Dean has the right take on the Israel Palestine issue.
 

Rivals criticise dean for Mideast comments

Howard Dean came under fire yesterday from two rivals for the Democratic nomination for saying the United States should not "take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Five days after Dean told supporters in New Mexico that "it's not our place to take sides" in the conflict, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) accused him of advocating a "major break" from the United States' long-standing policy of explicitly siding with Israel in the Middle East.

Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) said: "It is either because he lacks the foreign policy experience or simply because he is wrong that governor Dean has proposed a radical shift in United States policy towards the Middle East. If the president were to make a remark such as this it would throw an already volatile region into even more turmoil."

....

In an interview, Dean sought to clarify his statement but did not back down from his belief that the United State cannot negotiate peace unless it is seen as a neutral party in the region. "Israel has always been a longtime ally with a special relationship with the United States, but if we are going to bargain by being in the middle of the negotiations then we are going to have to take an evenhanded role," he said.

__________________
He is absolutely right and finally there is a candidate who is advocating we pull back from our way too close relationship with the Theocracy of Israel and start tackling this issue in a fair way to both sides rather then give in to everything Israel wants.

This is sound foreign policy which is our presidents primary job. he deserves the nomination above everyone else in the field. Until we start giving the Palestinians the respect and consideration they deserve rather than the constant billshitting, there will never be peace over there.

Wow. Well, that wraps it up for me. Dean has my vote.

I agree with him 100%.

We shouldnt close our eyes and back Isreal regarless of their actions.

In order for negotions to work, the negotiator must be neutral.

I dont know enough about him personally and I dont consider myself a Democrat to say I would vote for him; but I find his courage to be amoung the first to finally approach this issue with that mindset; impressive.

I wonder if he would continue to do so if elected.

Yeah, Dean seems to have a good idea about Israel/Palestine, for that peace to work, we would need to back off and say "Both sides need to make concessions and we'll help you compromise." Wow, I'm agreeing with Howard Dean, WTF IS WRONG WITH ME!?

I didn't see the debate and largely agree with Sixate in his comment on another thread declaring these debates waste of time circle jerks.

However...strangely I find myself concurring with Dean on this issue. Neutrality. It's the only way to be NEUTRAL on an issue as a mediator. Amazing really.

I think I'll go scrub all my sensory input points with steel wool now.

-bear

I've got a question: The media keeps saying that Dean is a "phenom" in the sense that the Democrats aren't sure what to do with him, seeing as he's going over so well. I don't get it. They're acting like it would be IMPOSSIBLE for someone like Dean to get elected... but if he's so popular... wouldn't that mean he COUDL get elected!? Someone help me out here. I really don't know much about him (I know he's apparently pretty damn left-wing), but if he's so popular, why are they acting like that's a problem?

It's something the scared republicans threw out to try and destroy Dean before he can do the same to Bush.

Bullshit.

It is because primaries are for the party loyal. The winner of the party primary was elected by the party die hards. On either side of the spectrum.

Historically it is the undecided or those not loyal to a party that win General Elections. The swing voters if you will.

Swing voters are not likely to vote for an extreme idealogue from either side of center.

Right, Dennis Kuchinich has realistically no chance since he is so far left that the moderates wouldn't go for him.

Good thing Dean is a moderate. He isn't an anti-war nut. Just anti irrational war. He favored the first gulf war and Afghanistan.
He has been given top marks by the libertarian CATO institute for his fiscal responsibility and he is so far appearing to be foreign policy intelligent as opposed to the man who couldn't name most of the most powerful leaders in the world when quizzed about it in 1999.

I've been lukewarm on Dean, but this pushes him ahead of Kerry in my mind.
Also, as Superbelt points out, Dean is not on the far-left. If you believe this and aren't on the far-right, you need to stop believing everything you hear in the media and start thinking for yourself. The reason he got stuck with that label is because he was against the war from the start. But if that's all that makes someone far-left, that would make almost half of all Americans far-left.

It's a mark of how irrational things have become that we're all highly excited by the highly novel idea of a foreign policy that ISN'T inspired by the Book of Revalations

In your dreams.

