my point is that as a Jew, I am beyond tired of other people who can't wait to tell me what's best for Jews. I think most of the settlements should be removed, but don't be surprised if the Palestinians then find another set of reasons why they can't make peace even after that is done.

[corporatewhore]

57. Tutu is speaking up for the oppressed class on this issue

cause he knows what it is like to be oppressed in a racist apartheid state He is speaking up as a voice for the palestinians

[MAlibdem]

59. i might listen to him

if palestinians didn't keep blowing up women and children.





edit: I think pretty much everyone in the area is oppressed to some extent. The Palestinians with poverty, the Jews with fear of being blown up constantly...

[Classical_Liberal]

69. If the ANC had done that it wouldn't justify aparthied.

.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. If they do, I'll be less sympathetic

America has a right to intervene in Israel given how much money we contribute to it. If Sharon wasn't smearing America with his actions it would be different, but he is.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. He's a better judge of what's apartheid...

Is there some strange filter in place that whenever the word 'apartheid' appears, it morphs for some folk into 'what's good for Jews'? I suspect the filter might kick into overdrive because it's impossible for anyone to claim that Desmond Tutu isn't a much better judge of what's apartheid than any of us posting here could be...

Violet...

[elsaamo]

89. This is absurd

Yes, Desmond Tutu is a better judge of what apartheid is- your point? Does that mean that if I get you a Holocaust survivor, or Elie Weisel if you prefer, also a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I believe, and he says Palistineans are killing Jews and they shoudl stop, that means anything?

[Classical_Liberal]

45. Sharon's plan means no two states

That is the problem with supporting it.

[Cassandra]

49. That's why it's important...

to support Israel but not Sharon. They are not one and the same.

[Classical_Liberal]

74. I never said they were?

Maybe you are the one that has the problem distinguishing the two.

[George_Bonanza]

2. Muslims like Kerry's ME views than most Democratic candidates

I read it in an MSNBC article which said that Muslims liked Kerry's ME views, since they tended to be at least sympathetic to the Palestinians. In this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065640/posts, Kerry criticizes the Israeli government.

In all seriousness, campaigning is campaigning, and until John Kerry is president, nobody knows what he will do. Just because he does a few things to appeal to an uncertain demographic does not mean that he is a forever sellout. Judging from sources like the one I provided, I would whole-heartedly trust Kerry.

[freetobegay]

3. How would you address it?

One great thing about liberals is we have minds & can think for ourselves. We don't need someone to tell us the answer.

[corporatewhore]

4. well nelson mandela and desmond tutu have said that israel

is a racist apartheid state and tutu calls for divestment
i think it is always wise to follow their lead
http://www.spub.ksu.edu/stories/092302/opi_isreal.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1957644.stm
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/mandella.html

[theboss]

63. We make fun of the Freepers for Toby Keith . . .

Yet actually argue that Willie Nelson should be leading the way on this issue.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Tutu might call for it, but U.S. law makes it illegal

[elsaamo]

90. You ALWAYS follow their lead?

Well, I decided to always follow Elie Weisel's lead, even when he says he likes cream cheese and I don't, but hey, what the heck, it's Elie Weisel, right? And he says targetting and blowing up innocent civilians is wrong (that facist) so I'll support Israel.

[Sorry.]

6. the correct position

do you mean the correct-correct position, or the 'not losing too many votes'-correct position.

The former making US aid conditional on right to return for all palestinians refugees, dismantling of all settlements, withdrawal of the IDF for the Gaza strip and West Bank.

The latter is probably support for the Roadmap (which is doomed to failure of course).

[jfxgillis]

7. There isn't one

The Arab/Israeli conflict cuts across and through established American left/right Republican/Democratic spectra.

If we were to get strictly rational about it, the most right-wing Israeli government is more "liberal" that than most most "liberal" Arab government, with the possible (and very new) exception of the Emirate of Qatar.

But positions are so distorted by other social/cultural/religious/ethnic influences that a pure position isn't possible in American politics.

BUT IT'S NOT WORTH ARGUING OVER

It's not worth arguing over because there's not a FUCKING THING that can be done about it. The conflict is beyond the control of human intervention at this point. The Great Wheel will grind on . . . and on . . . until the notch lines up with a cog, and then there will be progress.

