Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lamont Supports Israeli Air Strikes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:06 PM
Original message
Lamont Supports Israeli Air Strikes
Found this in Politics/Campaigns with not many posts. Thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

My comment is posted on the thread for those questioning my agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x123591



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. It was here, too, yesterday (I think....) for a while,
but it sank really fast. I said in that thread, and I'll repeat it: I'm really disappointed.

But, all things being equal, Joe needs to go. Ned will be better for issues of War & Peace in the long run than Joe ever could be... and I'll bet he doesn't fawn all over Bush and the Republicans like Joes does *skin-crawl moment*.

If he were running for POTUS, it would be a totally different story.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree.
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 03:16 PM by AtomicKitten
But it is a disappointment nonetheless.

Since when is peacemaking/humanity perceived as a weakness?

Since the bully-boy politics of the GOP/PNAC infected the foreign relations venue, that's when.

I'm thoroughly disgusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsT Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. So now Lamont is only 99% better than Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. That's about it. Lieberman going is paramount. A better stance would
be that both sides stand down, but ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calico1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That's the thing.
Could Lamont win if he had a strong anti Israeli stance? The important thing is to defeat Lieberman because of all the OTHER issues!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I don't believe he could...
I truly don't.

And a Ned Lamont Senatorship will yield a better balance for Peacemaking coming fromthe Senate. He's no Joe Lieberman. We need Ned to win.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I think so...
And Joe does have to go!

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. Already posted in here, and I already expressed my disgust if it's true...
...and my hope that he STILL beats that sanctimonious fuck Lieberman, because he's STILL more progressive.

But that stance is disgusting, and I'm glad I didn't send him money after all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I'm a progressive Liberal for Lamont and I support Israel
because I think lots of folks on DU are not considering the fact that Israel is a small nation surrounded by nations who want to see it destroyed. So I am glad Ned stood up for Israel.

BTW, I am not Jewish and I never in my lifetime voted for a Republican. I am also not a Fundie Christian and all that that entails. I am a Progressive Enlightenment Liberal, a Jeffersonian small r republican, and a proud registered Democrat who has cast a vote for Ned Lamont (absentee, I will be away on Aug. 8).

So there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. There is an offer for peace between Arab countries and Israel:


This specific offer was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer:

link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Arab Peace Initiative
(translation by Reuters).

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."
___________

And this is the offer Israel made at Camp David in 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. The "offer" you reprint looks not like the original Israeli offer but
one that was slanted towards the Palestinians.

Let's get the one the Israeli's offered to compare. Otherwise, I'm not buying what you are saying. You are fixing the game. So get real here.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Israel has a legitimate claim in that area of the world as a homeland for the Jews? If you do, what do you think they should do to protect their homeland. If not, what do you want to happen to Israel, as a homeland to the Jews? Diaspora (again), destruction, or just maybe an ordered transportation from their holy land to other countries so that what land Israel occupies now can be divided up between Arab countries?

I'd really like to know your answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I think Israel like all nations have a right to live in peace and security
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 07:44 PM by Douglas Carpenter
The vast majority of the Arab world figured that out some time ago. Even those who have not figured it out -- know that Israel is around to stay and they better get used to it.

When I compare what would be agreeable to the majority of Israelis and the vast majority of Palestinians and the majority of the people of Israel's neighbors; I I believe it is close enough to negotiate a settlement. I believe it would be in the interest of the vast majority of ordinary Israelis, Palestinians and Israel's neighbors to do so.

Regarding Israel's earlier offer I refer to the second article by Seth Ackerman:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

and also this article by Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University:

"The Second Half of 1948"—The Sharon-Ya'alon Plan

http://www.nimn.org/Resources/history/000193.php?section=History%20of%20the%20Conflict

When you have time I would recommend listening to the very civil debate mentioned in my signature line below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. What about a simple "accept Israel's right to exist?" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. as the Arab League unanimously stated and the Palestinian leadership
haa long endorsed:

If Israel will:

"I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. "

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. Here we go....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. not necessarily
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 04:20 PM by AtomicKitten
if I gather your drift.

This is food for thought and a good exercise in critical analysis.

I think it's important for people to understand nothing is black and white.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I agree
But we both know how these threads have a tendency to end up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeachBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
13. Could there be any better evidence?
Could there be any better evidence that about 99% of those in office or seeking office are political whores willing to sell their souls to get elected or keep their offices? Maybe Lamont really believes that Israel should destroy Lebanon with American made bombs. But, I have a hard time believing he isn't pandering to the "Pro-Israel no matter what they do gang".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. How about he just believes that Israel should survive?
Do you feel that is wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theanarch Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. with the fourth largest military machine...
...in the world, and full US support (military, economic, diplomatic), i'd say Israel's survival has already been assured. The more relevant question is, what is the world doing to insure the survival of Palestinians in the occupied territories (variously described as a huge prison complex, a Soviet-style gulug, and "the world's largest, open-air concentration camp", to quote a senior British diplomat with long experience in the region). The disappointment with Lamont, as with virtually all Democratic politicians/leaders, is the abject lack of objectivity or even-handedness in their pro-Israel-no-matter-what positions, which are far, far to the right of the public in general, and rank-and-file Democrats in particular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeachBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. If you believe in looking the other way
while Israel engages in war atrocities then I suppose its ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. And Lieberman doesn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC