Dean Not Progressive on Mideast

[quinnox]

Although often portrayed as progressive, former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean falls short on several issues important to progressives, with the Middle East being one of the more glaring.

True, Dean is one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls who opposed the invasion of Iraq (along with Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, conservative Sen. Bob Graham, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, and Rev. Al Sharpton), but he is closer to a hawk when it comes to Israel/Palestine and U.S. policy toward Iran.

In a major foreign policy speech earlier this year, Dean, while calling for an end to Palestinian violence, did not call for an end to Israeli violence, let alone an end to the illegal Israeli occupation.

And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right-wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."

more...

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

Very interesting article, should be read in full.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. His position on the Middle East is one reason he is so popular

It is a very mainstream view

"...the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental objections with President George W. Bush’s policies...

When asked by the Jewish newspaper Forward late last year as to whether he supported APN’s perspective, Governor Dean replied "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."..

He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

[quinnox]

5. disturbing

Apparently, Dean mostly agrees with Bush's foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine issue.

[madfloridian]

12. Do you remember the Pelosi letter?

When Dean said he wanted to be fair to both sides they wrote him a little letter. Do you remember? I still have it on my hard drive to remind me of that day.

Many congress people who support Gephardt signed that letter.

It was a shame.

[Tadah]

40. and then

Dean said that he supported Clinton's policies... which means he will be bi-polar... one day he'll embrace the palestinians and the next day he'll call them terrorists.

[mouse7]

62. Agreed, little difference between Clark and Clinton on I/P

About the only thing I will say is that it would matter little how radical the position was the US took until we get Sharon out as Israeli PM. Even that bastard Netanyahu is preferable to Sharon. Sharon is a butcher, pure and simple. Nothing has a chance of advancing until he's gone.

Realistically, there's no reason for a US candidate to committ political suicide when nothing that person said would have an effect. Once Sharon is out, then we can put the pressure on the next PM. Sharon is a butcher. He enjoys killing the Palestinians, and nothing anyone does outside Israel will have an effect.

[Tinoire]

50. I remember that and it was a shame

but I am very machiavellic in this regard and I do not put it past the same people who have accepted that Dean be the nominee to pull a smoke and mirrors show for our entertainment and reassurance as if to put our concerns to rest. I think you know why I'm so cynical about this stuff. It has to do with where I worked and what saw so I can't easily shake certain things knowing how far our establishment will go.

Pelosi has always been a hawk on Israel which is one reason I can't stand her but there's a LOT of money involved here and I don't think we want to lose a single dime of it so who knows how much of this is theatrics just to appease both the dovish and hawkish supporters? Letting each side read whatever they want into this? It wouldn't be the first time politicians pulled such a stunt. Just a theory... I'm not sure what to think of the whole thing either but it doesn't add up right. Gawd, I would give anything to be able to believe these people at face value. It would make for a much more peaceful life!

Since the 1989-90 election cycle, pro-Israel interests have contributed $41.3 million in individual, PAC, and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees. More than two-thirds of that total, or $28.6 million, has gone to Democrats.
April 2002


http://www.opensecrets.org/news/pro-israel.pro-arab/pro-israel.asp

==
<snip / talks about the letter>

This is simply a repeat of the old canard that only by supporting the illegal, repressive and self-defeating policies of Israel’s rightist government can one support the state of Israel.

The House Democratic leadership also declared that since, in their view, it was the Palestinians alone that were responsible for the ongoing violence it was therefore “unacceptable” for Dean to suggest that Israel -- as the occupying power -- might also need to compromise. The letter went on to declare that U.S. policy must be “based on unequivocal support for Israel’s right to exist and to be free from terror,” even though Dean has never given even a hint of believing anything to the contrary.

<snip>

Ironically, Dean has been widely seen as a hawk on Israel and Palestine. (See my article “Howard Dean: Hawk in Dove’s Clothing?” CommonDreams, Feb. 26.) He has stated that his position is closer to the right-wing American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, which allies itself with Israel’s ruling Likud Bloc, than it is with Americans for Peace Now, which identifies with the Israeli peace movement and the more liberal Israeli parties. Much to the chagrin of peace and human rights advocates, Dean supported the recent $9 billion loan guarantee to Sharon’s rightist government without conditions. He has repeatedly stated his belief that the major issue in the conflict is Palestinian terrorism, not the Israeli occupation that has spawned it.

Such positions have led many Democrats concerned about peace and human rights in the Middle East to abandon Dean and back the campaign of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who supports the position of the Israeli peace movement and the Zionist left.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0914-04.htm

[CWebster]

2. Who is it you support? Kerry?

Wasn't he the one, along with Lieberman, who condemned Dean's plea for a more "even-handed" approach as not being sufficiently groveling to Israel?

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Dean was talked to about that, and repented

He understands that US policy is unconditional support for whatever Israel wants to do, and he has even criticized the bush regime for setting conditions for some of the funding.

[quinnox]

4. Yes, but that was more of Dean backtracking

Dean's comment was just another flip-flop from his real view.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. His campaign co-chair is an AIPAC guy

His even-handed comment was very disturbing to many mainstream voters, but he appears to have cleared up the misunderstanding to AIPAC's satisfaction.

[Tadah]

7. dean says a lot of things...

Wasn't he the one, along with Lieberman, who condemned Dean's plea for a more "even-handed" approach as not being sufficiently groveling to Israel?

Dean is a triangulizer and supports every position....

His "final answer," I think is: he supports Clinton's position which was 1) go to AIPAC and praise the hell out of Israel for being the "great star" in the mideast, 2) go to Camp David and hope that Arafat is OK with the bi-polar nature of the people at the table when the claim impartiality.

An "even handed approach," for all I know, means that Israel can go on with its genocide with only moderate rebuke.

I don't think it means the Palestinians will get billions in aide too....

[Metrix]

11. The criticism of Dean was of his inexperience in foreign affairs

It was criticism of Dean shooting off his mouth without thinking. Dean doesn't really believe in a more even-handed approach. He's right-of-center on Israel. His remark was just meat thrown to his base.

[sandnsea]

17. Evenhanded is a specific POLICY

It MEANS something specific. Neither Israel or the Palestinians like it. They generally hate it. To Israel, it means they shouldn't do anything about the terrorists. To the Palestinians, it means the U.S. takes no position on the settlements or any of their concerns either. This is the approach of James Baker, by the way.

Honest Broker Policy recognizes the U.S. relationship with Israel from the gate. Israel has a right to exist and the U.S. will always defend that right and Israel if it comes down to it. Negotiations start from that jumping off point.

There's a difference, agree or disagree.

[Tinoire]

57. That's a very good explanation of the problem with the Even-Handedness

I like it all except for the part that "the US will always defend Israel if it comes right down to it" because I morally disagree with doing that for any country, any group or any person.

Practically speaking we always will because of our own interests in the region and the fact that we use Israel as much as Israel uses us but as a tax-payer and world citizen, I don't like the carte blanche that accompanies the knowledge that whatever you do, the US will step in if someone pushes back.

But your explanation sums it all up very nicely.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Tadah]

10. nobody knows who Dean is...

"Once elected Dean would let Sharon know he also has to stop the violence."

What leads you to this conclusion besides faith? Dean is so over the map that I call him the "wait and see candidate." He isn't running on principle but obfuscation of his past which isn't all that hot.

