2004 Democratic Party Platform on the Middle East

[MikeGalos]

The Middle East. The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors. Our special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Under a Democratic Administration, the United States will demonstrate the kind of resolve to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that President Clinton showed. We will work to transform the Palestinian Authority by promoting new and responsible leadership, committed to fighting terror and promoting democracy. We support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And we understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed.

---

From http://www.democrats.org/platform/

[MikeGalos]

1. Sanity once again

For those of us who are Democrats, it's nice to see the party speaking sanity rather than the apathy of the Republicans or the whack-job voices of the fringies and bigots at the extremes of both parties.

[drdon326]

4. "whack-job voices of the fringies and bigots" ??

I find that hard to believe.:eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

9. Fortunately we are sheltered from such people here at DU!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Andromeda]

39. Lol...

:7 There aren't any of those here!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

2. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssss !!!

THATS my democratic party.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Dagaz]

3. This part is interesting too

There is no greater threat to American security than the possibility of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. Preventing terrorists from gaining access to these weapons must be our number one security goal.

[meti57b]

5. That's my Democratic Party, too!! Great platform!!

[Proudlib]

6. I'm Proud To Be A Democrat

Tough noogies to the anti-zionists masquerading as progressives.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

7. A prescription for war!

Israel must give up Arab Jerusalem, and Jerusalem should be the capital of both Israel and Palestine. Anything less is nothing more than another prescription for war.

How about the Golan?

A better plank would have been one that called for the return to the pre-1967 borders!

[Jim Sagle]

11. "Israel must give up Arab Jerusalem" only if that's where negotiations

lead.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Then why won't Israel negotiate?

?

[Jim Sagle]

8. The Democratic Party platform RAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I have a question...

Hey, the link wasn't even to a recent news story or op-ed, or even directly to what was posted here. Having read through this thread, I'm a little bit confused about something. How does the Democrat platform on the I/P conflict differ from the Republican one? Maybe someone would be so kind as to copy'n'paste the Repub one so's I can look at it (I'm one of those lucky foreigners who can't load the Bushy site, otherwise I'd go look for myself)...

Some areas of what I read that I have problems with, and I'm sure any person who thinks rationally about this issue would also have some problems or questions. Despite the loud noise about anyone who disagrees with even the smallest bit of that platform is a whack-job or a bigot, I think there's some bits that everyone but whack-jobs and bigots should question. I can't see a problem with being committed to a relationship with Israel, but here's what I think goes way over the line...

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

I'm sure the Republicans are totally in line with that one. This platform can squawk away about what should happen to Jerusalem, but to be blunt, the day will come when no-one will give a shit what either US party or the US administration thinks should happen outside the US. The reality is that in ignoring international law, which states that Jerusalem is occupied, I have to wonder where this platform deviates from Republican crap...

We support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel.

Kerry has said he agrees with Bush about Israel building its wall deep into the West Bank. So I take it that the platform is speaking of the creation of a democratic Palestinian state made up of what's left of the West Bank after Israel finishes its defacto annexation?

The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.

That's it? No right of return? No financial compensation? They should just be happy to all get Gaza and what's left of the West Bank and they shouldn't have any right to compensation?? Sorry, but that's pretty damn crappy...

Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

I think most folk agree with that. Where they differ is on where the final borders will lie. I'd have major problems with the statement if it hadn't been followed by this...

And we understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed.

Quick note to anyone who thinks that 'mutally agreed' means Israel can whine that there's no-one to negotiate with and unilaterally decide where the borders will be. It doesn't :)

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

23. Proof Clinton didn't advocate a undivided Jeruselem.

TEXT: CLINTON ORDER ON JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT
(Orders U.S. embassy to stay in Tel Aviv six more months)

December 19, 2000

President Clinton has again suspended the implementation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act for another six months, postponing moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The U.S. Congress voted to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in 1995 but gave the president discretionary powers to delay the move for reasons of U.S. national security interests. The president must issue a presidential determination every six months suspending the limitations under the Jerusalem Embassy Act, if he decides the move should be delayed.

The Clinton administration has refrained from moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem while the status of the city is under negotiation between the Israelis and Palestinians.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2000/december/me1219c.html

The socalled Dems on the platform committee are outright lying when they claim they are as committed to peace and a negotiated solution as Clinton. There are tons of articles on it in the google search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Clinton+Jerusalem+Tel+Aviv+embassy&spell=1

[The Magistrate]

57. "So-Called Dems", Ma'am?

If the officials of the Democratic Party are not adherents of the Democratic Party, then who is?

Persons on the Platform Committee have been involved in the Party as their chief carreer for most of their lives, else they would not reach such a position of trust within it. It is indeed rather the persons who cry these are not Democrats who would best be described as "so-called Dems"....

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

77. Please stop attacking the Democratic Party

To quote the Rules of this board:

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

[MikeGalos]

24. Republican 2000 Platform (Much LESS pro-Israel)

Obviously the 2004 Republican Platform won't be announced until closer to their convention but their 2000 Platform is, as you'd expect for the Oil-Is-All, Saudi-Suck-Up, Democracy-and-Freedom-Are-Just-Words Party, much more guardedly hands-off and "don't piss off the Arabs" neutral than the fantastic statement of support of Democracy that the Democratic Party authored this year.

Here are the I/P paragraphs from the Republican 2000 Platform:

It is important for the United States to support and honor Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East. We will ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative edge in defensive technology over any potential adversaries. We will not pick sides in Israeli elections. The United States has a moral and legal obligation to maintain its Embassy and Ambassador in Jerusalem. Immediately upon taking office, the next Republican president will begin the process of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital, Jerusalem.

The United States seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. America can use its prestige to encourage discussions and negotiations. But peace must be negotiated between the parties themselves. We will not impose our view or an artificial timetable. At the heart of the peace process is the commitment to resolve all issues through negotiation. A unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinians would be a violation of that commitment. A new Republican administration would oppose any such declaration. It will also do everything possible to promote the conclusion of a genuine peace in the Middle East. While we have hopes for the peace process, our commitment to the security of Israel is an overriding moral and strategic concern.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Uh, both platforms said the same thing...

Strange, I would have thought they'd differ, but they both basically spout the same lines...

One more thing. Stating that Israel should continue to violate international law when it comes to Jerusalem, and the tough titties about Palestinian refugees (I'm correct in reading it as saying they shouldn't be entitled to compensation?) really has nothing to do with democracy...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Actually, you're right, Violet

Both the statements say very much the same thing. Both are very broad and contain little substance. It remeinds me of why Goldwater once called party platforms "a pack of lies."

As with most things, I will expect on the Middle East Kerry to act pragmatically and Bush to act based on an ideology that has only an occasional, accidental resemblance to reality. That's why I'm voting for Kerry. Regardless of what he says, he'll get around to doing something that will work (after he tries three of four things that don't).

Let's not be impressed with who is pro-Israel and who is pro-Palestinian. The solution to the Middle East crisis will be an agreement that will contain some hard pills for either to swallow. The best man for the job is the one who can convince both sides to swallow those pills. The best approach is to find something that will work, not to be in favor in the interests of one side or the other.

[MikeGalos]

28. Only on Peace being good and Israel's existance

Democratic Party Platform Points and Republican views

Israel should exist as a secure state
Republicans agree

A comprehensive, just, lasting peace is the goal
Republicans agree

Jerusalem is Israel's capital
Republicans don't commit to that but are willing to start the process of moving the embassy (a process actually started years before their "bold" stand to it)

Jerusalem should be undivided with open access to all religious sites
Republicans don't commit to that

The US should work toward a peaceful solution
Republicans actively disagree and want the US to be hands-off

There should be a Palestinian state
Republicans don't commit to that

Palestinians should settle in the new Palestinian state
Republicans don't commit to that

The "Green Line" borders are NOT the final borders
Republicans don't commit to that


Now, the two parties DO agree that:
A) Israel should continue to exist
B) Peace is good

Perhaps you'd care to tell us which of these two points you so strongly disagree with? One or both of them must qualify if anyone agreeing on them is the definition of "spouting the same lines".

[drdon326]

29. Good points.

good post.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. I don't think an undivided Jerusalem is pro-Israel

or propeace. That is prosettler, antiarab, racist and right wing.


As for the repukes. That was their 2000 platform. Both parties are right wing on this issue.

[MikeGalos]

65. Wow

You think the Democratic Party is "prosettler, antiarab, racist and right wing"?

OK. That clearly says a great deal about where the mainstream of the party is and where it isn't. It clearly says a great deal about who is comitted to putting a Democrat back in the White House and who isn't.

I, for one, am proud to be a member of the party of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Gore, Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, Roosevelt, Truman, etc, etc, etc!

Shame that can't be said for everybody here.

:dem::dem::dem::dem::dem:

[MikeGalos]

36. So, in summary

KEY
Both Major Parties (or, ALL parties with any chance of being in power)
Democratic Party
Republican Party (or, neofascist for those caring about truth rather than title)

• Israel has a right to exist as an independent state
  
• A comprehensive, lasting peace is the goal
  
• Jerusalem is Israel's capital
  
• The US Embassy to Israel should be in Jerusalem
  
• Willing to actually move the Embassy to Jerusalem (oops, neither)
  
• Jerusalem should be undivided with open access to all religious sites
  
• The US should work toward a peaceful solution
  
• The US should avoid getting involved in negotiations
  
• There should be an independent Palestinian State
  
• Palestinians should settle in the new Palestinian state
  
• The "Green Line" borders of the 1949 cease fire are NOT the basis for the final borders
  
• The current PA leadership needs to be replaced
  

I am VERY PROUD to be a Democrat and smart enough to know the difference!!!


:dem::dem::dem::dem::dem::dem::dem::dem::dem::dem::dem:

[Darranar]

37. Um...

The "Green Line" borders of the 1949 cease fire are NOT the basis for the final borders

That's not at all what the platform states. The actual statement is:

Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

That does not mean that those borders shouldn't be used as a basis, rather, that it is unrealistic to suppose that they will end up matching those borders exactly.

[MikeGalos]

38. Reread

not THE basis

You read it as "not A basis"

[Darranar]

44. It didn't state that, either. n/t

[MikeGalos]

46. Of course it does.

Perhaps you could explain how it doesn't rather than just posting a Monte Pythonesque "No it isn't" arguement...

[Darranar]

47. All the platform stated...

was that the eventual borders (assuming a Palestinian state) would probably not exactly match the 1949 borders.

That does not mean that the Green Line will not be the basis for final borders, simply that they will likely not match exactly.

[MikeGalos]

50. The basis

is not the same as A BASIS.

<sigh>

[Darranar]

51. The distinction is irrelevant...

The platform did not state that the Green Line will not be be a basis for eventual borders, nor did it state that the Green Line would not be the basis for an official settlement.

It said nothing about bases at all, in fact; it only stated that the Green Line and the eventual borders were not likely to match exactly. The Green Line could be the basis for eventual borders without them matching exactly; the Geneva Accord is a good example of a possible such agreement.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. The point goes to Mr. Darranar

The actual language is:

(A)ll understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And we understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed.

That does not mean that the 1949 armistice lines (aka the Green Line) won't be the starting point of negotiations; it simply means that the final borders won't exactly match the Green Line. That should stand to reason within the logic of the platform, which also declares that Jerusalem shall be undivided and Jewish; moving the borders back to the Green Line would preclude that.

Of course the Green Line will be the starting point (i.e., basis) of negotiations. If not the Green Line, then what? At least this is a border (for want of a better word) that has been drawn and serves as a point that everybody can agree upon, at least for the purpose a starting point.

