Convince me that Kerry's Support of Sharon's Plan Isn't a Deal Breaker...

[JCMach1]

..."I think that could be a positive step," Kerry was quoted by The Washington Post as saying. "What's important, obviously, is the security of the state of Israel, and that's what the prime minister and the president, I think, are trying to address."

Kerry was also quoted, in The New York Sun, as saying: "I've always felt that the right of return is contrary to the viability of a Jewish state, and that's what Israel is." ...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1081998810231

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want this to turn into a discussion (rehash) of the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian divide.

The Democratic party in our recent history has never been supportive of walls (physical, or legal) that separate and discriminate against people. Sharon's plan offers appartheid at the point of a gun and barb-wired cages for all.

I have grave misgivings about a Democrat who would support such a policy.

Bush must go, but at what price...?

Someone convince me why I should continue supporting Kerry.


...currently pissed and confused :grr:

[madrchsod]

1. i know how you feel

anyone but bush- kerry stench isn`t as bad as bush`s. that`s the only reason i`ll vote for him.

[IrateCitizen]

2. I wish I could on this issue, but I can't....

IMHO, there were other, better ways in which Kerry could have handled this. He could have announced his misgivings about the plan on the grounds that unilateral action by Sharon, coupled with the unwillingness to discuss five significant settlements in the West Bank, would make Israel less safe.

I'm also alarmed at the hypocrisy in this statement: Kerry was also quoted, in The New York Sun, as saying: "I've always felt that the right of return is contrary to the viability of a Jewish state, and that's what Israel is."

The Democratic Party platform expresses support for the "special relationship" with Israel based on our "shared values" and the fact that Israel is a democratic state. But here, Kerry is acknowledging that Israel is a Jewish state. Which is it -- a state founded on democratic values, or a state founded on religious identity? By embracing the latter, it is impossible to extend the former to all residents of the country.

I don't find this to be a deal-breaker, personally -- but I certainly share your misgivings on it, JC.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. I'm with you on that one

Let alone the fact that Sharon is essentially ceding a ghetto to the Palestinians while continuing to occupy prime land with the justification that it will displace tens of thousands of Israelis...as though that hasn't to the Palestinians.

I'm bothered by Kerry's response to this.

[Classical_Liberal]

58. If NSMA doesn't like this it is offensive to most dems includng centrists

I am actually shocked to be agreeing with you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people

However, ALL citizens can vote. It is both a democracy and the homeland for the Jewish people.

BTW, being Jewish isn't just a religion. It is aso a shared culture, identity, history, ethics and general world view. Of such things are states made.

[IrateCitizen]

67. Palestinians residing in the occupied territories can vote???

That's a new one to me. Of course, the Jewish people living in the settlements are given the right to vote.

Additionally, a Palestinian living in the occupied territories who once may have resided within the boundaries of Israel is not allowed to emigrate into Israel -- but a person of Jewish faith living in the United States, whose family lineage can be traced back to say, Russia, rather than Israel itself, is given instantaneous full citizenship?

The current arrangement is unfortunately not much different than South Africa during the times of apartheid, no matter how much you or anyone else likes to pretend otherwise. Palestinians are deprived of all rights vis a vis Israel, even though Israel exercises control over many aspects of their daily lives. Furthermore, they are condemned to living in poverty in Bantustans, unable to move about freely, while Israeli settlers build comfortable homes on the most prime real estate in their midst.

BTW, being Jewish isn't just a religion. It is aso a shared culture, identity, history, ethics and general world view.

You mean like the members of Tikkun and the people settling in the West Bank? Yeah -- there's a lot in common there other than religion. It's like saying that Christianity is more than a shared religion -- it's a shared culture, identity, history, ethics and general world view -- until you have Catholics and Southern Baptists denouncing each other as heretics. :eyes:

IOW, you'll have to do much, much better than this, Muddle.

[debsianben]

88. Hold Up

What if some one told you that the United States belonged only to those who shares the same "ethics and world view"? No fucking thank you, Pat Robertson! I would not accept that those who wanted to have it considered that way (even if they were the great majority) had any right to legislate it. If they succeeded in legislating it, I would fight tooth and nail to reverse it and restore civilized secular democracy. You cannot both be a civilized secular democracy and be reserved for those who share the same ethical outlook or the same worldview or the same culture, which is what Pat Buchanan's ilk want.

Thinking that its OK for states to only belong to those of their citizens that share the same worldview is the sort of mindset that lead to all kinds of ugliness a few centuries back (the Reformation, the Wars of Religion, persecution of heretics, etc.) and convinced most non-idiots of the need to have a state that didn't belong soley to those of its citizens that shared a certain world view.

Besides, it's not even descriptively accurate. Go out and ask a bunch of liberal secular Israeli Jews in Tel Aviv whether they share the same ethics or worldview as the heredi zealots in the Mea Shera'im, or for that matter the murderous gangs of armed settlers on the West Bank, and I suspect they'd answer in the negative. The only thing that share is a sense of ethno-cultural identity. There's a word for believing that states should only belong to those of their citizens that share a given ethno-cultural identity, and I think we all know what it is.

[LandOLincoln]

3. I don't like it one bit either, but really,

what's your alternative?

And is this your only issue? Won't you at least grant that Kerry will be light years ahead of Bush on everything else?

[JCMach1]

7. I am also taking this in the context of his Iraq policy

speech this week that differs only a smidgen from what the Bush administration is supporing.

I know this is sounding like Naderspeak... if you know me, you know that is not the case.

However, it has been difficult to see those differences over the past couple of weeks.

[nickinSTL]

4. Kerry and Israel

Well, I'd like to convince you but...

Honestly, I'm really unhappy about Kerry's support of the Sharon plan.

And 'the right of return is contrary to the viability of a Jewish state' WTF?

However, despite his position on Israel, which I don't like (but then, few mainstream politicians do have a position on Israel that I like) and the fact that he's been really quiet lately (which I'm mostly forgiving because it's still a long time until the election) He's still a H$%% of a lot better than Bush.

I think he's still got great promise, but I haven't been happy with a lot from him lately.

In the end, I've got to be ABB, even if Kerry loses me overall. Even if I'm tempted to vote Green, Bush has to go. Kerry might not be great, but Bush is a disaster.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. "WTF"

Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. If millions of Arabs move in one day, that reality will change.

[nickinSTL]

57. Israel

The land that is now Israel WAS the homeland for the Palestinian people. To deny right of return just compounds the injustices the world has perpetrated upon them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. The UN created two states

One for the Jewish people, one for Palestinians. The Arab world vetoed that and lost the war, but destroyed the Palestinian state in the process. There is no way in the world that the Jewish people are going to allow their state to be destroyed now that they have one.

I'm all for reparations for the Palestinian people -- reparations paid by the Arab nations. Sure you can disguise it by saying Israel pays reparations to the Palestinians and the Arab world pays reparations to Israel for ethnically cleansing Jews, but as long as the amounts equal, I'm OK with it.

[K-W]

5. Its hard to fault someone in these issues.

They are so terribly politically complicated that it is hard to form a good statement on such things. His words annoy me, but our job is to pick the man who will do the best job, and clearly Kerry's middle eastern policies are better than Bush's. Not good, but better. Those be the choices society gives us.

[JCMach1]

9. It's also a HUGE deal to me as an American expat living in the Region

I am in the contact zone every day with these issues.

I have MANY Palestinian students.

I have MANY Iraqi students.

When a student asks me as an American who I am voting for, I do have to justify myself...

:(

[K-W]

12. I understand, but hey,

its a lesson in American politics, how we have to compromise at various levels in order to steer the country where we want it to go.

[JCMach1]

15. There's compromise and there's taken a bean ball

for the team... :(

[K-W]

18. True, and a good metaphor.

I wish American students were tought honestly about our system, it would lead to alot less confusion in young people getting active.

[montanacowboy]

6. I too am getting very nervous about Kerry

I was never a supporter to begin with - without Dean in the picture Kerry is the good old boy of the DLC - this Israeli thing is beyond comprehension - we must in good faith talk to the Palestinans - it IS their country remember? Israel took it over - it is illegal.

Kerry is starting to remind me all over again why the Democratic Party is a boring warmed over version of the GOP. What happened to all the fire and enthusiasum of the primaries? Gone, lost, in being SAFE again - back to the DLC bullshit that lost us the last two elections -

Being "electable" right...remember Kerry - why vote for the warmed over version when you can vote for the real thing? Do these Democrats NEVER FREAKIN LEARN???????????????????

[theHandpuppet]

19. Ditto...

The more Kerry opens his mouth, the more disillusioned I become. I'm not a Democrat just to vote GOP-Lite, dammit!!!

John Kerry: Chickenshit on gay marriage rights, a Sharon enabler, an Iraq war supporter... sounds more like Holy Joe every damn day. And each time he comes out with one of these pronouncements we're told to take one for the team. At this rate we might as well just call the whole damn ball game and go home. I'm sick of this crap.

[Alpha Wolf]

91. Ditto?

Shouldn't that be a banned word in DU? J/K

Have a great weekend.

[Alpha Wolf]

82. I couldn't agree more...

I've been trying to make this point on another discussion board for months-- before, during, and after the primaries. The DLC keeps moving further to the center and the center keeps moving further to the right. And all the while taking OUR votes for granted because they know when push comes to shove so many of us will be good little voters and pull the lever for their candidate.

I just wish the real progressives in this nation would truly believe that a Nadar/3rd party candidate could have a shot if we didn't all dismiss it as impossible from the get-go.

thoroughly frustrated...

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Because Bush would be much worse

Unfortunately, there is no other real option - Bush or Kerry.

Ask yourself this, "In which administration would my views at least be given a chance?"

Not the Bush administration.

[JCMach1]

11. That ultimately may be the choice I have to make

:(

[Stuckinthebush]

14. I know...it sucks

It really does.

I like John, but it would be nice to have other options. In the current two party system, we really don't have other options if we want to have a say in the outcome.

Hold your nose and vote....

:shrug:

[G_j]

43. I see a big problem for Kerry

in trying to get people fired up on the grass roots level as far as actually going out and campaigning for him as they have for Dean and Kucinich.
I honestly don't know anyone who is very passionate or enthusiastic about Kerry these days, especially when he makes moves like this and also essentially tries to disown himself as a "liberal".

[Classical_Liberal]

63. At least this is an honest answer, but there is one other problem

Kerry can't take advantage of any of the Dean Clark organizational enthusiasm if he keeps it up.

[GiovanniC]

10. Let's Break It Down Logically

Nader won't win. This is between Bush and Kerry.

There is nothing, at this point, that Kerry can say or do that will change Sharon's plans, or Bush's foreign policy regarding Israel. Kerry will not attract new voters by coming out against Israel's plans, but he will lose faithful democratic voters if he does.

On most social issues: Kerry > Bush
On most foreign policy issues: Kerry > Bush
On most fiscal/economic issues: Kerry > Bush
From a civil rights standpoint: Kerry > Bush

On this particular aspect of the I/P conflict: Kerry = Bush

Do the math. Which one's better?

[JCMach1]

13. Sorry, was an English Major

:)

Thought I would lighten it up a bit...

[blm]

29. GioC...You can safely change "most" to EVERY.

Kerry bests Bush on EVERY issue.

Kerry would have NEVER taken Bush's approach in the I/P conflict. He and other Dems tried behind the scenes to push Bush to send Clinton into the negotiation process since Bush took office.

To say that Kerry = Bush on this is highly improbable.

[GiovanniC]

31. I Try Not to Use Words Like "Always" and "Never"

or "every", "all", or "none". The meaning is the same though.

I personally think that John Kerry's stance on I/P is a lot more nuanced than Bush's, but for the sake of this argument I was accepting the premise that their stances were identical to show that even if that were indeed the case, Kerry is still the better choice.

There are some people who also feel that Kerry = Bush when it comes to the Iraq mess, too. I disagree with that also, but even if it were the case, Kerry is still the better choice based on all of the other areas where he excels against Bush. I cannot fathom the attitude that many have where they need to be persuaded that Kerry is better than Bush, or that they shouldn't stay home -- STAY HOME! -- instead of voting for Kerry.