[Hep]

9. Progressive on mideast would do no one any good

Dean's position of constructive engagement is supporterd by both the UN and the palestinian authority. One of dean's middle east policy advisors is Jeremy Ben-Ami, who was working with the New Israel Fund before he was brought in. The NIF is an organization that strives to provide equal opportunities across the board for jews and arabs in israel.

Bottom line is that Dean is among the few who take a position that while not ideal,WORKS.

Yet for some reason, idealism blinds most of his opponents into thinking that either side can be forced to do something it doesn't want to do.

[Tadah]

15. how do you know?

Once elected Dean would let Sharon know he also has to stop the violence.

This statement is based on faith. Dean also claims that his states health care plan is pragmatic, but his own commission noted that it was putting lots of other things at risk. That's why he was trying to make cuts.

I wish this guy had the guts to do the right thing, like single-payer and calling on Sharone to back off on his imperialism.

Slavery lasted a long time because "Howard Dean Like" politicians let it work.

We shouldn't mistake a lack will to do the right thing as impressive policy.

[Hep]

16. You replied to me

but used text of someone else's post.

What up?

[Tinoire]

58. Hep, what Palestinian authority?

I confess that I haven't paid my usual hawk-like attention to I/P lately but I am unaware of the Palestinian authority supporting Dean and his position.

You did say Dean's position of constructive engagement but I just want to clarify that you mean the position itself and not Dean's specific positions.

I'm tired. Hope that question makes sense to you.

And also, do you reproach Kucinich or even Kerry anything in their positions? If so, what? Just curious because you have obviously looked into this more than most people.

[CWebster]

13. No supporters of any of the other candidates are in a position

to criticize Dean for this. They all tow the line for Israel--even Kucinich, who knows when it is best to refrain from a vote rather than voting against it - when it comes to the US--across party lines-pandering to Israel. At least Dean attempted to buck the trend and for that he has my commendation.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. Any candidate who veers too far from Gary Bauer on Israel

will get a one-way ticket to Cynthia McKinneyland.

Unconditional support for Israel is the position of the Democratic party, and it is an issue that is very important to evangelical christian voters, especially the contributing ones :)

[Tadah]

19. Dean was playing mind games but Kucinich wasn't

Kucinich didn't refrain from voting. He vote "present" and then made an elegant speech about not wanting to be "pigeon holed" as being pro-Israeli (yes vote) or pro-Palestinian (no vote) because in order to achieve peace, America has to be non-partisan and honest in working towards a positive solution.

BTW: I received the "Progressive Case For Dean" article (which your claim comes from) from many Dean supporters and none of them researched the subtle details behind Kucinich's historic action. I still don't think they understand them.

That's why Kucinich is my candidate: he did the right thing. He didn't fuel the racisim behind the resolution that effectively declared all Palestians, especially males, terrorists. The resolution also stated that the US was allied with Israel to get rid of them and backed the genocide.

Matt Rothchild (progressive magazine) mentioned that you have to be careful when too many ideas are conflated together. Kucinich observed this rule when he voted "present" because voting no could have been viewed as voting with the terrorists.

[CWebster]

20. He copped out when he could've made a stand that

historically mattered -but, he is an ambitious politician, nobody's fool.

[Tadah]

38. and why do you like no?

a judge dismisses a case when it has no merit. that's what Kucinich did. if everyone voted present, the entire resolution would have been dismissed!

I'm glad Kucinich called it a lemon.

[Tinoire]

41. Right.

You just keep repeating that. One of the reasons Kucinich is being marginalized right now is precisely because he took a stand by not joining that disgusting pro-Sharon love parade.

Unlike all of the other candidates running Kucinich has never, not once, said or done anything suspicious when it comes to Israel/Palestine.

I would love to know which candidate you're supporting after all that high talk because there's not one out there who comes close to Kucinich on even-handedness based on action and spoken word.

This is the first issue I looked at with all the candidates and they all flunked miserably except for Kucinich.

You're right about one thing, though it seems to be a typo, Kucinich IS indeed nobody's fool.

[CWebster]

44. Okay

Again Tinoire, why was Kucinich SILENT when Dean was being attacked by the others for not demonstrating proper allegiance to Israel? NOT ONE WORD when it mattered, and that is why he is relegated to irrelevancy when it comes down to the test. He can preach to the choir, inform the debate, and look for a date, but his effectiveness ends where it starts. The last time I asked why Kucinich was silent, one of Kucinich's supporters responded that it was not Kucinich's purpose to assist Dean. Is that all there is to the issue--is that what it comes down to? Then why is it Dean's responsibility to consider Kucinich?

[Tinoire]

46. See my post 45. Dean's loyalty to Israel is rock-solid

I have a hard time believing that he spent 3 days meeting with Sharon and other Israeli officials at the very beginning of his campaign, when he was polling exactly 0%, to gently explain to them that Sharon would have to stop terrorizing the Palestinians and dismantle all the settlements.

Just what was the purpose of such an even-handed man going to Israel on an AIPAC-paid trip and meeting with Sharon?

This type of criminality must stop and thanks to the research I just did because of your previous post, I am going to keep digging. I don't trust Dean on this anymore. I don't trust how he went from being such a hardliner to suddenly a dove of peace because a petition was launched expressing concern at his hard-line stance- not when I just read reports that he's saying different things to different audiences. Also I just went an browsed a few Israeli forums- not much worry there at all about Dean asking Sharon to do much of anything so I'm back to square 1 on this with Dean and he just lost all the points I had given him on this previously. Thanks for the opportunity to have discusses this because otherwise I would not have found out about the East Jerusalem issue and jumping on the "demonize Arafat" band-wagon.


http://www.arij.org/paleye/monthley/October-03/

Here are the kinds of Palestinian homes that are being appropriated and bull-dozed while the US keeps dragging its feet and speaking in our forked tongue. I can't stand for that. I can't stand behind anyone who is not going to take a crystal CLEAR stance on this issue. There's something very wrong going on here and very wrong with the statements Dean has been making behind semi-closed doors.

[CWebster]

49. But then

just how valid are any of Kucinich's convenient changes of ideology in order to be a feasible candidate? Amazing how you gloss over it while demanding purity from Dean. Dean isn't perfect, I will be the first to admit it, but he is decent and hard-working, he will be a good and capable Democrat.

Kucinich threw in his lot with Michael Lerner and there is not one player who has muddied the waters more about making a clear stand against the policies of Israel. His grandstanding during the height of the anti-war protests, targeting ANSWER showed his truly questionable allegiances and willingness to sabotage any progressive voices raised against the apartheid. What a stench from that hypocrite.

[Tinoire]

51. That's quite a stretch

I wonder just if the problem is that you just prefer Dean or maybe even don't like Kucinich (which is your prerogative) but Kucinich did not throw his lot in with Michael Lerner- Kucinich is the favorite of Jews for Peace who are a part of Lerner's Tikkhun community and as such was interviewed by Lerner's magazine Tikkhun.

Why are you dragging Lerner into this? It's too similar to demonizing McKinney because Farrakhan stumped for her.

So because you have a problem with Lerner (which I do too) and the fact that Kucinich didn't end his political career by making the suicidal move of aligning himself with Arafat (who is no Saint and with whom no one should be aligning themselves even if people on the other side of the aisle are practically making blood oaths with Sharon), would you crucify Kucinich over that and settle for someone whose positions, which rapidly changed over the last 6 months, do not guarantee even-handedness?

I am sure you have really thought about this and I am sorry that I couldn't get you to think about it differently. Sorry to be so curt but I am very tired and your logic on this issue escapes me. Why demand political martyrdom from Kucinich while ignoring Dean making back-room deals over East Jerusalem, promising to quadruple US military aid (and we all know what is done with that money) and wailing about the necessity of the wall?

I'm not demanding any purity from Dean. What I am demanding from any candidate I support is consistency & not saying one thing to one audience out of ear-shot of another audience to whom he says a different thing over an issue that has already inflamed the world.

Consistency and truth is what I have seen with Kucinich. And the proof of true even-handedness in the Middle-East. I will also note that Kucinich, unlike Clark and Dean, did not rush over to AIPAC or Sharon, to discuss his Presidential aspirations. To me that speaks volumes. Instead Kucinich is being pushed by the most pro-justice Jewish groups out there, the most pro-justice activists on that issue, and isn't caught up in an imbroglio of conflicting statements to different audiences.

This issue was my hot button 3 years ago. It was research on this that brought me to DU when I landed on and Indiana Green/Redstar exchange in Google and was hooked. That one find totally changed my life and not at all for the better so please forgive me for being harsh on this one. It's something I can't bend on or gloss over.

I personally discussed this issue with Rachel Corrie's parents and we discussed the responses they received from politicians about Rachel's death. Kucinich was the only one to call (& on his own), offer his condolences and ask what he could do to help. The fun part of it is that I met them at a Veterans for Peace conference the same day I met Will Pitt, Jim McDermott, and really great hero peace activists of our time such as Stan Goff and S. Brian Willson. Oh and Kucinich also. He re-arranged his schedule to be there for us. If you really care about this issue, I mean really, deeply, as much as I do, please do not close your mind and keep looking. Kucinich wins this one hands down.

You're a good person. I apologize for any harshness or curtness in earlier posts. I get very passionate about this issue and would not want to offend you. I know how sincere you are about this!

By the way, check this out:

Text of the Rachel Corrie Resolution

H. CON. RES. 111
Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 25, 2003 Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. DICKS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WU, Mr.
HONDA, Ms. ESHOO, and Mrs. CAPPS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
Congress--
(1) expresses its sympathy to Craig and Cynthia Corrie and to their extended families, friends, and co-workers for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003;
(2) calls on the United States Government to undertake a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie; and
(3) encourages the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel to work together to determine all the circumstances that led to this incident and to ensure that an incident of this kind never occurs again.
**********************************************************************************
Current Cosponsors of the Rachel Corrie Resolution

Sponsor
Rep Baird, Brian - 3/25/2003

Cosponsors
Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 3/31/2003
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 5/15/2003
Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 4/3/2003
Rep Camp, Dave - 4/29/2003
Rep Capps, Lois - 3/25/2003
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 5/20/2003
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 4/29/2003
Rep Dicks, Norman D. - 3/25/2003
Rep Dingell, John D. - 4/3/2003
Rep Doggett, Lloyd - 5/21/2003
Rep Dunn, Jennifer - 4/3/2003
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 3/25/2003
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 6/2/2003
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 3/25/2003
Rep Inslee, Jay - 3/25/2003
Rep Issa, Darrell E. - 6/26/2003
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 5/5/2003
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice - 6/26/2003
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 4/8/2003
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 6/2/2003
Rep Kind, Ron - 5/13/2003
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 5/1/2003
Rep Larsen, Rick - 3/25/2003
Rep Lee, Barbara - 4/3/2003
Rep Lewis, John - 3/25/2003
Rep Lofgren, Zoe - 4/29/2003
Rep McDermott, Jim - 3/25/2003
Rep McGovern, James P. - 4/8/2003
Rep Miller, George - 4/29/2003
Rep Moran, James P. - 5/13/2003
Rep Myrick, Sue - 4/29/2003
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 6/10/2003
Rep Oberstar, James L. - 6/10/2003
Rep Olver, John W. - 4/29/2003
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II - 3/31/2003
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 5/20/2003
Rep Smith, Adam - 3/25/2003
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 4/8/2003
Rep Udall, Mark - 5/15/2003
Rep Watt, Melvin L. - 4/29/2003
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 4/29/2003
Rep Wu, David - 3/25/2003


http://cflweb.org/Cosponsor%20H.C.R.%20111--(Rachel%20Corrie).htm

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. voting no could have been viewed as voting with the terrorists

that says volumes. About many, many things.

[CWebster]

25. ...terrorists?

yes it does, depending on who is defined as the terrorist. Sort of like who used to be hung with the pinko tag.

[Tadah]

36. exactly....

I don't think Sharon will be happy until the Palestinians bow down to him... everyone else will be shot.

[Tadah]

37. that's the problem with the patriot act...

and Patriot Act II broadens the definition of "terrorist." Kucinich is a smart man to draw a line in the sand... why should we redefine what Israel does to the palestinians as "a war against terror?" It's a genocide in the making.

In the war against terror, is anyone guilty?

[Tinoire]

45. Dean? Bucking the trend? Let's just go straight to East Jerusalem

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees ... the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

Responding to a question about the Israeli security wall in the West Bank at AAI’s National Leadership Conference on October 18, 2003, Dean stated, “the wall is a short-term tactic, no doubt for defense. I’m concerned about the course of the wall because…as it is is going to be a very difficult issue in peace negotiations as it now appears…in the long term, the wall can’t be permanent because…we have two states, these states are going to have to live with each other…The specific course of the wall is of concern to me.” There have, however, also been disturbing reports that in a closed-door meeting with American Jewish leaders Dean expressed support for the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations, Israel’s control of East Jerusalem, and reiterated his targeting of Saudi Arabia and Syria.

http://www.aaiusa.org/dean.htm

===

Forked Tongue?: The Arab American Institute is looking askance at reports that former Vermont governor Howard Dean took some strikingly pro-Israel positions in remarks to Jewish communal leaders — the day before he appeared at the institute's conference this month in Dearborn, Mich.

<snip>

But the institute now apparently thinks that the presidential candidate may be promising different things to different audiences.

"Howard Dean, who boasts of straight talking, may have some explaining to do if reports of his comments before Jewish leaders last week are true," the institute wrote in its "Countdown to Election 2004" newsletter.

<snip>

The newsletter quoted from articles in the Jewish press that recounted statements Dean made to national communal leaders at a meeting at a Manhattan synagogue on October 17. According to those reports, Dean told the leaders that his remark saying that America "ought not to take sides" in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was "a mistake," that the United States was not cracking down enough on Saudi Arabia for its support of terrorism and that Israel should not have to give up East Jerusalem in any peace deal with the Palestinians.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.31/news3b.campaigncon.html


Dean, for his part, threw red meat to the Jews on Friday. He told those assembled at Manhattan's Lincoln Square Synagogue that he does not support giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, that the Bush administration has not cracked down enough on Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism and that Yasser Arafat must be excluded from negotiations because he is an unrepentant terrorist, according to several participants.

"He was clearly going after Bush from the right," said the president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Rabbi Eric Yoffie.

Such moves managed to dispel any doubts Dean had created by his remarks on the campaign trail some weeks ago in which he said America "ought not to take sides" in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

"We were encouraged," said a pro-Israel Democratic activist who attended, Stuart Shorenstein. "He understood the angst that spread through the Jewish community over statements he made and was reassuring."

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.24/news4.dean.html

Stuff is adding up here. One of the main reason that Clinton's peace talks failed was because Clinton insisted that the Palestinians relinquish their legal control of East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is non-negotiable for the Palestinians. And Dean is going to appoint Clinton as his envoy while promising the same thing in private when he speaks in synagogues?


A few old DU threads: Where is your candidate on the Wall? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=554011#554476

Howard Dean supports building the "fence" (Wall) in the West Bank
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5282

[LimpingLib]

14. We need to ask Dean and most other "Pro Israel" hawks

how they can claim to support Israel and then support policys that will make Israel hated forever by Arabs and Muslims , both significant groups.In about 40 years Arabs will be the majority in Israel and thats just Israeli citizens not counting all the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.Really want to keep pi$$ing them off when they soon can vote for the most "extreme" proposals without Jewish imput? Why on earth is it we keep treating people like Dennis Ross and Daniel Pipes as legitimate experts and infact appoint these right wing Israeli lobbiests at times to sensitive peace positions? Its the #1 reason whay the "peace" process never goes anywhere.

Always, the first thing Dennis Ross or somebody will say when the right to return is brought up is "that MUST be the first thing to go , its a none starter..and thankfully 'everybody' is starting to realize that ". Actualy its only a none starter when you trash the vitial right of return like all "experts" in the US media do regularly if its ever broght up (which even brinbging it up is quite rare sadly).

The phoney peace process is a war process in the short run and the "Pro Israel" side can be described as a group that will ruin the future of the Jewish state. Honestly it is already 2004 and feelings are worse between the 2 peoples than ever and that clearly shows that by 2045 there will be no real peace and good will when Palestinians are going to be lucky to get crumbs fom whatever 1/10th baked "compromise" they get shoved down their throats . I predict a nasty future for the Jewish state with courts stepping and and nullifing democratic results that the Arab majority will vote for. Its obvious how they will vote. They will vote to unifiy the whole of Israel /Palestine and have free travel between the areas and voting rights for all plus a total right of return which will make it like 80% Arab and mostly Muslim . Bye bye Jewish state if someone with sanity doesnt step in . Solution number 1 will be to stick Dennis Ross and Daniel Pipes in some ambassadorship to the fartherst corner of the South Pole or shwerever just keep their ilk as far from the Mideast as possible.

[Hep]

22. Pleaseprovide an actual argument for your claim

that Dean is a pro israel hawk.

Thanks!

[LimpingLib]

24. I like Dean but till he proves otherwise.....

... then I will consider him and almost anybody to be just that since I have been dupped so many times before by endless myraids of politicians claiming they would be even handed.

"Even handed" almost always means refusing the Palestinians a right to return to their homes,only letting them have 20% of historic Palestine (and then splintered badly so it would require passing armed Israeli's to get to seperate parts of there tiny nation), ONLY *slowing down* the expansion of new settlements ,(most disturbing of all) letting Israel keep 90% of current settlements ( usually meaning what patheticaly little land the Palestinians have will be further given to Israel for ever)when the issue should be them getting the hell out of all settlements, etc. etc.

"Israel" is the nation that wanted to split the Holy Land known as Palestine into a Jewish state and seperate Arab nation instead of them living together. Settlements would be fine if they were a unified nation but Israel wants them seperated so why should they get to keep Palestinian land when it will permanently remove any Arabs from being able to go there? If the nations must be 2 seperate states then why fo Palestinians (Arabs) only get 20% ? Why should Palestinians who had houses in Israel proper not have the right to return and then be forced to cram into the tiny little land (like what 2,000-4,000 square miles?) that nearly 10 million Palestinians are being told will be their nation?

Dean seems to start from the Dennis Ross perspective of "even handedness" , anotherwords relative to Dennis Ross anybody can look slightly more fair . If Dean wants to use that label then I can label him however and not feel like Im that far off in comparison.

[corporatewhore]

26. So True We negociate the same "peace" treaties we did w/native americans

Saying that a certain people has a divine right (manifest destiny or zionism) to commit ethinic cleansing of the indigenous population and force them into god awful reservations

[Hep]

28. You aren't saying Dean supports this are you?

Just making sure.

[corporatewhore]

29. talkin about "peace" treaties in general

[DuctapeFatwa]

30. If he does not support it, he had better keep it to himself

Or his efforts to include the NASCAR dads and evangelical Christians will have been in vain.

To tell you the truth, I am not sure if anyone who said they did not support that view would have much of a political career at all. Not in the US.

[Hep]

32. I don't think anyone is against his policy

of coming up with a global solution that all sides can get on board with. Will it be ideal to my side of the debate? Probably not. But if it ends the violence, I'm all for it.

[corporatewhore]

33. check out my post 32

[Hep]

27. Gosh

Even handed to me always meant even handed. It was enough to get the Pro-Israeli camp up in arms about him.

But I'd love to see your thought on my other reply, about Dean's approach.

[Tinoire]

59. That's basically JFP's position

This whole thing is heating upso badly and everyone paying attention knows it. I just hope we can get some real even-handedness and a fair 2 state solution as soon as possible but that means Sharon has to be stopped from seizing everything he wants and creating more facts on the ground that will have to be dealt with (unpleasantly for all concerned)

or

that a miracle happens and both the Israelis and Palestinians accept that a 1 state democracy with equal representation and rights for all is their best hope for a peaceful future (as well as the entire region's)


We have never ever been a fair broker in this issue because we have no real interest in peace in the region. Maybe now that it's not just Israelis and Palestinians paying the price we might get a move on things- the public is certainly waking up and demanding this (both over here and over there).

[Raya]

21. Which Dean? The "Campaign Dean" has a different view from AIPAC

[Tadah]

39. its in constant flux

and perhaps he is high in the polls because it's a soap opera that nobody knows the end of...

[corporatewhore]

31. read the article and read another one on dean in mid east very interesting

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees ... the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.
from above article
Dean also appears to reject the widespread consensus among Israeli peace activists and Middle East scholars that Palestinian terrorism is a direct outgrowth of the 35-year Israeli military occupation. Instead, Dean seems to argue that terrorism itself is the core issue. He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional. Pushing for such a dramatic and unconditional increase in financial support for the incumbent government just before Israelis went to the polls in January was widely seen as a not-too-subtle endorsement of Sharon’s re-election.

By the time Dean would become president, Israel could have a different prime minister. Despite his recent election victory, Sharon’s government is not likely to last very long and new Israeli elections could take place within a couple of years. Israeli opposition leader Amram Mitzna, who could become the next prime minister, takes a far more moderate position toward the Palestinians than does Dean. For example, Dean opposes Mitzna’s call for Israel to unconditionally return to peace talks with the Palestinians. One could therefore envision a situation where a President Dean, being even more anti-Palestinian than the Israeli government, would – instead of pushing both sides to compromise for peace – end up pressuring the Israelis to harden their position. Israeli peace activists fear that electing someone like Dean as president of the United States could end up sabotaging a renewed Middle East peace proces
from http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

[IndianaGreen]

34. What is a progressive position on the Middle East?

A peaceful settlement with 2-states living side by side. An end to terrorism from both sides. Withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Compensation to those that lost their land or homes. A demilitarized border separating both states.

This is the mainstream position which is also endorsed by the majority of Israelis. It has also been the position of several Democratic Administrations.

I have my share of disagreements with AIPAC, but you got to understand where they are coming from. Look at how crazy Americans went on 9/11, and that was one single day of terrorism. Now put yourself in the shoes of the average Israeli who is living under the constant threat of terrorism, whether it is riding the bus, or shopping, or eating at a restaurant.

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. Leaving it alone. The US has done enough in the Levant and elsewhere

in the region. For quite some time.

While such a policy would mean a decrease in revenue for the oilngun industry, it would save millions of lives, both American, Israeli and otherwise, and would give you a much better chance of reaching old age, and your kids a much better chance of raising their kids in a place that does not resemble Rwanda.

[Tinoire]

60. A progressive position on the Middle East

well on I/P, is the one of the first posts by you that googled me to the old DU and which, thankfully, I had book-marked. You've refined it since and also come up with a one-state possibility but I still like your original (and it's the only one I can easily find because of my sentimental attachment to it).

:toast: to you IndianaGreen! and :toast: to Redstar wherever he is!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1210&forum=DCForumID30&archive=#6

International settlement of the Israel/Palestine issue is the solution

as I advocated many times before.
Divide and Quit

The Indians and Pakistanis chose in 1947 to "Divide and Quit" (a decision opposed by Gandhi). I firmly believe that the only solution to this conflict lies in the international community imposing a similar "Divide and Quit" scheme in order to stop the violence and the killings in the Middle East.

It is clear that neither Israelis nor Palestinians are capable of breaking the vicious cycle of violence in which they have imprisoned themselves. It is also clear that the United States is part of the problem, and not part of the solution. Relying on old United Nations Resolutions is also counter-productive since neither side is willing to abide by them. They never had!
In the short term, the United States should pull out of the Middle East. This means no more troops in Saudi Arabia, no more weapons for Israel or Egypt, no more money to anyone! There are practical considerations for this strategy:

• One, our national security does not depend on whether Israel exists or not. It never did!

• Second, our national security does not depend on the survival of the despotic regimes in the region, particularly the corrupt governments of Egypt and the Gulf states. It never did!

• Third, our national security has nothing to do with keeping our gas guzzling SUVs running. Blood for oil is always a bad trade!

• Fourth, rightly or wrongly, the United States is perceived as Israel's bodyguard. This means that, whether we like it or not, the United States cannot play the role of impartial peace maker, because we are not, and we have seldom ever been. Let someone else play that role!

• Finally, the only role the United States is well suited for, is to be one of the countries that should contribute troops to an international military force to enforce the peace that will have to be impose on Israel and Palestine.

I will outline, once again, what I see as the only solution to this problem (I posted this before, and will continue to do so because it is the only plausible solution IMHO):

Jerusalem is the key to everything!

The only solution is one that is imposed from, and enforced by, third parties:

• Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, meaning Gaza and the West Bank.

• Dismantling of all Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

• Jerusalem under international control and protection. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians have shown the maturity needed to be trusted with Jerusalem.

• In spite of its being under international control, Israel and Palestine can share Jerusalem as their respective capitals.

• Separate Israel and Palestine with a Berlin-style wall, except for Jerusalem.

• Demilitarize the two states, including nuclear disarmament of Israel. No more weapons to the two states, including American weapons.

• Security to the two states will be provided by a well-armed international force that will also include troops from the permanent members of the UN Security Council, e.g., Russia, China, France, UK, US.


Palestine will be the entire area of the West Bank plus Gaza. There will be no corridor between the West Bank and Gaza for obvious security reasons. This will be similar to the split of Pakistan into East and West Pakistan in 1947. I expect that, in time, Gaza will split from Palestine, just like East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

No Right of Return. The West and the rich Gulf states will compensate all victims of this conflict, and they will commit to help the two nations economically.

Israel will be for Jews (and any non-Jew the Israelis allow to live in their country), Palestine will be for non-Jews (there are Palestinian Christians). The two sides will be separated by a well armed international force that will include US and Russian troops. I like the suggestion of having a Korean-style DMZ separating the two countries.

Jerusalem will be under international control, in perpetuity! Jews will control the Jewish religious sites, Muslims will control their religious sites, and Christians will control theirs. Israel and Palestine can both claim Jerusalem as the capital of their respective countries, but Jerusalem will be demilitarized. the only armed force allowed will be the international peace enforcers.

The nationalists and the religious extremists on both sides will violently oppose this plan. Fuck them! They will be marginalized, and given enough time for peace to take hold, they will no longer be able to get new recruits for their cause.



Related DU links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=890&forum=DCForumID30#26

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=920&forum=DCForumID30#4

[stickdog]

42. Which Dem candidates are more progressive on the Israel?

I'm so sick of Dean being compared to perfection.

[DuctapeFatwa]

43. LOL the fight is for each to prove they support Israel MORE

than the others.

Dean is winning.

[Tinoire]

48. Kucinich

and I say that with every ounce of sincerity and honesty in my body.

This was the KEY issue I looked at before the rhetoric started flying.

I understand how sick you are of this. Sorry about that too but I'm still interested in how they are going to perform. This is what the primaries are about- finding the best one and we can't trust them just to tell us that they are.

None of them are perfect.

[Tinoire]

47. Now Quinnox. Just to keep this even-handed. Clark's position is worse

In fact it is so alarming that Jews for Clark used this issue to e-mail/fax Jewish supporters of Howard Dean and scare them away because Clark's stance is more in keeping with the hard-liners. One must also be concerned about a candidate who wrote that the Intifadah was occuring "inside" of Israel and that targetted assassinations are A-ok.

All the candidates are profiled here: http://www.aaiusa.org/dean.htm

Here's an extract re Clark:

In a June 2003 interview with NBC’s Tim Russert, Clark was asked, “Should Israel listen to George Bush and show more restraint?” He responded by stating: “Well, I think they can show some restraint. But the problem is when you have hard intelligence that you’re about to be struck, it’s the responsibility of a government to take action against that intelligence and prevent the loss of lives. It’s what any society would expect of its leadership. So there’s a limit to how much restraint can be shown.” After declaring his candidacy, Clark stated in a September 2003 interview with Rolling Stone, “I totally support Israel's effort to go after these terrorists.” When asked for views of the Palestinians, Clark blames the Arab states for their plight, noting that they were used and “not given the opportunity to be assimilated.”

<snip>
General Clark believes that Israel is the key U.S. ally in the region and has the right to defend itself, including going after terrorists who threaten Israelis -- because violence and terrorist actions will not work and must end. What is needed now is a shared commitment between Israelis and Palestinians to end violence and live in peace. On the Palestinian side, that means ending the violence and becoming a partner committed to a Jewish state that can exist in peace and security. On the Israeli side, it means engaging in serious negotiations -- and creating conditions conducive to the success of those negotiations – to create a viable Palestinian state. These steps must be taken on both sides to create hope among the Palestinian and Israeli populations for a better life. The U.S. must play a vital leadership role in this process.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/clark.htm

[incapsulated]

52. I wouldn't call it "worse"

How does it differ from "AIPAC's view"? I would call it par-for-the-course in a Presidential election. I don't like it, but that's the truth. Kucinich may take a different stance, but that is unfortunately one of the reasons he would have such a hard time in a general election.

[Tinoire]

54. I'm not comfortable with Clark's stance. I think it's the most hawkish

I think Dean's view, right now on paper, is more in line with APN (I don't like the East Jerusalem bit at all but that's not on paper). Dennis' is definitely APN and even more, Jews for Peace, who are even more equitable to the Palestinians. ((Note- do not confuse Jews for Peace with Rabbi Lerner; the two are associate but they have a real problem with him over issues such as the Right of Return))

Because I/P and the war are my main litmus tests for this campaign, I watched this like a hawk over the years and as the newer candidates entered the fray.