Otherwise, the Israelis and Palestinians will have to haggle about what is the starting point, with each side choosing some arbitrary point with no real basis for choosing it. It's been difficult enough to reach an agreement without complicating it with that kind of nonsense. That might satisfy the Israeli Sheva Councils and Palestinian Islamic fundies, neither of whom really want to negotiate.

[MikeGalos]

54. "Not A" is not the same as "Not The"

Of course you can dispute all you like but it doesn't change the logic. It DOES mean exactly what I said. While the green line may be A basis there will be others as well, hence it will not be THE basis.

The real key, however, is that the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican Party or the fringe groups, has a clear platform on the I/P conflict that calls for:

• A united Israeli Jerusalem with access to all religious sites
  
• A separate Palestinian state where the Palestinians can live, ending their 50 year refugee status.
  
• A negotiated settlement agreed to by both sides with US help.
  
• Borders determined by the negotiations rather than tied to the 1949 cease-fire line
  
• Replacement of the corrupt Palestinian leadership

As for "A vs THE" who cares as long as those points are met.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Either "not a basis" or "not the basis" is your interpretation

Neither phrase occurs in the document concerning the Green Line, the Middle East or anything else. There is nothing in this document that says what the basis of negotiations for final borders between Israel and Palestine should or should not be.

I really don't think this document is as "clear" as you make it out to be. If you want "clear", you might want to look at the other thread where Ms. Crumble provides the program of the Australian Labour Party. Regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it, that is my idea of clear.

Relative the ALP program, the present document of the Democratic Party is quite flexible. That owes to the difference between the American system of separation of powers and the various parliamentary systems around the world. For better or worse, US government features a strong chief executive elected for a fixed four year term. It isn't like he going to be given a vote of no confidence and new elections called if his party program isn't working, as would happen in a parliamentary system. If the President is doing something that isn't working, and (unlike the present occupant of the White House) he is smart enough to realize it isn't working, then he has the option to try something else before his term of office expires.

For this reason, party platforms in the US are much more vague than party programs in Britain or Australia. The 2004 Democratic Party platform's Middle East plank is typical. There are a few broad pronoucements on policy designed to be difficult with which to disagree. The most specific pronoucements in the documents concern the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinians who lost property in what is now Israel. If President Kerry were to vary his policy from this program in order to get the Israelis and Palestinians talking seriously, it's not going to hurt him and very few people will care.

I think he will vary his policy from the platform at some point, but I will make no prediction as to how. If at the end of the day there is a sovereign Palestine pledged to live peacefully beside a sovereign Israel, then most of us will be very happy.

[MikeGalos]

56. Please

Feel free to tell us specifically what isn't clear to you.

Seriously. Tell us which line you think isn't clear and tell us the range of meaning it has. You've said (as have others) that it isn't clear but haven't said what isn't clear.

Without saying what isn't clear all you're doing is name calling rather than discussion. And that is, just like when the right call Fahrenheit 911 full of lies but can't name any, is just meaningless rhetoric hiding a lack of facts.

[The Magistrate]

58. It Is, Mr. Galos

Artfully contived to admit of many meanings, and so please many people: that, my friend, is the essential quality of diplomatic and political speech.

Recognition, for instance, that the Green Line and the final product of negotiation will likely not coincide can be read as supporting small adjustments and territorial swaps to equalize the acreage, as some feel would be the most desireable outcome, but it could also be read as supporting a great deal of settlement on, and annexation of, ground over-run in '67, as some others desire.

[Jack Rabbit]

60. Thank you, sir (also addressed to Mr. Galos)

That pretty well frames my thoughts on the matter. The ME plank in the Democratic platform consists of two short paragraphs that are designed to please as many and offend as few as possible. There is hardly a sentence in the plank that doesn't conjure up several different images of possible courses of action. Mr. Galos' interpretation of the sentence on not returning to the 1949 armistice is one possible interpretation, but there are others. As long as we can say that, then I am justified in saying that there are few clear specifics in the plank.