[blm]

37. Hopefully just blowing off steam.

Nader was never big on dealing with I/P issues at all, so who 'deserves' the vote based on that issue?

[Classical_Liberal]

64. He will also lose voters, many more voters if he supports Sharon

as it appears he does. Let's just face the fact that Sharon lovers probably aren't swing voters in this election.

Nader isn't an option, but I don't think Kerry can win unless he makes Dean Clark people as enthused about him as they were about Dean and Clark.

[GiovanniC]

80. I Would Rather Vote Clark, But Kerry's Our Guy Now

I don't need to get "excited" per se about John Kerry in order to be motivated to vote for him... My motivation and the motivation of many others comes from wanting to rid myself of Shrub.

If we can be perfectly blunt about things for a minute, most voters don't give a good goddamn either way about the Israel/Palestine issue. Most people don't even know what the Israel/Palestine issue is. They just hear a story about Israel attacking Palestinians with helicopters, or Palestinians blowing up buses, and think, "What a fucked up area and/or group of people."

There is a tiny minority of the American public that has SUPER STRONG opinions one way or the other in the I/P debate. Of that minority, most people side with Israel, typically for religious reasons. Historically, Jews have been strong democratic voters. I'm not making a value judgement here, just stating reality as I perceive it.

If sides are going to be taken one way or another, supporting the Palestinians will lose more votes than supporting Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

89. They will care when we are targets of Palestinian rage just like Israelis

Furthermore giving the Palestinians a state is pro Israel because it helps to stop terrorism.

He didn't have to say anything at all. He wouldn't have alienated anyone if he had done that. Or if he had only complemented Gaza rather than supporting giving settlements to Sharon.

Kerry's position lack intelligence and vision.

[GiovanniC]

93. Surely You Can Understand

That there are many, even in your own party, who don't see it the same way that you do. I also believe that Kerry will do a better job on the I/P issue than Bush.

I also hope you're not suggesting that our position should be dependent on whether or not it will make us "targets of Palestinian rage".

[soleft]

17. Kerry discouragingly pragmatic, but Bush is F*cking nuts

This is a repost of what I posted in LBN

Bush's support of Israel is based on his fundamentalist beliefs in biblical prophesy. When he went to Israel the first time, someone asked him what he will say to the the Israeli people, and he said, "That they're all going to hell." I think in his heart Bush does believe that Israeli's, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and probably some sects of Christians who are not considered "Born Again" are going to hell - because they have not accepted Jesus as their personal savior.

I think Bush is alligned with people like Tom Delay - and Bill Maher has spoken a lot about this - who believe that in order for them to see their biblical prophesies fufilled the land of Israel, and perhaps this is what Bush is referring to when he says "Greater Middle East" - very frightening - must be occupied by Jews in order to bring about the second coming of Christ. They don't care about Israeli's or Palestians, they are simply the means to their salvation ends.

This is fanatacal, pathological thinking - the kind that brings about genocide, and potentially WWIII, the Armageddon that they seek.

It precludes any chance of every achieving peace, or protecting the people of Israel, or recognizing that the Palestian people (Palestian people, families, men, women, children - not terrorists) must finally be afforded fairness, compassion, and equitable treatment and protection. It negates the possibility that they will seek to ever end the cycle of violence, and that acts of aggression on either side can never create security or peace.

Because Kerry is not a fundamentalist - because he is not insane - and I think this can be said about a lot of left of center politicians like Hillary Clinton as well, who seem to have strong identifications with Israel and are hesitant to ever express criticism - I hold out hope that they will once in power to do so - they can become honest brokers and not be overly influenced by pragmatic political pressure and what I'm sure is a genuine desire to support and protect Israel.

What they say now in this political arena about the Israel/Palestinian conflict is not as important as WHY they are saying it.

[JCMach1]

21. Precisely, vote pandering

Kerry's support, though, I think takes away his chance at being an 'honest broker' in the Mid-east Peace Process. By keeeping the status quo, Clinton was able to get damn close to a settlement.

Kerry's unqualified statment destroys 40 years of U.S. policy and clearly shows which side we are on (this is irregardless of the reality). That fundamental truth will make a comprehensive settlement impossible.

I think Kerry is betting this won't get through the Knesset anyway.

