Somebody explain the "liberal" position on Israel to me

[Hippo_Tron]

Frankly I think the whole problem is one big mess that isn't going to be fixed until we get a great diplomatic president of the United States and two great diplomatic Prime Ministers of Israel and Palestine. But lately I've heard people knocking Kerry for his support of Sharon which I'm going to assume means knocking his support of the US working with the two countries toward some sort of peace settlement. What position would you like Kerry to take on this? Would you like him to withdraw all support US support for Israel? If so, why? If not, then what position should he take and why?

[MAlibdem]

1. I don't think there is one

There's pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or neutral.

Various groups have various reasons for supporting one side or the other.

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. I dont think there is a standard position..

but American politicians will always side with Israel. Anything else is political suicide. Clinton was the most neutral you could get.

Bush is completely pro-Israel.

[NJmaverick]

14. You are right

The Democrats don't want to lose the Jewish vote. The Republicans like the fact that Israel kills brown people. So basicly the Palastinians are screwed anyway you look at it. Plus the Israels take the billions of our tax dollars to grease the palms of our politicians, as if they had to.

[Onlooker]

3. Kerry should advocate a Palestian state per the UN resolution

Kerry should support a Palestinian state according the UN resolution that advocates a return to Israel's 1949 borders. The exception to this should be the status of Jerusalem, which should be divided into both an Israeli and Palestinian section. The issue of the right to return should be settled economically.

The current approach will result in a Palestinian state that has no or only limited obligations to Israel's security and will probably remain a threat for a long time. Returning to the UN position will secure Israel world support and lead to a more stable solution.

[sangha]

6. Kerry DOES advocate a Palestian state per the UN resolution

Kerry DOES support a Palestinian state according the UN resolution that advocates a return to Israel's 1949 borders. The exception to this is the status of Jerusalem, which should be divided into both an Israeli and Palestinian section. The issue of the right to return should be settled economically.

The current approach will result in a Palestinian state that has no or only limited obligations to Israel's security and will probably remain a threat for a long time. Returning to the UN position will secure Israel world support and lead to a more stable solution

[Classical_Liberal]

15. Then why did he approve of the Sharon plan yesterday

It makes a Palestinian state according the UN plan impossible, because it give him large parts half of the west bank.

[papau]

4. "liberal" position on Israel -? - some folks blame Israel/Jews - others

don't.

Hard right fundies sleep in bed with Israel is evil liberals

and hard right fundies sleep in bed with Israel is not evil liberals


I do not see a "liberal position" - but the folks posting will tell you that their position is the correct human rights position.

About the only thing both sides of the liberals on this agree on is that Sharon is, if not evil, then totally uncaring about the welfare of his neighbors - the Palestinians - and should be replaced.

Indeed about half of Israel agrees with "us" on the need to replace Sharon.

Then there are EU liberals who use Israel as a cover for wanting all Jews dead and don't notice how thin their cover is for letting the Jews die in WW2.

All us liberals - US and EU - use the language of "human rights" as we talk past each other!

All the above is a long winded way to say I do not see a solution until the "right of return" is buried, along with "Greater Israel and population removal of terrorists and their support structure".

[ex_jew]

5. Who are the EU liberals that want all Jews dead and need cover for letting

the Jews die ? Anyone in a position to have "let the Jews die" at the time must be about 100. Are you referring to centenarians, or is European liberalism to blame in some way for the "sins" of its fathers ?

[MAlibdem]

9. don't be blind to the truth

Europe is very anti-Semetic. And many politicians in Europe now have to appeal to an increasing Muslim minority, thus harsh words for Israel.

In fact, I think most of Europe will remain anti-Semetic for a long time.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. The muslims have good reason to not like Israel

. Israelis are stealing their land.

[ex_jew]

19. How can I see "the truth" without any facts ?

You didn't say who these liberals are that want Jews dead. Nor did you explain how liberals need cover for failing to stop the Holocaust. How about - can I get something more than a smear of a whole continent ?

[MAlibdem]

20. i didn't say they wanted them dead...

just that anti-semetic currents run high in europe.

i don't think that's an unjustified generalization, in my personal experience i've been rubbed the wrong way on almost all of what european leaders have had to say about jews and israel...

[ex_jew]

23. Sorry - I meant to address Papau

who made the original statement.

[shockingelk]

7. Here is the naked fact

Israel's laws and policies apply differently to Jews (persons of Judaic faith or having ethnically Jewish ancestry) and non Jews.