Furthermore, I do not believe that Mr. Galos is justified in saying that a clause stating that the outcome of negotiations will be borders that do not match those of the 1949 armistice says anything about what the basis of those negotiations should be. The plank seems to me to be silent on that matter.

Once Kerry takes office, he will do as he sees fit to bring the conflicting parties together. The specifics (such as they are) of this platform will be forgotten.

[MikeGalos]

62. Oh nonsense

The plank is clear that the final borders will not match the 1949 cease fire line. That said, it is definitional that the 1949 borders will not be THE basis for the final borders because if they were THE basis then that would be the only factor and as such it would require that the new border match the ONLY factor involved since no other factors would influence a deviation.

It's called English. It's a wonderfully flexible language but actually DOES have specific meanings.

[Darranar]

66. "Basis" and "factor" are different things...

The basis of something is the fundamental principle behind something. The fact that it is the fundamental principle does not mean that it is the only principle, simply that it is the main one.

[MikeGalos]

68. You did it again

you tried to define "basis" and instead defined "The Basis"

You'd have the same problem if instead of saying "a factor" said "the factor"

It isn't basis vs. factor that you don't understand it is A vs. THE...

[Darranar]

75. Which is utterly irrelevant...

Whether the Green Line is A basis or THE basis, other things can still effect the final borders.

Even if it was THE basis, it would not exclude other factors - which was my point in the last post.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. Incorrect

The plank is clear that the final borders will not match the 1949 cease fire line.

That it does. We can agree on that.

That said, it is definitional that the 1949 borders will not be THE basis for the final borders . . .

That is problematic. The 1949 borders may or may not be the basis for final borders.

. . . because if they were THE basis then that would be the only factor and as such it would require that the new border match the ONLY factor involved since no other factors would influence a deviation.

Again, this is not necessarily true. The 1949 line may be the basis of final borders, but others factors may also be considered. While the settlements are illegal, they are there and it might be easier to swap land in Israel for the Palestinian land on which they stand then remove all of them. The 1949 line and the desire to keep some settlements standing is principle behind the Beilin-Abed Rabbo virtual agreement.

The Green Line could be the basis for negotiations, and the negotiations would be over what acre land will be swapped by one side for what acre by the other. That would even by consistent with Resolution 242. Yet, in the end, the 1949 borders will be altered. That would be consistent with the ME plank in the Democratic platform.

If the 1949 line were to be the only factor to be considered, then it would be tantamount to settling the border here and now; Israel would then be returning that line. However, that's "unrealistic". Therefore, negotiations are needed to determine what is "realistic".

[JohnLocke]

43. Mike:

:yourock:

[Classical_Liberal]

48. The green line should be the basis of the new Palestinian state

and if it is not their can't be a Palestinian state. Same goes for an undivided Jeruselem unless of coarse Jerusalem becomes an independent state like Vatican City. Both parties are right wing, and have right wing positions on this issue, though republicans currently have more fascist traits. I resent not having a truly progressive choice. Supporting settlers is not liberal or progressive. It isn't even moderate.

[Andromeda]

40. Right on point, Mike...

as usual. :)

[JohnLocke]

42. Excellent post!

[Classical_Liberal]

26. and you think this is less proSettler in what way?

be specific! Also there is nothing pro-democracy about people who stomp on Palestinians(people who aren't allowed to vote or have their own state. That is pro-oppression and injustice. Also how are the honoring Clinton's commitment to peace by giving Sharon all of Jerusalem which sits on the West Bank, when Clinton never took such an extreme right wing stance? This platform and your statements are straight out of Orwell's 1984, and or Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Also are you implying that because on 9/11, we have an obligation to let Israelis steal from Palestinians? I mean yeah that would piss off Arabs, but aside from that it is racist and morally wrong. Antisemitism isn't the only type of racism that is bad.

[Darranar]

35. Just because it's...

even more vague than the Democratic Party platform doesn't mean that it isn't as pro-Israel. And it's sort of irrelevant anyway, both parties will support Israeli government policy with the same fervor they have for years.