This is my impression of Clark on this issue:

Repeats the propaganda:

In the Middle East we've got an active guerrilla war between Israel and Palestine. It's a shame; it's a tragedy. I was with former prime minister Ehud Barak last weekend in San Antonio, and we talked about this. He made a bold strategic move. He restored legitimacy to Israel by pulling out of Lebanon. He called Arafat; he called his bluff. He said here it is, you can have everything you want; you can have part of Jerusalem; you can have the temple area and everything--you can have control of this. You can have the settlements here frozen until--but it wasn't enough.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065
----------------------------------------------------------------

Apologist:

<snip>

So Israel’s adversaries found a new way to fight. They used infantry (equipped with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and antitank guided missiles). In response, Israel put mortars on its tanks and practiced seizing the high ground in order to bring fire against enemy infantrymen.

Then the Palestinians inside Israel learned how to resist using nonlethal force, like rocks and clubs. It was a tactic aimed at exploiting world sensitivities, forcing Israeli security forces to overreact. Occasionally the tactics were supplemented by armed men concealed among the rock throwers or by the use of terror bombings. This was the intifadeh. ((Now forgive me if me and the Palestinians are geographically confused but the Intifadah happened "inside" of Israel? This is pretty hawkish talk))

So Israel developed new equipment, new forces and new tactics. To secure its borders, Israel deployed more heavily armored tanks and troop-carrying vehicles. Apache helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and very long-range optics were procured. To protect itself internally, Israel issued its infantrymen plastic bullets and other riot-control gear. Special security forces were organized to help relieve the conventional Israel units of responsibility for keeping order inside Israel. When confrontation with hostile crowds was unavoidable, Israel used restrictive rules of engagement – and snipers to respond to armed opponents – in an effort to minimize losses and avoid dramatic scenes that could inflame world opinion.

<snip>
Israel’s riposte was tactically precise and strategically effective. The pinpoint strikes by armed helicopters on Thursday targeted Palestinian facilities associated with inciting the violence. Carefully giving advance warning to minimize civilian casualties, Israel drew a firm line. Enough. It was sharp and, in Israeli public opinion, satisfying. And as a clear escalation – reminding the world that local events could quickly grow into a major regional conflict – the Israeli move drew in diplomatic leverage from all sides.

<snip>

http://www.greatertalent.com/clark.shtml

----------------

"I think Clark might just take the wind out of the sail of Dean's balloon," said lawyer Stuart Shorenstein, whose wife went to check out the general. "I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of people gravitating over."

The idea that Clark would gain among Jewish voters at the expense of Dean was also promoted by Rep. Steve Israel, a New York congressman who was one of the first in the House to endorse Clark. "Oh yeah," is how Israel responded when asked whether Dean had hurt himself with recent remarks advocating a neutralist posture toward Arab-Israeli negotiations. Clark, meanwhile, garnered rave reviews when he spoke in Long Island a couple of weeks ago to the Long Island Foreign Affairs Forum, a group of 100 business leaders, Israel said.

"For Jewish voters who are concerned about terrorism and who want a president with a constructive and thoughtful strategy for dealing with terrorism, Wesley Clark is extremely appealing," Israel said. "No other candidate has a lock on New York's Jewish voters. I think General Clark has that opportunity."

Israel, who voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, said he was unconcerned with conflicting statements Clark has made on the campaign trail about whether he would have voted for the resolution. Commentators have seized on the flip-flops as evidence that Clark was stumbling out of the gate, but Israel said arguments over the resolution were less about "substance" than about "timing."

<snip>

A hint of Clark's thinking on the Middle East is contained in a series of reports on the region by the International Crisis Group, a caucus of foreign-policy luminaries on whose board Clark sits. The reports, which can be viewed at the group's Web site (www.intl-crisis-group.org), argue for a comprehensive, rather than incremental, strategy to end the Arab-Israeli conflict that would involve "not only the Israeli-Palestinian track... but the Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon tracks as well."

<snip>
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.09.26/news1.clark.html
-----------------

What made me really uncomfortable about Clark is that I noticed the more hawkish Lieberman supporters who had never seemed very pro-equity & pro-justice towards the Palestinians were the first ones to jump on his band wagon here. That observation became disconcerting when I found out Clark was associated with the Brookings Institution Saban Center

Director: Martin S. Indyk
Director of Research: Kenneth M. Pollack
Senior Fellows: Philip H. Gordon, Shibley Telhami, Daniel L. Byman
National Security Fellow and Coordinator, Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World: Peter W. Singer
Visiting Fellows: Shaul Bakhash, Muqtedar Khan, Flynt Leverett, Ömer Taspinar, and Ezzat I.M. Youssef
Center Administrator: Ellen McHugh
Research Analyst: Haim Malka
Senior Research Assistant: Garner Gollatz
Staff Assistant: Mitchell Wunsh

Martin S. Indyk
Director
Arab-Israeli conflict, Gulf security, U.S. policy
Ambassador Indyk served in several senior positions in the U.S. government, most recently as ambassador to Israel and assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. He was also a founding executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He has published widely on Palestinian-Israeli peace and other topics in Middle East policy, and is now working on a study of the Clinton Administration's diplomacy in the region.

Kenneth M. Pollack
Director of Research
Iraq, Iran, Gulf security, Arab military affairs
Dr. Pollack served as a CIA analyst and as the National Security Council's director for Persian Gulf affairs and for Near East and South Asian affairs. He is the author of two recent books, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq and Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 (both 2002). His current research focuses on postwar reconstruction and democratization in Iraq and future security arrangements in the Persian Gulf.

Philip H. Gordon
Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the U.S. and France
Europe, transatlantic relations, Turkey, Middle East
Dr. Gordon previously served in the National Security Council as director of European affairs. He is the author of The French Challenge: Adapting to Globalization (2001) and The Transatlantic Allies and a Changing Middle East (1998). He has published widely on such Middle East-related topics as Cyprus, Turkey, and the international crisis over Iraq. His current research focuses on U.S.-European relations in the Middle East.

Shibley Telhami
Nonresident Senior Fellow
Palestinian and Israeli politics, ethnic identity and conflict, Gulf and Arab politics
Dr. Telhami is Anwar Sadat Professor at the University of Maryland and author of The Stakes: America and the Middle East (2002). His many other publications on Middle East politics include Power and Leadership in International Bargaining: The Path to the Camp David Accords (1990). His current research focuses on the media's role in shaping Middle Eastern political identity and the sources of ideas about U.S. policy in the region.

Daniel L. Byman
Nonresident Senior Fellow
Middle Eastern terrorism, U.S. counterterrorism strategy, conflict management
Dr. Byman is assistant professor of security studies at Georgetown University. His experience includes work on the Joint 9/11 Inquiry and Senate Intelligence Committees and as an analyst for the CIA. He is the author of two recent books, Keeping the Peace: Lasting Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts and The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might (both 2002).

Peter W. Singer
National Security Fellow and Director, Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World
Foreign policy, national security, U.S. relations with Islamic countries
Dr. Singer is the author of Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military History (2003) and a forthcoming book on the global problem of child soldiers, Caution: Children at War. Among other topics he has researched are U.S. Afghanistan policy, the politics of Islamic education in Pakistan, AIDS and national security, and American policy toward the Islamic world.

