Compare Kerry And Dean's Experiences In The Middle East

[DrFunkenstein]

Dean fans are quick to bring up the IWR, a matter that ultimately will not effect a future Presidency (although certainly a valid character issue). However, they are equally quick to turn a blind eye to Dean's frighteningly close relationship with the Likud party and the hawkish AIPAC lobby (also a character issue). This will have very real effects on the ultra-tense Mid-East situation (despite trying to pass the buck to Clinton), our relationship with the Middle East generally, and the prosecution of the war on terrorism specifically.

Both Dean and Kerry visited Israel, but their experiences and what they came away with are vastly different. Where Dean saw Palestinians as a people not to be trusted - to be walled out and demilitarized - Kerry recognized the connections between Israelis and Palestinians, and seeks to isolate the extremists ON BOTH SIDES rather than condemning Palestinians as a people.

Of course, people will point out that Dean used some triangulating phrases to pacify his liberal supporters, but he never rejected the lavish promises he made TO SHARON HIMSELF nor the need to demilitarize the Palestinians (the separation wall?). Ironically, Dean's trinagulating was typically sloppy and he failed to distinguish between Palestinian extremists ("soldiers") and the average person. Kerry rightfully called him out for lionizing these extremists and for suggesting that Israel does not legitimately occupy a privileged relationship with the United States (which, for the logically impaired, does not mean de facto support for the Likud party).

I won't be surprised if Dean supporters consider an open comparison as a form of slander. Most recountings of Dean's history are taken as slander. Well, just about anything that isn't actively kissing Dean's ass is considered slander, but I consider this a CRUCIAL argument when we are deciding who should be our Chief Diplomat and Commander-In-Chief.

In that spirit, let's compare.

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

In November, Dean paid his first-ever visit to Israel on an excursion that was organized and paid for by AIPAC. He was apparently unperturbed at his sponsors’ close ties to a government that engages in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations and blatantly violates a series of UN Security Council resolutions and other international legal principles. During his visit, Dean did not meet with any Palestinian leaders or any Israeli moderates.

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.

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

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Dean's alignment with AIPAC and their right-wing politics goes much deeper. Last year, he named Steven Grossman, a former AIPAC head, as his campaign's chief fundraiser. Soon after, he flew to Israel on an AIPAC-sponsored junket.

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.

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US 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.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

Despite his opposition to the war, Dean received a warm welcome earlier this month at a Jewish gathering largely supportive of the war.

At a meet-and-greet session after the official festivities one night at the annual AIPAC policy conference, Dean spoke to a capacity crowd in a small room, shaking hands for several hours and progressing slowly to the exit, encircled by well-wishers.

"The only way to beat George Bush is to stand up to him, not to try and be like him,'' he said.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

Compare to Kerry:

I went to Jerusalem a number of years ago on an official journey to Israel and I was absolutely fascinated by the 32 or so different branches of Catholicism that were there. That's before you even get to the conflict between Arabs and Jews.

I have spent a lot of time since then trying to understand these fundamental differences between religions in order to really better understand the politics that grow out of them. So much of the conflict on the face of this planet is rooted in religions and the belief systems they give rise to. The fundamentalism of one entity or another.

So I really wanted to try to learn more. I've spent some time reading and thinking about it and trying to study it and I've arrived at not so much a sense of the differences but a sense of the similarities in so many ways; the value system roots and the linkages between the Torah, the Koran and the Bible and the fundamental story that runs through all of this, that connects us-and really connects all of us.

http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/mag/back/issue5.5c.html

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

<>

We face a renewed choice - between isolation in a perilous world, which I believe is impossible in any event, and engagement to shape a safer world which is the urgent imperative of our time. A choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them." - John Kerry.

[Upfront]

1. Yawn

:nopity:

[KC21304]

2. Yea, who wants to be bothered with that inconsequential stuff.

There are much more important things to discuss here, like the amount of money Dean brought in last quarter etc.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Classic!! I Love It!!

:spank: :hi:

A powerful refutation, indeed!

Spank you very much.

[blm]

35. We want entertainment in the PROCESS and a horserace, not policy.

Begone with serious policy talk....Dean will have a staff, just like Bush.

[deutsey]

3. Well, first off

I take exception to your assumption that IWR won't affect future presidencies. To me, that's like saying the Gulf of Tonkin had no impact on future presidencies.