[Gimel]

45. Just think

post-Arafat. No unilateral borders is and always has been the agreed position of Israeli governments. Therefore no-"Green Line border" imposed by outside or inside politicians.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. How can you possibly claim that Israel is against Unilateral borders?

More Orwellianism!

[Gimel]

52. Because

the security fence is not a border, and that has already been proved.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. It will be proved when it comes down.

.

[Gimel]

81. The Fence along the green Line

...or inside of Israel is a security fence and will stay in place, possibly even after the borders are decided. Moving the fence is always an option, it is not a permanent as the Great Wall of China.

[Darranar]

31. A vague but acceptable platform, if somewhat dishonest...

The US "commitment to democracy" is of course legendary, as the people of El Salvador, Egypt, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Cuba, South Africa, Chile, Venezeula, and Haiti will no doubt testify. Israel does not (yet) have a similarly impressive record; they have engaged in only two campaigns of benevolent liberation, the Six Day War and "Peace for Galilee."

The US and Israel do share "values", or to be more precise, a lack of them; values are something embraced by few states, and in this case neither the US nor its Middle Eastern client state stand out from the norm much.

But despite the usual mythology, the words are actually quite pretty; the real question is whether Kerry will live up to them.

[Shane_Fergessen]

32. Deleted Message

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

I'll just skip the middleman apparently

[JohnLocke]

33. Works for me!

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[IronLionZion]

34. Will Kerry actually push for a free Palestine?

HELL NO! The folks who are the most against this obvious peaceful solution are the ones who sit comfortably and safely in the US and influence our presidential politics. Those assholes never have to experience the constant fear of suicide bombers or having an American-made tank destroy your house. And they never set foot on the other side of the fucking fence.

[Andromeda]

41. I'm proud to be a Democrat!

:bounce:

[Matilda]

59. The Palestinians will never accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,

any more than the Israelis would accept it as the capital of
Palestine. It may be forced upon them, but that will only lead
to a continuation of Arab resentment, and so is pointless.

Although it's far from ideal, East Jerusalem to the Palestinians,
West to Israel is I think the only way to go. Obviously, there
must be access to all on both sides.

I also find the sentence "we will work to transform the Palestinian
Authority by promoting new and responsible leadership, committed to
fighting terror and promoting democracy" a big worry. Sounds more
like "we will choose a leader for the Palestinians" - just like Iraq
and Afghanistan. Yes, we know that Arafat is from ideal, but the
move for change must come from the Palestinians, and not be imposed.
I know it doesn't say the U.S. will choose, but I'm afraid the past
record stands for itself.

"Peace" imposed by the U.S. and Israel on terms favorable to
themselves will achieve nothing, and I'm afraid I read into this
document a tone of conciliation towards Israel, with scant regard
to the grievances of the Palestinians. In other words, the same old
formula, with the same old results.

[Gimel]

61. The Jerusalem question

This has always been set for final status negotiations. PM Barak agreed to giving parts of East Jerusalem to become the Palestinian capital.

[MikeGalos]

63. And Arafat turned him down

Just a point worth remembering...

[Classical_Liberal]

73. He had reason to turn him down

The generous offer wasn't that generous at all.

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

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.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

[Gimel]

83. He'll always have the same reason

It doesn't give him the edge he needs to overpower Israel.

[Scurrilous]

64. Jewish activists: Democratic Party is the home of U.S. Jewry

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=456594&contrassID=1&subContrassID=9&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

<snip>

"Jewish activists in the Democratic Party are working hard this convention week to garner support for the party and its presidential candidate, John Kerry, in order to prevent an erosion of Jewish votes on behalf of U.S. President George W. Bush in November's election.

AIPAC and Boston's Jewish federation held a large party on Monday night, on the eve of the convention, inviting leading Democrats ranging from convention chairman New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Party activists at the event and at others planned by Jewish Democrats this week, want to send a message that the Democratic Party remains the home of American Jewry, and its support for Israel is unequivocal.