Be careful about your 'answering questions correctly' assertion...especially when talking about Dean. This is the presidential hopeful who DIDN'T even know the manpower of our current Military?

Oh and don't confuse me with someone who thinks Bush is the Cat's meow either.

Probably the best thing that could happen to Bush would be Dean's nomination.

I really hope I eat those words someday :)

-bear

sorry, but there's a huge difference between not knowing the current manpower of the military and not knowing who the leader of major foreign countries are. How many people know what the current manpower is? Its not exactly posted all over the place. I don't think President Bush knows. He couldn't even name the leader of Pakistan right after he took power.

I would say that U.S.'s foriegn policy on Israel/Palestine is pretty neutral. Besides the fact that Israel has been an Ally for over 50 years, espcially during the Cold War we should favor them. Netruality in this situation won't help it along any. The whole situation won't get fixed until both sides truly want peace and want to coexist. You think any person alive will be able to curb thousands of years of hatred, and "religious" nationalism by staying neutral... keep dreaming.

Bullshit.

Dean's estimated range of one to two million active military was correct. The range he cited wasn't a guess at all.

Two days after Dean's appearance on MTP, three active military leaders directly involved in the Iraq War were asked by media reporters the number of troops of active duty in Iraq. They each gave a different number, ranging from as low as 120,000, to as many as 300,000. Now, if these military leaders weren't able to give accurate counts, why chastise Dean for giving a similar range?

The correct answer is 1.4 million.

they weren't our ally the whole of the cold war...we bought isreal off the soviets, and have been paying trhough the nose since. but i don't see why we ought to be unsupportive of a democracy in that region. I'm not a huge likud fan, and i think they need to be a little more realistic in their demands of the PA, but i think Dean goes to far. pandering to anti-isreali sentiment (some of which goes so far IMO as to be anti-semitic) is not a good direction for the democratic party....

It doesn't seem to be anti-israeli or anti-semitic to me whatsoever. What he is proposing is to stop our "Israel, Right or wrong" mindset we have had for so long.

Trying to be an impartial mediator between two factions is not being anti- to one of them

clarification...i don't believe dean is antisemtic...but some of the pro-palestine activity in the american left is. playing to that crowd is very dangerous, IMO.

How have we been paying through the nose? Sure we give them the 3 billion in military aid, the rest is in loans, loans which they have never defaulted on. Palestine is in the predictiment they are in because back in 48' they started a fight they couldn't finish.

single largest recipient of forgien aid since whenever. even when plague and famine hit other parts of the globe. their economy is highly dependant on our aid at this point. i'm not saying it wasn't worth it. but it has been a hell of a price tag.

Moreover, several forgien leaders had strong roles in starting both 48, and 67...i wouldn't blame an amporheous palestine. do the people deserve to suffer for mistake made by despots and kings? they need a state-there were arabs living in eretz isreal at time of the creation of the state, and 67 was as much isreals war as the arabs.....

Personally I blame the Arab Nations as a whole, they have really fucked over the Palestinians. Does anyone think that going neutral at this point would help the situation??? I mean with the UN resolutions and the EU/UN/Nato/Russian whatever working with the road map (regardless of its flaws...), do you think it matters?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


chavos I dont fully understand what you mean (sorry Im a little slow at times) could you reword what your stating? Thanks.

Mojo I also wanted to know what you mean in stating the current situation there is mainly the surrounding arabs fault. Thanks.

Actually chavos Mojo scratch that; that travels outside what this particular thread is about, and Im sure there will be another Israel/Palestine thread popping up in the future.

i applaud Dean for this, and ... shit, i'm 18 now. i can vote for him! and i will. but i have to say that he will never be elected now, having come out and said something like this.

blame whoever you want, but we have a problem at our hands and blaming somebody else wont solve it.

palestians are very unlikely to cooperate with the "road map to peace", as bush calls, if US is only looking out for Isreal.

So far this is the first thing Dean said that took courage, and I also happen to agree with. Its too bad he has no chance of winning.

I'm collecting quotes from you where you say Dean has no chance of winning. I have quite a few now and look forward to throwing them all back at you come next November.