[soleft]

22. Undoubted yes, he has Florida on the brain

But when it becomes clear that this plan would never lead to peace or security, Kerry at least does not have the pathology which would prevent him from adapting.

[belle]

71. Sums it up.

[greatauntoftriplets]

20. Hobson's choice.

n/t

[GiovanniC]

23. Well, Sort Of, I Guess

With Hobson's Choice, people often had to choose between bad, or nothing.

For those of you who might not know what Hobson's Choice is, Hobson ran a horse stable. There were some horses that were particularly popular, who got a lot of use (and wear and tear) while other horses often went unridden. So Hobson started to gave guests a choice: the horse closest to the door, or no horse at all. It became referred to as Hobson's Choice. It typically means "no choice".

In that respect, I agree that there is "no choice" in any real sense between Kerry and Bush. It's obvious (to us) that Kerry is the only choice. But with the REAL Hobson's Choice, people often got stuck with something sub-par (which was still better than nothing). I'm not saying John Kerry's perfect, but I can feel good about voting for him. I don't feel like I'm in a no-win here. Kerry's a good guy.

[greatauntoftriplets]

52. Because I will have to have a clothespin and a bucket to vote for Kerry,

I DO see it as a Hobson's Choice.

And I knew the definition.

[GiovanniC]

92. I Didn't Say You Didn't Know The Definition

I don't see it that way. I explained the definition for the benefit of others because it's a relatively obscure reference.

[Jim Sagle]

24. Kerry RAWWWWKSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!

:toast:

[JCMach1]

25. So, you support Bush's and Sharon's policy?

:(

[Jim Sagle]

28. I'm a Democrat. I support Kerry. Any other questions?

[IrateCitizen]

34. Thanks for your astute analysis and thoughtful contribution to debate

:eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

65. Anybody who doesn't like settlements Jim calls them ":shit"

. Literally.

[JCMach1]

26. I am going to sleep on this problem tonight and see how I feel

in the morning...

[sangh0]

30. I have a suggestion

Try and see if you could think of something Kerry could do or say between now and the election that would help the situation. After all, if there's nothing Kerry could do to help, then why blame him for not helping?

[JCMach1]

32. i really hope his statements were the automatic support Israel

answers and not a sign of real policy...

Sure, he could say something.

Anything to differentiate between *'s and his approach to Middle-East would be nice...

[sangh0]

36. I understand

but how would his differentiating on this help the people in the ME?

It would be nice for Kerry to do that, so I do understand your desire, but when it comes to I/P issues, I'm not terribly concerned about nice. I'm more concerned with helping the people affected by pursuing peace.

[JCMach1]

45. It makes a HUGE difference... the Palestinian issue

cuts across all levels of Politics, society and nationality here...

I am fast watching, in even a moderate Arab nation, the sands of support wash away.

Most here did understand this to be Bush's problem...

If America elects someone who supports these policies, it becomes America's problem.

[IrateCitizen]

33. That's easy, as I have stated several times

Portray Sharon's actions as reducing security for Israel -- which is the absolute truth. Simply state that while the US supports Israel and condemns terrorism against Israeli civilians, that Sharon's propsal will only increase unrest among Palestinians, fuel radical sentiment, and reduce the safety of the people of Israel.

While the United States steadfastly supports Israel's right to exist and defend itself, it would not be wise to endorse actions that serve to decrease Israel's security through violation of international standards.

[sangh0]

39. I agree with the statements themselves, but I don't see how

Kerry's saying them would result in Sharon's abandoning his plan. Like you , I think it's unwise for the US to endorse these actions. However, Kerry doesn't set US foriegn policy (yet) and so his statements won't change US foriegn policy. Statement or not, the plan is going forward, so Kerry's statement won't help the people we both want to help.

[IrateCitizen]

41. Because it helps shift the parameters of debate...

... without abandoning the major political selling point in the policy, which is what provides the greatest security for Israel.

Statement or not, the plan is going forward, so Kerry's statement won't help the people we both want to help.

That may be true, but an alternative statement won't hurt the people we want to help as much as Kerry's tepid endorsement of the Sharon plan.

We've gotta start somewhere in order to stave off the insanity of I/P. Kerry had an opportunity to do so, but he chose the easy way out. It's not a deal-breaker for me personally because it just puts him solidly in line with the other less-than-inspiring majority of Democrats on this issue.

[sangh0]

86. Would it really?

I do think that the more we and everyone else (including Kerry) speaks about this, the more the debate shifts to where we want it to be. However, we're not talking about everyone here. We're talking about John Kerry. Do you really think that a statement from Kerry will be able to shift the debate in a way that helps prevent SHaron from going through with his plans?

Also, a statement of opposition from Kerry could possibly end up hurting the Palestinians by making it more difficult, if not impossible, for Kerry to be elected.

That may be true, but an alternative statement won't hurt the people we want to help...

See above. I would argue that such a statement could hurt the Palestinians because it might result in Kerry being defeated on election day.

We've gotta start somewhere in order to stave off the insanity of I/P....

I agree, but for me, the issue here is whether *this* is the place to start. IMO, if it doesn't lead to any improvement, it doesn't lead to any improvement. I would love to see Kerry *DO* something about this that actually helps, but I won't accept a futile statement that helps no one as a suitable replacement. I want the real thing. I want real change.

[IrateCitizen]

87. You say you want change...

... but you're so overly cautious about endorsing any means by which to get there, that it becomes impossible.

Please reread my post. I am talking about couching criticisms of Sharon in language that still maintains emphasis on the security of the nation of Israel. Kerry gets to play BOTH sides of the card by first taking a different stance from that of Bush and Sharon, and second by linking that stance to a genuine concern for the long-term security of Israel.

Kerry has a bully pulpit right now. I also realize he will have one as President. But for him to speak out on this is not a "futile statement" like you so blithely dismiss it as being. Rather, it is a genuine attempt to propose a DIFFERENT solution to an OLD problem, because the OLD solutions obviously aren't working.

That, sangha, is how CHANGE starts. So ask yourself, do you REALLY want change, or do you want to instead talk about how you want change while arguing against any means by which to achieve it?

[sangh0]

90. Not cautious. I just want a reasonable chance of progress

I am talking about couching criticisms of Sharon in language that still maintains emphasis on the security of the nation of Israel. Kerry gets to play BOTH sides of the card by first taking a different stance from that of Bush and Sharon, and second by linking that stance to a genuine concern for the long-term security of Israel.

I understand that, but I don't think the political environment in the US at this time would allow the sort of nuanced debate you describe. It's campaign time, which means bumper sticker slogans and horse race analogies. In their desire for a simple story line, the media will focus on any differences and ignore anything that doesn't support the story of Bush* v Kerry.

And I don't think Kerry has a bully pulpit right now. Though he does have the ability to get media attention, he doesn't get to dictate the story line the way a President does. And while he can propose a different solution to the problem, IMO campaigns are a very bad time to explain anything more complicated than a bumper sticker.

Furthermore, I think you might be discounting the number of people who fully support a "strong" Sharon-type policy for dealing with the Palestinians. It's not just conservative and orthodox Jews. I have plenty of Gentile friends who fully support Israel and Sharon, and they're not Republicans. They're NYC Democrats.

That, sangha, is how CHANGE starts. So ask yourself, do you REALLY want change, or do you want to instead talk about how you want change while arguing against any means by which to achieve it?

I disagree. I can't think of many changes that originated from a politicians statement, particularly a pol's statement that was made while in the middle of a campaign, but I could be missing somethign.

IMO, real change is usually the result of a broad-based grass roots social movement, and those are usually started by private citizens, not politicians.

[G_j]

27. .... Proposal Undermines Peace and International Law

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0415-14.htm

Published on Thursday, April 15, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Bush Endorsement of Sharon Proposal Undermines Peace and International Law

by Stephen Zunes

President George W. Bush's unconditional endorsement of right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan constitutes a shocking reversal of longstanding U.S. Middle East policy and one of the most flagrant challenges to international law and the integrity of the United Nations system ever made by a U.S. president.

By giving unprecedented backing for Israeli plans to annex large swaths of occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank in order to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements, President Bush has effectively renounced UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which call on Israel - in return for security guarantees from its Arab neighbors - to withdraw from Palestinian territories seized in the June 1967 war.