The Democrats are aware that Bush's seemingly unconditional support for Israel could sway Jewish votes to the Republican party this fall. "There's a healthy debate," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the party's vice presidential candidate in 2000 and an early dropout in this year's party race that reaches a climax with Kerry's formal nomination this week. Lieberman noted that something similar happened during the reelection year of the late Ronald Reagan, when Jews voted in record numbers for the Republicans. Lieberman, the only Jewish candidate for the White House, agreed that Bush is "good for Israel." But when it comes to Israel, Lieberman said, "the good news is that whoever is in the White House will be good for Israel."

<snip>

"Boston's Jews are planning more events this week for Democratic Party activists and leaders, with seminars training some 100 activists to persuade Jews to vote Democrat. Party leaders are certain that Kerry's pro-Israel line, together with the party's liberal domestic policies, will ensure that a majority of Jews vote Democrat this coming fall."

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Ronald Reagan didn't win the majority of Jews

just more than normal. I don't think proSharon jews are worth losing the Arab and antiwar vote, andI believe they will vote for Bush no matter what.

Anyway, this is about donors not voting patterns.

[MikeGalos]

69. As an FYI

The 2000 Democratic Platform also said:

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

This has been the clear view of the Democratic Party (but not the Republicans) for many years now. Certainly for longer than virtually anybody on this forum has been posting...

[Classical_Liberal]

72. Yes, and Clinton didn't listen to it, thank god.

. Kerry on the other had actually takes this position.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Jordan_R]

76. Clinton was the largest funder of arms to Israel in US history

I don't see how giving arms to Israel makes things any better.

If we are preparing for peace, we need to get the regional negotiations going.

One of the most important things is honesty to ourselves, ofcourse, too. We have to admit that the foundation of Israel is justified, but came in like a bad disease.

In other words, if we wanted true justice, and peace in the ME, we would either go back to the partition plan of '47, or we would compromise in some other way.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

80. We are allowed to criticise...

If we weren't allowed, we'd be just the same as the freepers who all march in lockstep. Please explain why DUers shouldn't be allowed to criticise or question aspects of the party platform? Does me not being impressed with what I've heard about Kerry's approach to foreign policy mean that I don't support him for President? I don't think so, Mike. What it means is I have reservations about what his adminstration will do when it comes to foreign policy, but I'm hoping he wins in November. Hope that's not seen as attacking him, because I despise the idea of everyone having to be blind supporters of every bit of a partys platform...

Violet...

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[IA_Seth]

85. Give it Up

She isn't attacking Kerry or the Democratic Party, she is disagreeing with and discussing OUR Party's platform. She is neither attacking nor tearing down. Are we not to disagree, is that against the rules? I would say you would be hard pressed to have that occur, especially in this forum.

Your desperate attempts to quell her voice is pretty obvious to me.

[MikeGalos]

87. Unlike some in this forum

I believe that this is NOT the time to attack the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party's Candidate or the Democratic Party Platform.

To those who can't or won't do that, either go to a site where you can help the Republicans directly or hold your tongue until November 3rd.

This is a time for unity behind our party, our platform and our candidate. Anyone who thinks that this petty debating society is more important than this election is sadly confusing their ego with the long term good.

[IA_Seth]

88. The other "some"

Nobody is attacking anyone or any idea, simply stating their views while still supporting our candidate.

No one is supporting any Republican position, and to assume so without knowing the tremendous amount of work that I, as well as many who post here I would guess, put into Kerry's campaign is ridiculous.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and speaking on the topics in the Democratic platform, so we can all better communicate the Party's ideals while helping to get out the vote, will ultimately help in November.

Walking blindly behind any document, in my opinion, will not.

[MikeGalos]

89. Reread #72

Which thanks God that Clinton didn't follow the DNC platform but express horror that Kerry (Our candidate who some of us support) will actually follow the Democratic Party (Our party which some of us support) views...

Now. Tell me how that's not attacking our candidate?