As for Dean's approach to the Middle East peace process, all I can say is I like what I heard him say when I met him: he's committed to making the US "an honest broker who has the trust of both sides and a facilitator of direct talks between the parties."

I believe Kerry would do a good job too if elected.

I must say, though, that I think most of your sources here are not the most objective on either side.

[_Jumper_]

5. How can Dean be even-handed...

...given his ties to Sharon and AIPAC?

[deutsey]

9. This "Nation" commentary sums up my view

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031006&s=nichols2

[DrFunkenstein]

13. That Is About The "Evenhanded" Quote, Not

The elaborate promises that Dean made, of which Nichols is obviously unaware or hiding. Nichols has been shilling for Dean for awhile, giving him a free ride on several issues, while knocking the other candidates.

[deutsey]

14. My, that sounds familiar

:evilgrin:

[Jacobin]

6. Well for starters Kerry VOTED TO INVADE IRAQ

Which should give him the chump's award of the millinium.

Fork him.

He's done.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Dean Supporters = Broken Records?

Thank you for that illuminating response to the Middle East situation. If Edward Said weren't dead, I might think you could be his pseudonym.

[killbotfactory]

28. Invading Iraq is one of the dumbest things the US has ever done.

It's inflamed the middle east against us (and they were already pissed) got us stuck in a nation that's turned into a terrorist hellhole, and gotten nearly the entire world mad at us, and cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars for no good reason.

Unfortunatly, this was all completely predictable, and now we are stuck there for god knows how long.

Anyone who supported giving Bush the green light to do this, then supported the invasion (with or without reservations about the way Bush went about it), shows how much of an expert they are on middle east affairs.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Really? Is "invasion" the language in the resolution?

must have missed that....

[IndianaGreen]

22. No, but "invasion" was the consequence of voting for the resolution

and any attempt to spin it otherwise is rather a poor Rovian imitation.

[Donna Zen]

27. Resolution

According to Blair's lawyers and the other members of the UN, the resolution did not give B & B the green light for war. That is why B & B had to go back for a second resolution. The orginal resolution did provide the leverage needed to get inspectors back into Iraq, which is a good thing. Also, junior already had a troop build up going on before the resolution. It was the Democrats who demanded he go to the UN.

If not for our regime, Iraq's story would be a very different one today.

Resolution....Inspections.....War....Regime.....

I was paying attention and remember when Bush and Blair had to meet in their island phone booth as a move to legitimacy.

[sandnsea]

15. He voted for UN weapons inspections

He voted for a world free of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He voted to push the UN to lead on freeing the world of these weapons and have a strong UN weapons inspections process for that purpose. He voted to back that up with military force, as a last resort.

George Bush said he was going to work with the UN for the same purpose.

He didn't.

[IndianaGreen]

24. And Kerry believed Bush?

That's a worse sin than voting for IWR!

[displacedtexan]

7. until we have a leader with an even-handed aproach...

the world will never trust us again.

in fact, i'm beginning to view howard dean as more like bush than unlike him (though dean is at least literate).

this country, post 911, will not elect a president who does not have national security experience. dean or bush? alas, those afraid of terrorists will stick with bush.

let the flames begin!

[Donna Zen]

29. It can't be said too often

Defeating a sitting (p)resident is very difficult. You are asking people to change horses. Now we are in the middle of a friggin' mess, a condition that makes it even more difficult to unseat even an unpopular resident. And please do not for one moment think that the war will be on TV next summer. Josh Marshall has even picked up a buzz that if things don't improve in Iraq, junior may cut and run. So much for taking care of the Iraqi people.

America, at this time, will not vote for someone without foreign policy experience. They do not care who is the VP, and they certainly don't care who his foreign policy team will be.

Couple that with telling them that they will lose a tax cut and you've got four more years.

Thanks DR. F. for the long post. I take all of these things at face value until I've read more and listened to the rebuttals. I've found that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Nevertheless, letting a win slip through our fingers while putting a center-right politician at the head of the ticket, seems like the work of crazy people.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Kerry's campaign is going NOWHERE

so why should we care what he has to say about anything.

What about Clark?

AIPAC loves Dean, and so should you!

[sandnsea]

16. What does Nader say?

Isn't that who you will be voting for?

[IndianaGreen]

20. Nader who?

Had you been in the military you would have been taught to never assume anything.

[HFishbine]

11. Sigh

Dean
-------
"The basic framework for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a two state solution -- a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state."

Kerry
-------
"The United States must support their efforts - keep them focused on the end game of two states; Israel and Palestine, living side by aside in peace and security..."

Dean
-------
"...the United States will maintain its historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security."

Kerry
-------
"America’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s independence and survival must never waiver."

Dean
-------
"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."

Kerry
-------
"John Kerry sees the Bush Administration's road map - albeit long overdue - as an acceptable approach for reinvigorating the peace process. But it will only be viable if U.S. engagement in this process is active, constant, and at the highest levels."

Dean
-------
"To get there, the Palestinian Authority will have to fight terrorism and violence on a consistent basis to create the conditions necessary for a viable peace process."

"The Israeli government will have to work to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people and ultimately will have to remove a number of existing settlements."

Kerry
-------
"Prime Minister Qureia must take serious, demonstrable steps to stop the bombings against Israelis and to rein in militant Palestinian groups bent on destroying the peace process."

"While Israel must never give up its right to protect its citizens, the Israeli government must be prepared to respond with steps to alleviate hardships on the Palestinian people."

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

[deutsey]

18. This is what I was hinting at in my initial post

.

[sandnsea]

19. How many gaffes before he got it right?

That's the issue with me. Not that he finally understood, I guess; but that he didn't understand it at the beginning.

[DrFunkenstein]

21. You're Talking Loud And Saying Nothing

1. You actually produce Dean's "demilitarized" quote. Thanks.

2. There is nothing Dean says that Bush doesn't also say. In fact, Dean openly praises Bush's approach, only he wants more of it. (Challenge me to produce the quote.) Two-state solutions and the dismantling of settlements are things Bush talks about regularly.

3. As stated before, if you read carefully, Dean calls on Palestinians to end violence, but DOES NOT ask the same of Israelis.

4. As said before, Kerry is right to establish the privileged relationship the US has with Israel.

5. Kerry calls for PARALLEL concessions, Dean calls for UNILATERAL concessions.

And most importantly:

6. DEAN NEVER BACKS AWAY FROM HIS OUTRAGEOUS PLEDGES - "FURTHER THAN WOLFOWITZ." I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ONE COMMENT SUGGESTING SUCH.

[HFishbine]

31. The intention of my post

was to point out the similarities between Kerry and Dean -- both see a two-state solution as the end game, both think the US should take a lead role and both express strong and continued support for Israel.

Let me respond to your points.

1) You're welcome. I gather that you have some issue with that term. Do you equate it with "defenseless?" Do you think that's what Dean means?

2) Kerry is the one who praises Bush's "road map." It seems they both have a lot in common with Bush' approach.

3) As a matter of repsect, and hopefully as a demonstration of my opnen-mindedness, I must concede the point you are making here. If Dean wants to be the "even-handed" broker he claims, he indeed cannot call for one side to end violence and not the other. Perhaps you will point me to some quote by Kerry where he has called on Israel to stop attacking Palestinians.

4) Agreed. And he does, just as Dean does. That's not a point of distinction between Dean and Kerry.

5) I see no proof of this. Because Kerry says he supports the road map, which I've read, I know that what he supports is a series of bilateral and unilateral concessions (which is why I suppose you used the word paralell). But show me if you can, for my own edification, where Dean calls for unilateral concessions that are not also paralell to concessions on the other side.

6) Sorry, I don't follow this one.

It is a little funny amongst all this to remember that it wasn't that in September Kerry was criticizing Dean for not being enough of a friend of Israel and now you are trying to make the point that he is too favorable towards Israel. That gives me the impression that he just may well be the even-handed broker the situation needs.

[DrFunkenstein]

33. My Riposte

1. What does "demilitarized" mean to you?

2. Bush's road map - a definite improvement (he even condemned the separation wall) - was delivered after Dean's endorsement of Bush policy.

3. Kerry calls for a parallel end to violence through several trust-building measures, while calling on both sides to stay focused even if extremists continue (which is the only possible road to stability).

4. Agreed.

5. Kerry calls the roadmap "acceptable," which is less than full support, and indicates that his vision is different (which it is). Unilateral concessions entail Palestinians ending violence while Israelis continue raids, settlements, etc. Any Palestinian violence will trigger "responses," while the reverse is not acceptable. Kerry argues against this.

6. What don't you follow? It was reported in several Middle Eastern newspapers on both sides that Dean visited Sharon and pledged unconditional military aid and loan guarantees (which are, really, indirect forms of military aid). Do you disagree or something?

7. Kerry was criticizing Dean's utter lack of diplomacy in making foot-in-mouth statements about our relationship to Israel and especially Palestinian terrorists. Kerry was commenting as Chief Diplomat. I am commenting (generally) as Commander-In-Chief. That doesn't make Dean "just right." This is not Goldilocks. Dean made these pledges, pissed off the progressives, tried to pacify them but overcompensated. None of which is a retraction of his pledges.

[HFishbine]

37. My postriposte

1) I'm not sure. It was an honest question. It's not "disarmed." I really don't know.

2) If you say so. So what's the point? Are you saying that Dean supported Bush policy but not the road map per se as Kerry does?

3)It would seem then, that neither candidate has called on Israel to stop attacking Palestinians.

5) Again, I am not yet seeing a difference in the degree to which Kerry and Dean support unilateral concessions (which I think you better identified as parallel concesions).

6) I didn't catch the reference to your original post. Now I've got it, and I disagree with Dean on this. There should be linkage between progress on peace and US funds. Has Kerry said there should be linkage?

7) We simply disagree then. I do not see Dean's call for an "even-handed role" in the conflict as a foot-in-mouth statement.

[eissa]

17. I know I shouldn't say this

about most topics, but why are we discussing this? As one of Middle Eastern descent, I have long ago learned that no candidate can become president, within either party, if they do not go along with AIPAC. That's just the way it is. A couple of my co-workers asked why I supported Dean since his wife is Jewish and therefore he would be pro-Israel, and my response was that all candidates have to be pro-Israel. How on earth could they get elected otherwise? Why are we fooling ourselves into thinking that any candidate could have an even-handed approach to the ME? It's not happening people.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. Pro-Israel Is Not Pro-Likud; Parallel Concessions, Not Unilateral

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it.

While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace.

Extremists must not be allowed to control this process.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[eissa]

25. What about the NY debate?

When Lieberman questioned Dean about his critical stance on current Israeli policies, he was loudly cheered by the audience. To criticize Israel, at least in an election year, is suicide. I hope any candidate who wins the nomination is an even-handed one who would genuinely work for peace in the ME; but I'd be disappointed if I based my vote on it.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. Honestly, How Do You Feel About Dean's Pledges To Sharon?

And how do you feel about Kerry's call for parallel concessions?

Personally, I don't think a Democrat has to support the Likud party to be perceived as pro-Israel.

I just find it shocking (actually an appropriate word, for once) that Dean would claim he is going to be "even-handed" after his Faustian pact.

[eissa]

30. Clinton would have done the same

had Sharon been in power when he was running in '92. Again, call me a cynic, but I think all candidates, regardless of party, are the same when it comes to this issue. Again, I don't blame them; it's something they have to do in order to get elected. I'm as pro-Palestinian as it gets, but I see the unconditional support of Israel as a necessary evil and, quite frankly, I don't even focus on the candidates' stance on this issue anymore because in the end it's always the same.

You are focusing on one statement of Dean's on this issue, whereas when I read all his statements regarding this subject, it's pretty consistent with that of all the democratic presidential candidates.

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Whaaaaaaaaaa???????

The positions of Kerry and Dean are not the same at all!!! Kerry is politically smart enough not to jump up and down for the Palestinians, but make no mistake that his call for parallel concessions is a radical shift from Dean's unilateralism.

And I don't know what you mean by "one statement of Dean's."

Dean called to QUADRUPLE military aid AND loan guarantees - UNCONDITIONALLY!!!

He refused to meet with any Palestinian leaders OR EVEN ISRAELI MODERATES!!!

Dean called for Palestinian's to end violence, but NEVER, EVER asked Israel to do so!!!

He took a friggin' trip to personally meet with Sharon that was PAID ENTIRELY BY AIPAC!!!!!

Which one is the "one statement"!!!???!!!

[eissa]

34. Be realistic

How could he have met with any Palestinian, or even moderate Israelis, when he was visiting the country as a guest of AIPAC? What was he supposed to say on that trip -- "I think we should freeze aid to Israel until you improve your treatment of Palestinians?" Dean was criticized by Lieberman (and I believe other candidates, but I have no links) when he criticized the Israeli government (I suppose you're going to say he should have done it to Sharon's face instead of over here), has called for the removal of settlements, better living conditions for the Palestinians, and as far as I have heard during one of the debates, was the only candidate to touch upon the continued harassment of Arabs under the Patriot Act.

[ibegurpard]

36. Thanks, I will

But not through YOUR filter.