No self-respecting American can align themselves with such bald discrimination. It goes against everything America stands for.

[MAlibdem]

10. You're right...

Non-Jews are not required to serve in the military, thus get a 2-3 year economic jump on their Jewish counterparts.

Non-jews also enjoy voting rights (appropriately), and are citizens.

Do you have specific instances of laws and policies applying differently to Jews and non-Jews, or are you just building a rhetorical wall of unsubstaintiated BS?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

11. So, theres a dont-ask/dont-tell thing going on re the military?

That the Israeli military discriminates against non-Jewish citiizens of Israel by not subjecting them to the requirement for national service?

That is on its face discriminatory. Period.

[MAlibdem]

13. Wot?

You think Arab Israelis want to be in Israel's army? Jews don't want to be in it! Being in the army sucks - you get shot at, have people try to hug you and then blow up, etc etc.

Side note: Many Israel Bedouins (muslims) serve in the army as scouts.

Exemption from service is not the same as discrimination...service is not exactly a privilege of citizenship.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. Human Rights Watch on discrimination against Palestinian Children.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/

[MAlibdem]

21. Jews and Arabs speak different languages...

and live in seperate communities by and large.

[Lexingtonian]

8. 'the' liberal position?

'The' liberal position is that there eventually be a binational state- perhaps split into some regions that are pretty monoethnic and have some form of social and political autonomy- and the ethnic/religious problem is resolved by conversion and marriages, forming an ethnically hybrid society in the longer run with religious pluralism. (Both sides imagine their religion(s) the less competitive of the lot, that's why there's very little courage there.)

For the time being that's beyond anyone's ability to do much toward. The politics is defined by very old men, mostly, whose lives are build around pursuit of a Manichaean conflict and ways of life that are pre-Modern and (perhaps) pre-Enlightenment on both sides. The transactions in their politics are theft of land, of rights, of ability to live civilized lives and pursue civilized ends, and murder. It's the death of real freedom- to live the good part of life to best of one's abilities and insights- and as such liberalism is confined to hidden oases and isn't permissible in dealings in the larger issues.

The present phase seems to me likely to continue until all the very old men (and some good proportion of their knaves) are removed from power. They're obsessed with each other, fixated in their absolutism, can't fail to cheat on any agreement with the other party. They seem forever stuck in 1947/48, imho. Btw, 'Removed from power' seems, given their markedly unholy unwillingness to let go of power, to mean: dead.

So what remains is to maintain a state of tension and push for conditions where the best civilians of each side can live in some modicum of peace, autonomy, principled and lawful society, and some amount of creativity, in the land they define as home. Maybe not one generation has to pass away, but two, before reasonable priorities and a willingness to deal fairly with the other side become politically possible. American policy can influence things enough to get some turnover of leadership and create a few oases of civilization.

[fujiyama]

12. I suppose

the liberal position on the conflict in the middle east, is the same as a liberal position on any conflict -- support for human rights and the dignity of all people.

In that sense, we must oppose all forms of terror -- whether that be by Apaches, or by suicide bombers. It also means that we must oppose anything that stifles the creation of a viable Palestinian state, meaning Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. I really don't see how a Palestinian state can be formed if Israel wants to keep the various settlements that are in the heart of Palestinian territory. Final agreements in negotiation would probably make it inevitable that some settlements on the border would be annexed and kept by Israel.

The real tricky issues are the right of return and the status of Jerusalem. Regarding the former, I don't see Israel allowing those Palestinians expelled to get back the land as it will threaten the demographics, making Israel no longer a Jewish state. As for the latter, since the city is so important, a divided capital makes sense.

Kerry had no choice in agreeing with Bush/Sharon regarding the right of return. However, I would have preferred he was more critical of Sharon's plan of keeping the settlements in place.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Your assumption is wrong

We aren't knocking his support of Sharon. We are knocking his endorcement of giving settlements to Sharon.

[CabalBuster]

22. He's like Bush, subservient to Israel, Palestinians don't exist for Kerry

His interview with Tim Russett convinced me that there is an unmistakable identification with Israel and a desire to send a message to Sharon and the right wing in Israel that he is at their disposition and will march at their orders. He didn't even mentioned the Palestinians, as if they don't even exist, for God's sake. As a Muslim I wasn't planning on voting for him and I hope other Muslims will instead vote Nader. There would be no difference between a Bush and a Kerry administration with regards to the Middle East (Israel, Iraq, et. al). It will be at best "cosmetic": how to do things differently, not a difference in policy or principles.