[Tinoire]

9. Not a fucking thing we can do about it? Surely you jest

How about cutting off ALL aid to Israel? Especially military aid? How about not vetoing every UN resolution against Israel? How about not laying out the red carpet for a fellow terrorist and trating him like a "man of peace"? How about not demonizing the Palestinians at every turn in this country? Or allowing groups like Campus Watch to set up Gestapo programs where Professors are turned in for teaching views the AIPAC doesn't like about the Middle East? How about not having both parties constantly talking about the "special friendship" we must maintain with the country that co-manufactured the evidence used to invade Iraq?

We treat Israel as nothing more than a precious weapon's dump we need to safeguard for our own oil interests; their government knows that and extracts payment in kind.

There's a LOT we can do about it and a LOT many of us will work to make happen.

This sick dance that spells death for millions of innocents, to include innocent Israelis, has got to stop.

the most right-wing Israeli government is more "liberal" that than most most "liberal" Arab government Wow. That beacon of democracy song and dance again; it's beginning to get tiresome. There's nothing "liberal" about checkpoints, walls, apartheid, land theft, bull-dozing people's homes, or dropping one ton bombs on apartment complexes. If that's the new definition of "liberal", then yes I would agree with you that Israel is "more "liberal" than the most "liberal" Arab government".

[Direckshun]

12. Tinoire

Tinoire,

If we cut off all aid to Isreal, ESPECIALLY military aid, the country will be wiped out. Or at least engaged in a perpetual state of violent self-defense.

The country is surrounded by nothing but enemies who, for centuries, have fought, killed, and terrorized for its land for political and religious reasons. If we allow the terrorists and other enemies to do this, we might as well say "we give up - you win!" Indeed, we almost have as much at stake in Israel as the country's innocent civilians do.

European countries and the EU hate Israel for illogical reasons. Recently the EU claimed Israel was the "greatest threat to world peace," even though Israel has never launched an attack outside of its own borders. These European countries compose much of the UN, and if we agree with the UN's stances regarding Israel, we too are falling prey to senseless racism.

Israel is very much at fault for much of the violence coming about. But I for one don't blame them for acting drastically. Over the history of the world the people of this land have been destroyed, killed, and persecuted. Today, their country is surrounded by enemies. And now Muslims within their own borders want to carve Israel's land up. They're desperate, and are acting like it.

Israel isn't completely innocent in all this, and neither are we, but they still deserve our support.

[ludwigb]

15. Bullshit

I'm sorry, but what you are saying about the EU is pure bullshit, concocted by the TNR/Sullivan/Neocon circle jerk. Give me one legitimate source for these ravings. And your paranoia about the "Muslims" is equally inane--Isreal has nuclear weapons. No Islamic country will dare attack them.

This conflict is driven by the refusal of Isreali hard-liners to give up their colonialist ambitions in the West Bank. The conflict could be resolved fairly easily, really. By threatening to withdraw military aid, the US can force Isreal to make concessions. Isreal can elect new leaders who are prepared to enter into real negotiations (like the recent Geneva accords), and real peace will indeed be possible.

Until Isreal gets serious, they don't deserve our support.

[Direckshun]

65. ludwigb

ludwigb,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C1076442%2C00.html

I encourage you to read that article. It is an eye-opening insight into Europe's racist stance regarding Israel. I do not trust the EU nor the European countries in the UN for solid advice regarding Israel. The anti-Semetic blood runs too deep there.

No Islamic country will attack Israel? Let me tell you something - Islamic countries have been attackin Israel for years. That country has endured half a dozen serious wars. Terrorists, knowing they can't compete with Israel's nuclear power, are tearing apart society with suicide bombings. Israel's at war, ludwig, and to deny that would be to ignore its history and current sociopolitical tensions.

I'm not saying Israel has acted well throughout this whole ordeal. But I stand by my claim that they deserve our support, although Bushco has handled it poorly.

[tinnypriv]

78. Have you read the actual poll?

Or just the reviews of it?

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Israel is not completely dependent on America for defense

that is bullshit. Furthermore Israel is defending itself from people who are rightly pissed off about land theft. Maybe they should think about that.