VISITING FELLOWS

Shaul Bakhash
Visiting Fellow
Iran, modern Islamic political thought
Dr. Bakhash is Clarence J. Robinson Professor of History at George Mason University. He is the author of Reign of the Ayatollahs: Iran and the Islamic Revolution; Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy, and Reform Under the Qajars, 1858-1896; and The Politics of Oil and Revolution in Iran. He formerly worked as a journalist in Tehran. His current research focuses on the reform movement and the prospects for democratic change in Iran.

Muqtedar Khan
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Project on U.S. Policy towards the Islamic World
Political Islam, Islamic thought, U.S. foreign policy, globalization
Dr. Khan is assistant professor of political science and director of the international studies program at Adrian College. His published work has addressed political Islam, U.S. foreign policy, religious and political identity, globalization, and various topics in Islamic political theory and philosophy. His current research aims to provide a revised framework for U.S. policy towards the Islamic world.

Flynt Leverett
Visiting Fellow
Syria, U.S.-Arab relations, counterterrorism
Dr. Leverett was senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, advising the White House on relations with Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Dr. Leverett previously served as a Middle East and counterterrorism expert on the Secretary of State's Policy Planning Staff and as a senior CIA analyst. His research focuses on Syria, the war on terrorism, and U.S.-Syrian relations.

Ömer Taspinar
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Project on U.S. Policy towards the Islamic World
Turkey, political Islam, human rights, international economic policy
Dr. Taspinar is a Turkish political analyst and an adjunct professor of European and Middle East Studies at The Johns Hopkins University. His research interests include Turkish politics, the European Union, political Islam, Kurdish nationalism, and human rights. He is currently working on a study of economic and educational outreach for the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World.

Ezzat I.M. Youssef
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Project on U.S. Policy towards the Islamic World
International Relations, U.S. Policy in the Middle East
Mr. Youssef, a Fulbright/APSA fellow, is a journalist at the foreign affairs desk of the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram. After his time at Brookings, he will spend nine months in the U.S. Congress as a Congressional Fellow. He edits al-Ahram's biweekly feature "The Agenda," presenting the latest views from international think tanks. His research interests include the role of think tanks and Congress in making U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/staff.htm

Now here is the part that really concerns me: PNAC ((Saban Center is part of the Brookings Institution))

Under the direction of Vice President and Director James B. Steinberg, the Foreign Policy Studies program at the Brookings Institution seeks to meet these challenges through timely research and analysis designed to inform and shape the policy debate in the United States and abroad.

http://www.brook.edu/fp/information.htm

Thus, among the signers who have never before been associated with PNAC, are Robert Asmus, a former deputy secretary of state for Europe; Ivo Daalder, a prominent member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Robert Gelbard, a former U.S. ambassador to Chile and Indonesia; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Dennis Ross, his chief adviser on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations; Walter Slocombe, Clinton's top policy official at the Pentagon; and, most important, James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser who now heads foreign policy studies at the influential Brookings Institution.

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0303pnacletter_body.html

http://pnacrevealed.com/

Participant at BILDERBERG 2003: VERSAILLES, PARIS
USA - Steinberg, James B. - Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies Program, The Brookings Institution
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bilderberg_2003.html

I stopped looking but here's the google link:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=James+steinberg+PNAC

There are other things too. This position paper does not sit well with me:

<snip>

<snip> Ever since Rabin shook hands with Yasser Arafat, the world has been waiting for the Palestinian authorities to take a similar step by disarming their own militants. That moment has yet to come. It will take bold leadership from the Palestinians and Israelis, and a staunch commitment from the United States. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have yet to find their Rabin. But I still believe that Israel will one day thrive side by side with a Palestinian state.

Until that day, the Israeli government has a duty to defend its people from the constant onslaught of bombers who attack innocent civilians on buses, in restaurants and on their way from prayer. As a retired general, I firmly believe that this is the least that any society expects of its leadership. We should never question Israel's right to self-defense. Indeed, we must continue to provide Israel with the resources — both financial and diplomatic — to aid its search for peace.

Currently, Israel is building a security fence — not because it wants to, but because terrorism has forced its hand. The fence is not a barrier to the peace process. No country can negotiate if the other side believes it has no alternatives. The fence will help contain the terrorist onslaught. It will warn other parties in the Middle East that they need to start negotiating — now. But it is not a sustainable substitute for peace.

A strong, democratic State of Israel is the key to the future of the Middle East. For 50 years, Israelis stood side by side with Americans in fighting against communism and terrorism. We forged a unique relationship based on common interests and a common dedication to the principles of democracy. In the aftermath of September 11, and with Israelis facing a fresh campaign of suicide bombings, this relationship is more firmly founded then ever before.

Every president since Harry Truman has kept America's commitment to the security of Israel. At Camp David, President Clinton helped the parties come close to peace, but Arafat balked and chose violence.

<snip>

http://www.jewsforclark.com/page.asp?p=69

And I really don't like this either.

Jews for Clark: As retired general Wesley Clark campaigned at a large synagogue in south Florida this week, one of the grassroots groups supporting his campaign, "Jews for Clark," was spreading the word about the general with an e-mail message that raised some eyebrows at Clark's campaign headquarters in Little Rock.

<snip>

"There are many in our community who think George Bush's support for Israel and Middle East intervention is good for our interests," the group's e-mail says. "But if you look at the bigger picture, you see a major erosion of American power and influence in the world and an erosion of American ideals at home — and this has major implications for both Israel and the Jewish community.

<snip>

The message also takes a huge whack at the presumed Democratic frontrunner, former Vermont governor Howard Dean. "Howard Dean is not an alternative," it says. "His support for Israel is lukewarm. He is too close to the radical left, where anti-globalization and anti-Israel sentiments go hand-in-hand. And, he doesn't have the stature to win. The Bush people will eat Howard Dean for lunch."

<snip>

Clark's Jewish outreach coordinator, Greg Caplan, told the Forward that he hadn't seen the message until receiving it from the Forward, and he practically disavowed the group. "We have a lot of grassroots groups," Caplan said. "Some we are in closer coordination with than others. ... It's a free country. People are allowed to do whatever they want. There's no relation between us and them."

Dean's adviser for Jewish affairs, Matt Dorf, blasted the Clark campaign. "Wesley Clark needs to decide what kind of campaign he going to run, whether he's going to allow supporters to distort opponents' records, or whether he's going to distance himself from them and shut them down," Dorf said. "They're trying to have it both ways. Howard Dean's support for Israel and for Middle East peace is second to none."

<snip>

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.05/news6.campaigncon.html

Now you already know what I think about Dean and even handedness; I whacked him in previous posts in this thread. When I read things like this about Clark coupled with the ogranizations he's associated himself with in the past, it makes me shudder.

CSWebster (earlier posts) may be right about Kucinich but I see him as the most progressive, Dean & Kerry next, skipping the rest, and Clark as the most hawkish, even more so than Lieberman. This is of course my humble opinion but if I go to the trouble (and this post took me over an hour) of documenting/sourcing my opinions it's because we already know we can't trust either the controlled media or campaign rhetoric to know what we're really getting and the stakes in this next election are too great to just trust people's words. None of this is meant to offend anyone but it's an issue I care passionately about and I consider fair resolution of the I/P catastrophe crucial in achieving a more, peaceful balanced world.