[IA_Seth]

90. My last statement on this issue

That does not constitute an attack on Kerry in my opinion, and I guess I am through debating the issue. I trust in the Moderators to decide the rules.

The post I took issue with was your post saying Violet was breaking the rules, not Classic Liberal's, although I respect both posters and am glad to have their viewpoints involved in the DISCUSSION of democratic values. I saw it as an attempt to stifle the opinions of people who dont agree with you.

reread YOUR post that said that Violet's post was breaking the rules of the forum by ATTACKING Kerry...oh wait, its been deleted.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Lithos]

94. Comment

I'm tired and I hate writing this kind of thing when I'm tired, but it does need to be said.

While the Democratic Platform does mention support for the State of Israel, it also talks about a Palestinian nation. More importantly, I read from it there are many issues to be negotiated with the goal of achieving a permanent and lasting peace.

Given the very consistent stance of the Democratic Party for the respect of human rights and individual dignity, I claim that any acceptable I/P solution which adheres to the overall principles of the Democratic Party must be done with this in mind. To impose a solution that does not follow the rule of law and which does not promote a dignified and respectful settlement between the people is contrary to the core principles of the Democratic Party for which I stand.

The I/P rules are quite specific in mentioning that there are many valid, progressive viewpoints to the I/P situation. It follows the Democratic Platform fairly close - any commentary which supports or advocates a unilateral situation not involving either legitimate and separate Israeli or Palestinian states or a respectful and legitimate union of the two is not and never has been allowed here.

Similarly the goal in I/P is always been to achieve a dialogue of of these viewpoints. And while there are many details which will cause disagreement, anything which does not support the core Democratic principle of supporting human rights and the rule of law has also NOT been allowed.

To this end, I think the Democratic Platform does speak to the progressive cause and does invite progressive discussion to determine the details. Not only to I thank those progressives here in the US, but I welcome our progressive brothers and sisters from around the world to participate. After all, John Kerry has stated repeatedly critiqued Bush's unilateralism towards the world which must be replaced instead with cooperation and dialogue with our friends and neighbors.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator

[Darranar]

95. I agree with you that the platform can be interpreted in a...

progressive fashion. However, as may be expected, that is only one of many possible interpretations. The platform would allow for a tiny Palestinian state in the least fertile areas of the West Bank and Gaza, with the rest swallowed by Israel, as long as such a situation was agreed to by the Palestinian side - an easy thing to do; all that is necessary is to find a few willing Palestinian collaborators and promise them power in this arrangement.

But even if the political platform ensured against such a thing, perhaps by demanding an equal exchange of land across the Green Line (like the Geneva Accord), I would stilll have doubts, because what matters is not what the political platform says, it is what John Kerry and the Democrats actually do.

The Republican platform is even vaguer, allowing for arrangements even more "pro-Palestinian" or even more "pro-Israel" than that of the Democrats. It could theoretically allow for both ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians to Jordan and for a one-state solution with full right of return, both of which the Democratic Platform would reject with their principle of "two states". Interestingly, it promises to move the American embassy in Israel to Jersualem immediately, something Bush has consistantly refused to do, despite Congressional pressure.

However, unless there is a surprise nomination of Tom Delay at the Republican convention (*shudder*) I think it is pretty assured that we will hear the same "two state" rhetoric from Bush that he has been saying for the past four years.

[Jordan_R]

93. Can be taken in different ways

The fact that Clinton supported the most arms was something I wanted to debate. In a democracy, partisons have a duty to discuss their party's platforms.

If you did not see my implicit support, you could've asked me.

[Jordan_R]

92. Implicit Support

You didn't notice Mike, but I was implicitly supporting the Democrats.

I made a suggestion, assuming us democrats were able to discuss its legitimacy. I don't see why that needs to be prevented.

[IndianaGreen]

86. Another name for Stalinism...

This is what George Orwell called blackwhite in his novel 1984:

blackwhite - The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as "...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary."

The Complete Newspeak Dictionary

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/