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up a secondary issue associated with Dean's comments, the response from the other Democratic candidates. Granted, they are fighting for a position, and politics has never been nice, but...
A quote from Mr. Liebermen, who would obviously have concerns with Dean's statements even if he weren't running, but look at what he is saying, either Dean is wrong, or is wrong, there is no thought on the issue.

Or perhaps another front-runner
Again, there is no thought or consideration about the statement at all, it is a reflex action

And a final quote from Nancy Pelosi, who I believe is the Minority Leader in the house?
unacceptable, unacceptable to be even-handed? This is just surreal to me. Many people have said that the Jewish Lobby is the second strongest lobby in the country, and they were almost uniformly attacked as perpetuating the antisemitic stereotypes that have been around for centuries. But in light of these reactions to what by all accounts is a reasonable and seemingly obvious statement, doesn't the claim hold some merit??

Basically the quotes by Lieberman, Pelosi, and Kerry are saying: "We can't be fair. We need to be biased on the side of Israel. Palestinians aren't worthy of even-handed treatment."

There will be a decided lack of criticism on this as time goes on. Dean is pretty much immune to anti-semitism being attributed to him seeing as how his wife is Jewish.

This will pass and the jewish lobby and everyone critical of him will either have to shut up or be exposed as discriminatory towards the Palestinians.

right back atcha!!!:D

PS I would expect no less!!!

This, I can agree with. In America, the world Palastinian is synonomous with Terrorist. We all forget, that the Indians did raids on the US, and no one called them terrorists. Yes, there are bastards like Hamas, and Arafat, but I truly think that the average person in Palastine would just love to live without the fear of Isreal "claiming" more land.

Does the news ever speak of the fact that Israel has made over 80 new settlements in Palastinian land since 9 11? No, all we hear is how someone in Israel is blown up. Granted that is bad, but so is forcing people off their lands, and stealing the very houses their their grandparents built.

American's don't like Palestinians, you know why? Remember a year ago today the footage from Palestine after the attacks happened, you see people massing in the streets to cheer the attack against "the great satan" that is America. In fact I also remember hearing about Arafat shitting a brick when he saw this, he knew that the Palestinian people fucked up big time.

Mojo,

I aint gonna argue that. As a NY who lost his best friend two years ago today, I was screaming for Bush to nuke the whole Mid east from orbit!

But now, you have to realise that if not for America, Israel would not have the power to terrorise and push Palastine around.

In the words of Ariel Sharon "We ( Israel) control America".

Where would Israel be withtout the loan gaurentees and six billion a year we give it? So most of the middle east sees Israel as an extention of the USA. Its amazing that this tiny strip of worthless land, with no natural resources, and history of aggression, and is basically another middle eastern theocracy, has such an influnce on the most powerful nation in the world's history.

Ok, trace back to why the palestinians hated the US.

This is quoted a whole lot in Palestine/Israel threads, but is it really true?

http://members.tripod.com/thinkagain...lebrating.html



I wish I could find the whole tape, anybody that can do so gets a gold star of enormous magnitudes.

and also, one should note that Isrealis were also celebrating, but not in the streets of Tel-Aviv, rather in the streets of America...
http://www.crimelynx.com/dozens.html

I think it should be expected for people from other nations not to take 9-11 nearly as seriously as Americans, but we should at least understand everything about it before using it to categorize an entire country.

It is true, I remember watching it myself on NBC.

Can you blame them? We have here three highly prominent Democrats (and we all know what the republican position is, allied with the Christian Coalition) who are basically saying we have been favoring Israel and it is unacceptable to do anything but support Israel no matter what.

I'd hate you too if you had a 50 year history of bias against me in favor of the people who oppressing me.

I can't blame them, I just don't give a fuck when Israel blows their shit up. The fact is they started a fight they couldn't finish, and now that they are backed against the wall they still have unreasonable demands and goals.

Hmm, what attack a year ago? I'm gonna go ahead and think that you mean the WTC attacks two years ago. The cheering and massing was 99% archive photography, the last percentage was of a woman cheering, they found her and she said that she was asked by a journalist to cheer and all of a sudden she was on TV all over the world.