[hellhathnofury]

53. There is entirely to much ideological emotion in this issue for an honest

discussion. We've got to get pragmatic and realize that both sides are going to have to make big compromises. The Geneva Accord is the most inspiring thing I've seen in this region since the early days of Zionism.

The problem is that whenever someone deviates from the path they are shot at from both sides of the issue.

I think the nominees position should be a strong endorsement of the accord and the promise to organize a Camp David summit to work out any differences not resolved in the Geneva Accord.

No one is pure on this issue because it's so heated and so complex. If we wanted too we could tear down all of our candidates with their own words and actions.

I see nothing wrong with Dean's current policy.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_mideast

"Howard Dean is committed to achieving a negotiated, comprehensive, and just peace between Palestinians and Israelis and remains optimistic about the chances for peace. The greatest asset in that effort is that majorities of both Palestinians and Israelis accept a two-state solution which would guarantee security, sovereignty, and dignity."

"Recent developments in the region have created a new sense of opportunity. Any steps that lead away from violence and toward peace need to be encouraged and assisted. Continuing this progress will require the full engagement of the United States at the highest level. U.S. disengagement from the process during much of the Bush Administration has been unacceptable. No other country but the United States has the credibility necessary to facilitate negotiations and to mediate between the parties. Yet, in the end, only the Palestinians and the Israelis themselves can make and keep the peace and work out the specifics of a lasting agreement. Peace cannot be imposed by outside parties."

snip

"Through it all, the United States will maintain its historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security. And the United States will have to take responsibility with its international partners for helping the Palestinians establish a middle-class democratic society in which women fully participate in economic and political decision-making. The international community must support these economic reconstruction efforts which are essential to the long-term success of any agreement between the parties."

[Tinoire]

55. Very true words. I hope you'll appreciate this

because there's a lot of truth in it. While I am an ideological purist, I can appreciate that, I may have to swallow that purity on this one. I don't want to but life isn't always what we want is it?

I hope you appreciate this post. I thought there was also a lot of truth in it. If you like this one, read the next one that I'll post to insert a lighter note into this thread and because it's by the same author and relevant to all the political discussions taking place here.

Dean is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't

Thu Jan-01-04 10:35 AM by DuctapeFatwa

I don't support any of the candidates. I am using Dean as an example because he has raised the most money.

It doesn't matter what Dean says on any issue at this point. He said he was a religious Christian, and some clown tears him a new one for saying that. (I posted it on here, but the thread was locked). Now if he had said that he thought religion was a very private and personal thing and he did not consider it relevant to his public life, does anyone think that the same clown or his ilk would not have torn him a new one for being a "God-hating liberal?"

Dean actually pulled off a very shrewd move in suggesting that the bush regime does not support ariel sharon *enough.* You can bet that the White House was not expecting that. Still, not a day goes by without somebody on some board posting one of those tired old letters suggesting that he may disagree with bush's Middle East policy.

As far as I can tell, most Dean supporters are sophisticated enough to understand the way the game is played. But some just don't get it and appear to be headed for disappointment, if it has not visited them already.

Evangelical fundamentalist Christians tend to be affluent folks who vote in large numbers. They also contribute to political campaigns. What they look for in a politician is Anglo-Saxon Protestant righteousness and a Rapture-Ready foreign policy.

Dollars spent on outreach to that segment have a much better chance of coming back with friends than dollars spent on marginalized populations who tend to have no money and whose faith traditions are less likely to include a strong belief in the election process.

At the same time, although he has raised a lot of money, he is not yet in a position to jettison the folks who brought him to the dance, and some of those folks do not always agree with Joe Voter the NASCAR dad on current hot topics like the "War on Terra."

Thus, Dean was obliged to revise his remarks on Osama to include language in support of due process.

That's not what the NASCAR dads wanted to hear, although it was Balm of Gilead for some Dean admirers, who rushed to spread the news to all the nations, that Dean hopes that a trial will precede the execution of the bush-decreed perpetrator of the 9-11 events.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He is either with the terrorists and doesn't care about the deaths of 3000 innocent people, or he is spitting on the Constitution.

Now the smart thing to say, in this case, is pretty easy. He could have said "I believe there should be a thorough and comprehensive investigation, and all involved should be brought to justice."

But Americans clearly don't want politicians who say smart things, or bush would have never even made it to the primaries, and most of Congress would be scooping fries at Wendy's.

There is a popular current, an opinion miasma, not always stated, but always present, that it is by definition unpatriotic to "run against" the president at this historic and unprecedented chapter in the nation's history, that to change horses in the middle of the stream of the War on Terror is pure folly, after all, bush was chosen by God to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan, where progress is being made every day, and herald in the Rapture, where progress is also being made every day.

Dean must convince the voters that he will do a better job of this than bush does, and he must convince the PNAC backroom that he will be a more attractive on-camera talent than bush.

At the same time, he must assure that at least every other thing he says does not alienate those among his supporters who do not realize what they will "win" if they are successful.

Dean does not have the military background of Clark (no small asset for anyone wishing to become the titular head of a nation transitioning to military dictatorship), the oratory gift of Kerry, the stolid familiarity of Gephardt, the graciousness of Moseley-Braun, the folksiness of Edwards, the intelligence of Sharpton or the vision of Kucinich.

What he does have is more money than any other Democrat candidate, which is damning by faint praise when set beside the overspilling bush regime coffers.

He also has the knowledge, although he probably doesn't like to think about it, that in the US, getting the most votes does not assure that one will be moving one's paper clip jar into the office one seeks.

Sometimes, the camera captures Dean looking like a bunny rabbit surprised by an unexpected headlight.

If he "wins" his face may freeze that way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=49109

[Tinoire]

56. The category of "No, no, what he MEANT when he said that"

"No, no, what he MEANT when he said that"

by DuctapeFatwa
January 2, 2004

Someone posts a quote from Candidate X saying he does not like foam rubber cheesehats.

Someone else posts a reply, yes, I saw that, and that's why I support Candidate Y, he understands the cheesehat issue.

Then Candidate X's Protection Squad arrive, to accuse the poster of making it up, attack the paper that published the original article, and deplore all this senseless bashing of Candidate X, and explain that Candidate X really loves foam rubber cheesehats, that is what he meant to say, and here is another quote from him saying he was so glad to get one for his birthday.

This post is quickly followed by other members of the Protection Squad who attempt to reassure cheesehat fans that X is just saying this because he has to, but once he is elected, his cheesehat policy will be the bestest ever, because Candidate X is the bestest ever, and will win.

And so it goes, until the Candidate Y people smell cheese, and proceed to post Y's praises of cheesehats for the last 10 years, and post a few photos of a smiling Y wearing a cheesehat.

This really makes the X people mad, Y is just pandering to cheesehat fans, but X is the one who really understands them, and when he said he didn't like them, it is because he LOVES them, and anyway, he will win, because he is bestest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=52480#52546

[corporatewhore]

61. This is a defining issue for people

I was talking with a group of women about the Dean and Kucinich and one woman was going on about howard deans appearance at satillo plaza and why we should support him. One of my friends came in and saidbut hes a hawk when it comes to mid east then the first women said yeah i love kucinich but i think dean is more electable.My friend said no Israel/Palestine is too big to compromise on.BTW my friendis notsome young naieve leftist green activist college kid but a 60 year old proud democrat english professor (i know you were thinkin about it)
This pretty much sealed the deal for me between dean and kucinich it also first clued me in on how he wasnt the liberal god he proclaimed himself to be