[Direckshun]

66. Classical_Liberal

Classical_Liberal,

Without our support, Israel doesn't have the UN. Without the UN (or even merely without us), neighboring Muslim countries that want to see the country's destruction can attack without fear of an Atlantic superpower stepping in.

I'M NOT SAYING ISRAEL IS INNOCENT IN ALL THIS.

I am saying that without the United States, they are sitting ducks, and the terrorists win by pushing us out of Israel. Or at least they will see it that way.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. Why do I have to support their land theft to support them?

It is racist. I won't do it.

no way no how. If the want my support they should stop stealing land.

[no name no slogan]

76. Now THAT is a joke

Most of these neighboring Muslim nations that are so bent on "destroying" Israel have armies only 1/10th the size of Israel's. Just look at the results of the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars for proof. And then factor in that Israel's military has gotten STRONGER, while those of its Arab neighbors have stayed about the same or gotten weaker.

And don't forget, Israel is the ONLY military power in the Middle East who actually posseses nuclear weapons. They also have other WMDs which have not been verified, because Israel won't allow weapons inspectors in to verify them (sound familiar?).

BTW, if you check your history, you will find out that Israel's Arab neighbors, as well as the PLO, have agreed to accept Israel's right to exist since the 1980s. However, their acceptance is based on whether Israel does the following:

* Returns to its pre-1967 boundaries, and leaves the occupied territories, INCLUDING East Jerusalem;
* Dismantles/abandons ALL of its illegal settlements in the occupied territories; and
* Allows the creation of an independent, viable sovereign Palestinian state in the occupied territories, with its own government and borders NOT controlled by Israel.

Israel is bound and determined to keep Palestinians from having a state of their own, as is evidenced by their actions in the West Bank. It is one of the major reasons, if not the major reason, fo the instability and unrest in the Middle East today.

[blondeatlast]

18. "I, for one, don't blame them for acting drastically."

I assume that means you don't blame the Palestinians for their actions as well? These are people forced up against a quite literal wall and firmly under the thumb of their oppressors.

They have no military, no State Departmetn, and merely nodding recognition in the UN.

If the situation were reversed, might it not be "correct" to call Sharon a terrorist the same way we do Arafat? I think it would--the only difference being that one is acting in the intersts of a sovereign nation and the other is acting to create one.

I support the creation of a Palestinian state. I also support Israel. I see no disconnect here. Is this such an incredibly difficult position for the entire world to grasp?

[Direckshun]

67. blondeatlast

blondeatlast,

I never said we should attribute blame to the Palestinians. What we can't do, however, is get out of Israel because of the hopeless amount of terrorism there. If we pull out, the terrorists do win. Right now the United States is trying to get both countries to halt their terrorist ways, so that we can reach a settlement diplomatically, as to not make the terrorists feel like their actions are causing direct change.

You can make a horrible case for the Palestinians all you want. I won't disagree they have it hard. But Israel isn't exactly sitting daisies right now either simply because they own the land. If anything, it's brought them under fire from the whole world.

I'm not sure whether I support a Palestinian state or not. But I think the United States MUST support Israel, even if it means forfeiting some land to the Palestinians.

[BurtWorm]

39. The question is what should that support look like?

I'm agnostic about cutting off miltary aid. I think it should be tied to progress in human rights, however. We should not give Israel a blank check to do unto the Palestinians what they will without any consequences from us.

Israel has only existed for 60 years. How could its neighbors have fought, killed and terrorized for its land for centuries? Wasn't what is now Israel part of the Ottoman Empire until the early 20th Century?

Israel is an Anglo-American colony. That's the fact of its history. We can't wish that history away. It would be better to deal with it honestly.

[KuroKensaki]

84. No attacks ouside its own borders?

It preemptively struck Egypt in the Six Day War. That's the only one I know of off the top of my head, but it -is- off the top of my head. There are probably others. :P

Not to mention, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank didn't belong to them originally. Israel once controlled a great deal of even the Sinai Peninsula but they eventually gave that back to Egypt.

However, I do agree that Israel is in great danger from its neighbors.

[elsaamo]

91. Yeah, but

Egypt threatened to cut off their supply to I believe, oil, effectively threatening them with self-destruction. It's pretty clear that in the Six Day war they were very justified in attacking.