Regardless of the context, what did the American public see???

It's possible I've missed something in this discussion but unless they actully cheered for the attacks on WTC then how could they have "fucked up"? Isn't it actually the media that fails to report the truth and fails to retract the false claims that has fucked up? I wish journalists could be held responsible in the same way as doctors.

they started the fight? I guess that's correct if you don't think taking people's homeland is instigation for a fight...

I dunno if you read the links in my post, but what they claim that the celebrations were fabricated and made to look larger then they were. you said you saw it on TV, and the reason i ask, and ask again if anyone can find the video in its entirety, is because the claim is that parts of the video were edited out, parts that would incriminate the cameramen.


In a later post you said something to the effect that "what does the context matter, it's just what Americans saw?"

well, we were discussing taking sides in the palestinian/isreal issue, and if you support one side based on a lie....then i think it is very important.

Also, in those shots of people cheering, children has pieces of bombs that said " made in USA". Those shots of the kids with bomb shells were edited out of most of the footage. Is it any wonder they were cheering when the nation that made the bombs that drop in their nation got attacked?

If your friends and family were maimed by bombs that said "made in IRan" would you cheer as we shoot the fuck out of Teran?

That's incorrect. John McClaugrhy, former Vermont state senator, September 6, 2003:

"In his early years, when he was still restricted by his predecessor's fiscal bailout program, he earned a respectable 'B' [1996] on the Cato Institute's fiscal responsibility report card. By 2002 his ranking had dropped to 'D.' During his last eight years Dr. Dean signed into law increases in the sales and use, rooms, meals, liquor, cigarette and electrical-energy taxes."

His 2002 mark, "D," is not what I would call a "top" mark.

Also, considering the popularity of the liberation of Iraq, Dean's anti-war views do solidly put him in the "liberal" and not "moderate" camp.


Those "most powerful leaders" are the leaders of India, Chechnya, Pakistan, and Taiwan. India, yes (where is their Security Council seat?), but it'd be hard to make compelling cases for the other three.

So far, outside of being pounded on "Meet the Press" (where he was unfairly pounded for not knowing troop strengths), we don't know much about Dean's foreign policy. I wouldn't yet call him foreign policy, being that his experience in Vermont is probably not the same as being governor of California, New York, or Texas.

What I see is a massive media effort to "convert" Dean from left-wing extremist to "moderate." Six months ago, the major media consistenly labeled Dean as "far-left" and "liberal." His fundraising is a massive success, and all of a sudden the media is rehabilitating his image.

-- Alvin

Heaven forbid we should be fair or impartial in our foreign policy, what is this guy smoking?

Uninformed people assume after WWII you all of a sudden have jews there in "Palestine". Fact of the matter was the Zionist movement started in the latter half of the 19th century, further more there were always Jews living there. Palestine never was an Arab-State unto itself... (there is no Palestinian culture or language), obviously it is their home and they've always been there, but basically the place used to be part of Syria/Jordan (Thanks Britain for the mess). As far as "who started the conflict" if you want to start with who threw the first punch then it was the Palestinians, after the UN made the State of Israel in 48'.

Actually the fight was started with the Balfour declaration, which basically stated that Jews should have the land that Arabs were fighting and dying for against the Turks. The Jewish population of Palestine was insignificant prior to 1897, though the Jews who were living there did so in harmony with their neighbors.

Yeah I know the footage. I have it on VHS. I taped for 2 days solid with the time and date showing. 2 1/2 hours after the twin towers fell CNN was showing footage of Palestinians dancing in the sunlight handing out candy; laughing; celebrating the fall of "the great Satan". Shortly after that in an almost humerous manner Arafat is shown giving blood. He was shitting a brick as you put it, but not becaused his people fucked up. Ive sent the tape to CNN along with follow ups; numerous phone calls before realizing they had no intentions of addressing it.

Daylight on both sides of the Earth at the same time.

Moooooooooo

And the English also forgot their promise to the Palastinians that they would give them a homeland if they helped fight. Anyone see Lawrence of Arabia?

"the Theocracy of Israel"

You had me right up to there. Come on, it's probably true in the sense that it is a democracy that has enough religious citizen (of a fairly uniform religion), that the resulting representatives amount ot a theocracy, but that is such a loaded way to put it.

Now, I do agree with Dean that, unless we are perceived as impartial, we don't stand a chance of brokering a peace, and that a change in the rhetoric to and regarding Israel may be a necessay (if politically dangerous) adjunct to this. We need to be careful though, on how far we go in doing this. It's a good thing to have a centrally located ally in the region, even if their presence is a destabilizing factor in and of itself. On the other hand, if you think this country would do any better than Israel, human rights wise, if it were surronded by hostiles and under regular terrorist attack, then you haven't been paying attention for the last two years.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you are saying that this is unlikely, then you should know that Israel is approximately 7 hours ahead of East Coast time, making 2 and a half hours after the attack about 5 o'clock. That's about daytime in September over there I do believe. As for the other questions about whether or not it was developed by someone, that I do not know.

Interesting note, as of a 9/5 Zogby poll, Dean is actually the second running Democrat in the polls. Gore is first, and in a statistical dead heat with Bush. Long way to go to the election, yet.

<b>rgr22j</b>
<i>Also, considering the popularity of the liberation of Iraq, Dean's anti-war views do solidly put him in the "liberal" and not "moderate" camp.</i>

I don't think so. Popularity of a position does not make ones position in the political spectrum. If that calculus were right, then Pat Buchanan would be to the left of Jerry Brown instead of to the right of Mussolini.

He got his stance on Iraq just right: It was a dumbass war, started by a dumbass, for dumbass reasons. However, now that we are there, it is actually easier and more cost effective (prvided you make Haliburton compete their f*cking contracts) to stay the course and try to do right by it. We've got buddies that'll help us out with this if we're willing to eat a little crow, and all the next President hast to do to get that help is say what amounts to "My predecessor was a jackass, and we have no buisness being there. Give us a hand getting out and you won't have another Taliban on your south porch."

Sharon is a freaking warmongering dinosaur.

Good. He no is no worse the Arafat.

Do we really need to use inflammatory statements like this?? You reacted to the sentiment of my message not the content, to reiterate, people will fight, when their homeland is taken from them. What this means is that all those Palestinians had their land, their homes taken away from them. This is an indisputable fact...thousands of refugees don't just happen. Now the question of whether or not this is justified is another question but Israel took Palestinians land. True. Palestinians angry about this true. Twas all I was saying....



Perhaps I could refer you to a court decision by the Israeli Supreme Court...
In a landmark Supreme Court decision, Justice Agranat ruled against a man who wanted to have his nationality registration changed from "Jewish" to "Israeli" saying: "There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people." He asserted further that "the Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry

The jewish state is a theocracy with the Jews being first class citizens and non-jews being second-class. This is an under-reported yet important part of this entire conflict

Zionists in Israel have no more in common with Jews than Nazi's had with Christianity. I thank god every day I get to live in a country which doesen't support such a regine of terror with weapons or money. And that I get to watch news portraying both sides of the situation whenever a sucide solider attacks, or a refugee camp is destroyed. How much longer will americans fail to see that this is a war with no good-guys? Dean had the right idea, the rest seems blinded by inane political blindfolds.

I'll get the footage I have on VHS converted to a .mov file I was researching how to do that tonight. In the meanwhile I'll see if I can hunt it down on the web. The time of day being portrayed is unmistakable. I'm aware of the zones. In the several times I went there (with archeologist; Ron Wyatt) frequent communications were done to several parts of the US at different times. I'll only state what I believe. As far as I’m concerned what that footage is being portrayed as is bullshit.

Another recent episode was during the war; with the cameras rolling as they went along. I was watching Fox. Did anyone else see when they came upon the site that had large quantity of barrels? WMD were found and it was shut up shortly after. I wish I had been taping, that was footage I’m sure some were concern about being transmitted. Did anyone else see?

I will laugh my ass off (seriously, my ass will detach and fall to the floor) if this is true, and a month before the election said WMDs are "discovered". I wouldn't put it past our government to shush up any discoveries until it is politically convenient to release such information.

I saw this the third day into the war. It was plain as day right there on FOX. Surely someone else out there saw as well. I was puzzled why they never said anything. I was thinking to myself "This is what everything has come down to; they find chemical agents and no word." I heard on a radio talk show which had a former CIA officer stating the reason why the drums were never brought out is because of who's name was stamped on them. Is it fact; I dont know. I know the discovery of the drums was televised to millions of TVs across the world and no commentary was ever given; strange.

I'm sorry? I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. In a democracy, typically the most popular position is considered the "moderate" one, with extremists on either side. For example, 70% of Americans oppose abortion, except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. On each side, you have your extremists: on the left, abortion in all cases (on demand), and on the right, abortion in no cases (even to save the life of the mother).

As a whole, America may be well to the right of say, Europe, but we are talking about the context of the American population. If we have no statistics on the popularity of opinions on certain issues, how are we to decide what is moderate and what is not? It is not as simple as taking half of two extreme doctrines, because the breakdown of the popularity of those positions is required to differentiate between a "moderate" Vermonter and a "moderate" Texan, or a moderate American and a moderate Frenchman. Moderate clearly refers to distinctly different positions, which we can only derive by knowing the popularity of those positions in the context of the population.

Dean's position is so virulently anti-war, more so than his colleagues, and he has gained considerable political traction as a result. In this case, Dean is clearly a liberal.


His stance on Iraq is wrong; it was a just liberation, started by an effective, straight-spoken leader, for just reasons. You are also wrong about the effectiveness of the Halliburton contract. The Halliburton contract in Iraq (to its KBR subsidiary) was awarded under the auspices of the Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) program. This is how it works: every few years, the Army receives bids for emergency services work. Rather than hold a bidding process for emergency work (like reconstructing oilfields), which could take weeks, the Army allocates a block contract for all emergency services. If anything needs to be done quickly, the Army calls up the company, which is responsible for a wide range of emergency work. You can think of it an emergency Wal-Mart.

Rather than tie up soldiers doing work they are not trained for, the Pentagon has trained civilian specialists on call that can do the job more effectively, more quickly, and at a lower cost. This contract is a COMPETITIVE process, with contracts awarded for several years. Halliburton first won LOGCAP in 1992 (as Clinton was entering office), and lost it in 1997. During this time Halliburton performed emergency work in Bosnia. In 1997, based on Halliburton's record in Bosnia, the Clinton Defense Department chose to keep it on to complete work in Bosnia. In 1999 (under Clinton) and 2001 (under Bush), Halliburton competed and won the contract, and thus was the point of contact for emergency work for the Bush administration in Iraq. No scandal, no impropriety, just standard operating procedure.

Also, if our "buddies" had been willing to eat a little crow, the top UN official in Iraq would not have been killed in a terrorist attack. In fact, if our "buddies" had been willing to eat a little crow and join us in the just liberation of Iraq in the first place, we might have had more soldiers and civilians on the group reconstructing Iraq in the first place.

-- Alvin

EDIT: Grammar errors. Apologies, English is not the language we normally speak at home!

Inkriminator, sorry if I came off as a dick, but what I said wasn't in regard to your comment so much as the belief that jews magically appered in Palestine shortly after WWII.

Bingo.

I guess this is a bit off-topic, but straight-spoken?? He didn't take the time and effort to verify what he was saying.

Are you referring to the uranium from Africa claim? The quote beginning "The British government has learned...?" If so, at best you can say that the claim is still questionable, and at worst he was telling the truth. The British government still stands by their report, and the BBC reporter (Gilligan) who broke the story that the intelligence dossier was flawed has been completely discredited and, as reported recently, "will be forced to quit." (Daily Telegraph, August 24). At best we can say the jury is still out. Being that MI6 is considered the best intelligence agency in the world, I'm inclined to believe them over a discredited BBC hack.

I really shouldn't be the one defending George W. Bush, but someone has to stem the tide of the anti-Bush angry left before the reasonable left gets swamped at the next election.

-- Alvin