Dean re:Israel/Palestinian conflict: "It's not our place to take sides."

[Karmadillo]

Uh, sounds a little anti-semitic if you ask me (:sarcasm:). Then again, the Salon article indicates he was simply pandering to the left to cover his right of center position on Israel. Or was he pandering previously? Or is he pandering now with his most recent comment about anti-semitism?


http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/09/23/dean_israel/index.html

<edit>

Actually, it's unclear how much Dean has strayed from AIPAC orthodoxy. Some of his recent comments about Israel seem aimed at the liberal Democrats fueling his insurgency -- many of whom disagree with his original position. His campaign managers, though, insist the current fracas is simply a result of Dean's extemporaneous remarks being misunderstood and blown out of proportion. Either way, Dean is seen as having deviated from the narrow parameters in which Israel can be discussed in American politics. That threatens to slow his momentum, dampen his fundraising and tarnish his political reputation.

Dean's Israel troubles began at a Sept. 3 campaign event in Santa Fe, N.M. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said that day, "It's not our place to take sides." Then, on Sept. 9, he told the Washington Post that America should be "evenhanded" in its approach to the region.

The media and the Democratic establishment reacted as if Dean had called Yasser Arafat a man of peace. On Sept. 10, 34 Democratic members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, wrote Dean an open letter. "American foreign policy has been -- and must continue to be -- based on unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror ..." they wrote. "It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be 'evenhanded' on these fundamental issues ... This is not a time to be sending mixed messages; on the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement."

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that Dean had badly damaged his own campaign. "Sources in the Jewish community say that Dean has wrecked his chances of getting significant contributions from Jews ..." the paper wrote. "Many believe Dean's statement will drive more Jews toward Lieberman and Kerry, enabling Kerry to take the lead again."

more...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. "Even-handed" redux.

Dean's so anti-semitic he married a Jew.

:eyes:

[Democrats_win]

2. LOL. True. Still he needs to be careful because of his roots.

If I recall he was in a club that didn't allow Jews. Better for him to recognize that this will end soon. Israel will eventually pull back.

Let the internet make it clear that Americans hate killing of innocent people. Israel may have had the right to attack Hezbollah but they went too far. Let us hope that America and Israel will return to the "better angels of our nature." Both countries have been on the wrong path since 2000.

[madfloridian]

4. Actually it was his parents who were.

Yet they accepted Judy Steinberg into the family.

This is such a touchy situation.

I would like the Democrats to speak out more, but I also in my brain know they are walking a fine line.

[leftupnorth]

3. Assuming that all Jews have money is also anti-Semitic

'The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that Dean had badly damaged his own campaign. "Sources in the Jewish community say that Dean has wrecked his chances of getting significant contributions from Jews ..." '

We shouldn't take sides, shame on all of them for not loving life and their children more than war or land, and shame on all of them for not making peace. They are like two brats in the sand box fighting over something the other did ages ago, only with bombs and guns.

Shame, shame, shame.

PEACE!

[Cha]

12. Yeah, let the

fucking republicons stay in power..see how much that helps our country..

Fucking threats.

[savemefromdumbya]

5. Dean should ask Cheney to stop meddling in the middle east

[Gloria]

6. A return to American values!!!! The concept of "honest broker"

which has been tossed aside. Thank you Dr. Dean for going into the garbage and reclaiming it back in 2003.

However, a lot of your Democrats are currently off somewhere else....

[madfloridian]

7. That was in 2003, he learned his lesson well. The letter.

September 10, 2003

The Honorable Howard Dean
P.O. Box 1228
Burlington, VT 05402

Dear Governor Dean:

We are writing to respond to your comments on the Middle East at a recent
campaign event and in Tuesday's candidate debate and explain why we believe
it is wrong to say the U.S. should "not take sides" in the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

American foreign policy has been - and must continue to be - based on
unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror.
The Palestinians have at best been ambivalent about their willingness to
accept Israel's existence and from Yasir Arafat on down they have promoted
or acquiesced in the use of terrorism as a tactic in their struggle. It is
unacceptable for the U.S. to be "evenhanded" on these fundamental issues.

All of us want a genuine peace process to succeed, and all of us accept the
legitimacy of a Palestinian state once the Palestinian leadership and people
recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and not only renounce
the use of violence but at last take action to dismantle the terrorist
infrastructure inside the Palestinian Authority. Time and time again, the
Israeli people have shown their willingness to take risks for peace. But
they will only do so with the knowledge that U.S. support for Israel will
not waver.

It is important for America to help facilitate a peaceful resolution of the
conflict, but in playing this role we must be true to our values and make
sure that all parties clearly understand our policies. This is not a time to
be sending mixed messages; on the contrary, in these difficult times we must
reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices
against all forms of terrorism and incitement.

Sincerely,

Howard L. Berman
Nancy Pelosi
Robert Matsui
Steny Hoyer
Martin Frost
Nita Lowey
Tom Lantos
Edward Markey
Chet Edwards
Ben Cardin
Steve Rothman
Steve Israel
Gary Ackerman
Barney Frank
Rahn Emanuel
Adam Smith
Anthony Weiner
Chris Bell
Adam Schiff
Hilda Solis
Robert Menendez
Shelley Berkley
Robert Andrews
Joseph Crowley
Jose Serrano
John Larson
Ellen Tauscher
Dennis Cardoza
Patrick Kennedy
Linda Sanchez
Harold Ford Jr.
Brad Sherman
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Alcee Hastings


http://www.house.gov/berman/letter_new.html

[Karmadillo]

8. Harsh letter. Not sure the position they're advocating for serves

the US or Israel very well.

[madfloridian]

9. I agree, but that is reality. Sadly.

.

[MsMagnificent]

10. Of course Israel has a right to exist & free from terror

Why is it so impolitic to desire that Israel in turn recognize that Palestine has a right to exist and to be free from terror?


I saw an elegant, 3-step solution to peace in the Middle East, can't remember the author:

1) Israel withdraws to within the borders of the 1967 Green Line.

2) All external settlements dismantled. That horrendous wall dismantled.

3) All countries in the area must sign a non-aggression pact which recognizes Israel as a sovereign state/nation. Palestine, ditto.
This all-around non-aggression pact to be enforced with teeth.

Robert Frost wrote "Good fences make good neighbors".
Israel and Palestine have NOT been good neighbors to each other -- an understatement. If there's ever going to be peace in that area, clear, unambiguous and well-defined borders and contiguous, sovereign country make a good start for them both to begin.

[CuteNFuzzy]

11. sounds like the Saudi plan

Israel rejected it (even Hamas accepted it)

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. I think this is the plan you are referring to

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

[MsMagnificent]

15. Do you have any links? edit: TY Douglas!

Thanks :)

[Cha]

13. Yeah, Israel wouldn't

want to go back to 1967 lines.

[MsMagnificent]

16. Why?

Can anyone explain to me why they'd rather have this perpetual war & ocean of blood?
...for a little land-grab?
Haven't they said that 'all they want is to be recognized as a Nation'?
I just don't get it.

[Cha]

17. Me neither, sorry.

I have enough problem keeping up with my own country's death march without delving into Israel's. Just from the little I've read I don't thing they would want to retreat.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. I suspect the majority of Israelis would more or less agree with most of

the plan with some modest modifications.

However there is a significant minority in Israel who primarily on religious grounds would consider the West Bank to be Biblical Judea and Samaria. They would also consider any return of East Jerusalem to Arab sovereignty to be sacrilege. Although those with that view are a minority they are a significant, fervent and politically strong minority.