They also got the Gaza strp and West Bank after being attacked.

[jfxgillis]

22. Nope. Won't work

Cutting off aid would probably lower the standard of living in Israel. Wouldn't change the core conflict.

And you know what's funny? Even though I concede this point:

"That beacon of democracy song and dance again; it's beginning to get tiresome. There's nothing "liberal" about checkpoints, walls, apartheid, land theft, bull-dozing people's homes, or dropping one ton bombs on apartment complexes."

My original comment was a COMPARATIVE and my original point REMAINS TRUE. Bulldozing a house is more humane than suicide bombing a teen dance club.

[elsaamo]

92. Well, if it gets tiresome now,

wait until you see how they treat their women. Whatever your opinion about the IP conflict is, it is pretty clear that Israel is the most democratic of all the Middle Eastern nations (with the possible exception of Turkey), even having members in Knesset who have spoken against theexistence of the state, is the most pro-women (by which Imean allowing them to go to school and to work), the most pro-gay, the best universal health care, (are you beginning to see a rythm here?).
Now, this is besides the point, and I think a Palistinean state probably should get formed, but you DO realize that such a state would be run by religious fundamentalists, right, who won't give those right to their people, right? Now, I still support them to live their lives how they want, and to have a state ifthey want, and do whatever the hell they want with it, but nonetheless, just realize who you're supporting when you do.

[corporatewhore]

11. Desmond Tutu says we can divest from israel

http://www.spub.ksu.edu/stories/092302/opi_isreal.shtm

[jfxgillis]

21. Desmond Tutu is a frickin' idiot. n/t

[tinanator]

25. goodness what are you?

id rather never know.

[Forkboy]

86. lol

says way more about you than Tutu.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I Respect Desmond Tutu's Tireless Work Against Apartheid

but I would no more let him write American foreign policy than I would let anybody on this board including myself...

[tinanator]

29. Is that Kerryspeak?

So how do YOU feel about Apartheid? You do acknowledge it is the Israel way, correct?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Apartheid Was Legal Separation Of The Races

With The blacks being consigned to second class citizenship....

In Israel you have an occupation that will end with a peace treaty between the Israelis and the Palestinians....

Also, there are aprroximately 750,000 Israeli Arabs in Israel proper
who enjoy the full rights of citizenship except serving in the military...


As far as Kerry if he advanced the D U agenda he would get about 17% of the vote since that is the percentage of voters who identify themselves as liberal... He'd prolly get less than that since this board is to the left of liberal....

[tinanator]

31. totally unsupportable

all of that. Support for Israel is a top down deal, a minute number of American citizens want vast quantities of their tax dollars going to support the single greatest source of instability in the middle east. This cuts across ideologies, and only the uneducated faithful would blindly support the closed loop corruption of AIPAC type extortions. "a peace treaty"? WHICH ONE? WHEN? blowing smoke.
Israel is practicing Apartheid as much as they STEADFASTLY SUPPORTED Apartheid South Africa! Why dont you ask the MILLIONS of Arabs and Egyptians and other nearby states who have to contend with a nuclear aggressor? Youre flowing down denial here. "legal seperation of the races"? lol
http://www.westmasspac.org/apartheidreference.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. By Legal Separation I Was Referring To It's Codification In South African

Law....

[Classical_Liberal]

34. So if the archetects of aparthied had given 10% of the blacks

citizenship it would be ok with you, and not really be racist. Blacks could vote according the constitution under Jim Crow as well. Didn't work out that way though.

[theboss]

61. The Palestininians are not in Israel

They are in a never-never sate.

It's not apartheid. And Tutu is wrong.

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Ever heard of Bantustan?

. Tutu is very right on!

[corporatewhore]

40. i think Tutu and Mandela know what apartheid is and isnt

[elsaamo]

93. Yet again, true, but not the point

Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu are great men who did great services in fighting South African Apartheid. I thank, applaud and honor them for what they did. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with I/P. Similarly, Elie Weisel and other Holocaust survivors were great men whom I thank, applaud and honor. Does that necessarily make them great experts whose opinions should be immediatly supported? If so, which Nobel Peace Laureate do you support? Is there a special coin that we can use? I mean, they're both liberal, very liberal in fact, and so we can't choose that way. Please advise.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. Oh but you'll give Sharon a pass?

hmm.

[tinanator]

33. no he called him "ham handed"

synonomous with war criminal, right? Assassin? Butcher? Baker? Rubble maker? Imagine what he could do if he wasnt ham handed?

[Leilani]

10. Until Shrub was selected

the U.S. position had always been even-handed, trying to be an honest broker between Israel & Palestinians. We always gave lots of aid to Israel, & called them an ally, but tried to maintain good relations with other countries. And if Israel did something outrageous, Presidents criticized them, & withheld aid money. Bush Sr. did that, & James Baker was not liked by the Israelis.

Since Shrub, our policy has become completely one-sided. And John Kerry, today on MTP, completely backed Bush & Sharon on the Gaza policy, & approved the assassinations.

To me, this was wrong. First, it wrecks our credibility in the Arab world, it targets our troops in Iraq for more hostility, & follows the Bush misguided policy.

But the worst of it is, Kerry is obviously doing this to pander for votes. Sharon is about to be indicted, yet Kerry put his stamp of approval on him.

[Direckshun]

13. Leilani

Applause for Leilani. You hit the nail on the head.

For six Presidencies prior to Bush, we have been even-handed in our treatment of the Israel-Palestine conflict. But Bush comes along and squanders all those careful nuances by openly declaring that we favor Israel. This is dangerous, and eliminates the United States as an "objective mediator" that this conflict so desperately needed. :(

And what's worse, is that Kerry supported him. That is bar-none the most horrid thing that Kerry concurs with Bush on, and I wish he could find some way to abandon that position. But he won't.

[tishaLA]

14. I really don't believe that we have been evenhanded in the past

I think we have always had a thumb on the scale in favor of Israel. Bush's policy about Israel is awful, though, and I was shocked to see Kerry not criticize the bombing. I understand there are things he has to say for "electability"--hell, he even had to backtrack from some of his "inflammatory" or "incendiary" language from 1971--and I understand intellectually why he has to say it's OK to kill terrorists....but damn. Couldn't he have said that the assassination was surely counterproductive, even though he understands it, because it will heighten tensions at a time when Israel and the Palestinian authority should be working as hard as possible to ease them? Couldn't he have said he needed an active engagement, like Clinton had, instead of dealing from afar and picking which Palestinian leaders he would talk to and which he wouldn't? Anything, really, except what he did.

[no name no slogan]

77. It has not really been THAT even-handed

I agree with most of your post, but I would hardly call US's efforts to silence valid criticism of Israel "even-handed".

The US has consistently sided with Israel on EVERY issue in the region since 1948. It has repeatedly blocked UN resolutions and Security Council actions that condemned Israel for its illegal occupation and its destruction of the nascent Arab Palestinian state in 1948. Incidentally, these same illegal actions have been supported and carried out by EVERY Israeli government, whether Labor or Likud.

Unfortunately, it's the unabashed pro-Israel bias that has led to the hatred that much of the Arab and Muslim world has toward the United States.

Israel is a colony imposed on the Arabs by guilty Americans and Europeans who can't get over the fact that they did almost NOTHING to allow Jewish refugees into their lands when Hitler started his atrocities. It is more of a latter-day Crusader State than the re-establishment of some ancient Jewish promised land.

[elsaamo]

94. For the record,

you DO remember what James Baker said, right? And I quote "Fuck they Jews- they don't vote for us anyway." Especially him being a republican secretary of state who almost got Ford elected, got Bush elected and Ibelieve Reagan too, it is especially surprising to see such a man being complimented on this board.

[blondeatlast]

20. This is the kind of critique of Kerry that furthers our goals--

a specific issue, reasoned debate.

If Dem operatives were to come across this post (I think it's very likely), they would learn something from this.

Brava for starting a great thread by stating the problem, the position, and a reasoned opinion.

[MAlibdem]

23. Kerry should support Israel

and maintain or even strengthen our traditional bond.

As Americans we now have a greater understanding post-9/11 of what the Israelis have been suffering for years.

[tinanator]

26. please

One of the most underreported facts of Israels illegal and completely outrageous behavior in Palestinian territory are their road building efforts. These roads criss cross the Palestinian territory and are for Israelis only. Trapping Palestinians on small parcels and keeping them from their traditional sources of work, food, education and family members. YOU had better pray WE never need assisstance from the Palestinians, because YOU wont deserve it.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. America should not support racist settlements.

Indeed it doesn't. 61% of the American people don't believe the occupation is part of the war on terrorism and want the settlements to stop.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13116

[CWebster]

36. The "correct" position-

has more to do with political fortunes rather than moral principles when it comes to US relationship to Israel. The Democratic party bows to the same political agenda as the Republicans. The progressive view, however is not confined by political power plays and is more focused on political realities in criticism of continuing Israeli policy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Here is what the Democratic Party's Platform says about it

In areas where conflict has raged, comprehensive peace agreements are the foundation for lasting security. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have actively pursued peaceful resolutions to conflicts across the world and have been prepared to go the extra mile on behalf of negotiators seeking peace. Al Gore and the Democratic Party are fundamentally committed to the security of our ally, Israel, and the creation of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. We helped broker the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, the Wye River accords, and the Sharm el-Sheik Memorandum, and will continue to work with all parties to make progress towards peace. Our special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative military edge for its national security. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. In view of the government of Israel's courageous decision to withdraw from Lebanon, we believe special responsibility now resides with Syria to make a contribution toward peace. The recently-held Camp David summit, while failing to bridge all the gaps between Israel and the Palestinians, demonstrated President Clinton's resolve to do all the United States could do to bring an end to that long conflict. Al Gore, as president, will demonstrate the same resolve. We call on both parties to avoid unilateral actions, such as a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, that will prejudge the outcome of negotiations, and we urge the parties to adhere to their joint pledge to resolve all differences only by good faith negotiations.

http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html#peace

From what Kerry has been saying, I doubt that the platform will move too much to the left on this issue.

[DaveSZ]

38. We should take Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's approach

:)

[sampsonblk]

47. We are screwed then

If half of us think Kerry is right and Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela are wrong, then we are cooked. If some of think Israel illegal assasination policy is fine, and some of us think its an atrocity and the rest of us think none of this is any big deal, then we are in serious trouble in this election.

GW Bush could burn the Reichstag and his voters would still support him. But for us, issues matter. And John Kerry just lost a chunk of us yesterday.

[Zomby Woof]

51. we can greatly reduce anti-American terrorism

By withdrawing all aid to Israel. Let 'em fend for themselves and the bed they made. Cut off ALL ties to Israel.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. OBL Said He Won't Be Satisfied Until America Is Off All Arab Lands

so I guess abandoning Israel is only a down payment....

[tinanator]

54. no leaving saudi arabia was

dont forget the Bushies capitulated there. A little late for my families sake, but the irony isnt lost on me. GHWB put Americans in deadly danger and we paid the price.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. We Closed Some Bases Is Saudi Arabia And Occupied An Entire

Arab country....

[tinanator]

64. and that WAS a down payment

just trying to help you out a little.

[Cassandra]

60. What does "cut off ALL ties to Israel" mean?

Would it be an embargo like Cuba? No one is allowed to visit? No flights?
Why is it that every time you chime in on this subject, you sound like you belong in the Know-Nothing Party in the 1920's?

[Toronto Ron]

56. Two comments re aid to Israel and Sharon:

1) Cutting off aid to Israel will not cause Israel as much harm as many think. They would deal with it. $3 billion isn't THAT much. Most of the aid is given on condition of Israel spending it on American weaponry. If the aid disappeared, Israel's very robust weapons industry would crank up a few notches. Also, it is quite possible that Israel would be less restrained without that aid and the diplomatic strings that are attached. (Yes, I know there are many here who already believe Israel is unrestrained, but for example compare Palestinian casualties over the last 3 years to the Iraqi casualties just in Fallujah this MONTH.)

2) Ariel Sharon is an asshole, no doubt. But ask, How was he elected? It is because the Israeli Left stayed home in the elections due to disillusionment after Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's peace offer.

(On edit: To back up my claim in #2, here are recent voter turnout rates for Israeli prime-ministerial elections:
1996 (Netanyahu beat Peres): 79.4%
1999 (Barak beat Netanyahu): 78.7%
2001 (Sharon beat Barak): 62.3%
2003 (Sharon beat Mitznah): 68.5% )

[Classical_Liberal]

73. It will cause less harm to my country's image

and isolate it even more than it is. If it didn't hurt why did the mere threat of it from James Baker result in Oslo? Sometimes ultimatums are necessary to get people to straighten up.

[theboss]

62. I think the platform is correct

Above all, we should support Israeli security. But we should also push for a peace plan that is just for both sides.

The idea that Israel is the problem is not a belief that any Democrat should touch.

[Classical_Liberal]

72. This is primarily because of the same sort of spin and

spinelessness that kept the Dems off Bush's case after the election theft, and while they were lying about WMD. BTW, things change.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. The problem is what is just for both sides?

We can't even agree here on that one.

[Juansmith]

75. Wait a minute...

Don't ask what the "correct Democratic decision" is... You don't wanna sound like a Freeper parroting the GOP talking points...

This is the kind of thing you need to look into and make your own decision on.

[Lithos]

82. Locking

Per I/P guidelines, not based on a recent news or op-ed article.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[Lithos]

83. Unlocking

As an moderator approved exception to the rules concerning the need for a recent news or op-ed article association.

Please keep this to the honest question at hand.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[FOM]

85. Well, Clinton was quoted as being in favor of Sharon's disengagement plan

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFu...

"Calling it "quite a good thing," former US President Bill Clinton endorsed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza Monday.

"Do I think the withdrawal from Gaza is a good thing? I certainly do, but I think it's got to be part of the larger strategy to figure out how to reengage Israel and her neighbors," Clinton said at a panel discussion on the Middle East in New York sponsored by Tel Aviv University, Columbia University, New York University and the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation.

"I understand why Arafat is not trusted. Look, I don t think anybody who is in this room who doesn't live in Israel has a right to be more disappointed in Arafat," Clinton said. "On the other hand, when the music starts and you go out on the dance floor and you dance alone because you don't find any attractive partners, you're still dancing alone.""

[Classical_Liberal]

88. I only see approval of the Gaza part.

That isn't controversial with anyone. Kerry is in trouble for approving of Bush's endorsement of settlements. He also said.

If Israel decides to withdraw from Gaza without restarting talks, then, Clinton predicted, the Israelis and Palestinians should brace for "a long, cold, grim winter of discontent in the Middle East."

Without an effort to work with the Palestinians, Clinton said, the Israelis would not be in a position to complain "if the people on the other side are not grateful ... for the morsels that are thrown off of your table and do not believe that anything better will ever happen."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--clinton-israel0419apr...

If Clinton had said this nobody would be angry now.

[FOM]

96. See Also Today's Daily Star - not re: Clinton, but acceptance of the dis

Could you repost link - it is not working

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/home.asp?edition_id=1

"A close reading of the American text of April 14 reveals that Bush merely stated in public and gave official US support to long-standing assumptions that are universally held among those who are involved in, or closely follow, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations: (a) that only a symbolic return of some Palestinian refugees to Israel proper would occur, while the majority would repatriate or settle elsewhere and receive compensatory economic and political rights that would be negotiated by them and acceptable to them, and would affirm relevant international law and UN resolutions; and (b) the large Israeli settlement towns along the former border between Israel and the West Bank, such as Maale Adumim, Ariel and Givat Zeev, would be permanently incorporated into Israel, in exchange for territory of equal value that Israel would cede to the new Palestinian state. These assumptions were first articulated in the parameters that President Clinton issued in late 2000, after the failure of the Camp David negotiations (parameters which Israeli and Palestinian leaders accepted, with some reservations). "

[FOM]

97. Also, the article says Clinton Approved of the Dis-eng plan

Presumably, that is more than the Gaza withdrawal.

[A Brick Wall]

87. re: "Correct Democratic position on Israel/Palestine please."

My best guess is that the "correct" position is, roughly: that Israel is violating the Prime Directive with respect to the Palestinians and should put a stop to that; but should be allowed to continue to exist as a nation, if it can manage that without too much military action.

[elsaamo]

95. Prime Directive?

Other that that, I basically agree with you, by which I mean Israel must exist, though should tryto be nicer. There probably should be a Palistinean state, and hopefully that will happen soon.