All previous U.S. administrations of both parties had seen these resolutions as the basis for Arab-Israeli peace.

These Israeli settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deem it illegal for any country to transfer civilian population onto territories seized by military force. UN Security Council resolutions 446, 455, 465 and 471 call on Israel to remove its colonists from the occupied territories
..more..
--------

[NoPasaran]

35. There's a lot Idon't like about Kerry

And this is one more item on that list. But...

Kerry is not going to make reversing Roe v. Wade a litmus test for the Supreme Court justices he will get to appoint.

[Robbien]

38. As an ABB, this does change my mind

There has been so many compromises so far because I have strong disagreements with the DLC platform. This is a dealbreaker. Unless something happens in the next six months that brings me back to my ABB stance, I will be dropping out and not voting come November. I really cannot support this.

Sorry.

[K-W]

40. No one is asking for your personal moral support.

We are asking for you, as a citizen of this country, to exercise a right that people have died for. Our system isnt perfect, its downright horrible in some cases, but it is the only system we have right now. So work outside the system to change society, hell work to change the system, but never stop using the little political power you have because you confuse intelligent voting with some kind of ideological test of charecter.

[Robbien]

44. What power? Vote for someone who is going to oppress a

whole nation of citizens? I cannot do it. Voting either R or D will not help those people.

No, I will not do it. You can oppress them by voting for their oppressor, but I will not.

[JCMach1]

46. There is enough terrorism and oppression on both sides

It appears to me that Kerry is ACTIVELY taking a side... that' s the problem when it comes to peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. Kerry is taking the side of an american ally

Go figure.

[IrateCitizen]

59. But when that ally is looking to shoot themselves in the foot...

... do you express support with their program to do so, or do you possibly point out that their very actions may be provoking the kind of events that their people largely would want to avoid?

You seem to advocate the former. Personally, I'll stick with the latter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. I don't see this as shooting themselves in the foot

Israel has no leader to negotiate with in the Palestinian camp. Until it does, acting unilaterally is the only way to go.

[IrateCitizen]

72. You mean, there's no Israeli/US - appointed leader...

It's quite a convenient cycle they have here. First, carry out "reprisals" on Palestinian security forces for "endorsing terrorism" -- knowing full well that it will provoke a terrorist response. Then, admonish Palestinian authorities for failing to deal with terrorism -- in spite of the fact that you're just killed off their security forces -- and use it as a pretext for sending troops in.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Likewise, do everything you can to discredit the Palestinian leadership (last I checked, Arafat was still their leader for better or worse), and then use lack of leadership among the Palestinians as a pretext for acting unilaterally.

It's quite an amazing racket they've set up here, when you think about it!

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Yes, Arafat is the leader, hence no leadership

He had a chance at peace and chose terror not negotiation.

As for the rest of your post, I could change the names and turn it around and blame it on the Palestinians quite easily. The two sides are locked in a cycle of violence. Israel can't ignore attacks on civilians. To do so is suicide.

[IrateCitizen]

81. Israel is exhibiting the most basic definition of insanity...

That is, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Israel can't ignore attacks on civilians. To do so is suicide.

I agree. But the real question arises as to what you do about it. Whatever Israel has been doing lately, it obviously ain't workin'.

Or does it become a matter of machismo and honor, that one cannot be seen as "backing down" to the other?

I readily acknowledge that there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue. But it is also important to acknowledge that Israel chose during the 1970's and 1980's to actually assist in the cultivation of the more extreme elements among the Palestinians out of fear that a moderate movement would actually generate international support against their policies. Israel helped to further the establishment of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in order to discredit Fatah. We now see what the results of that are.

Furthermore, Israel is the side that is negotiating from a position of strength. Therefore, the impetus is on them to take the first step to break the pattern of violence. Under a vile gangster like Sharon (and I use that term willingly, because that's what he is) the likelihood of that happening is almost nil, unfortunately.

[Muddleoftheroad]

94. It takes two for this dance

And Israel's actions are indeed mandated in part by its enemies.

And while this approach "ain't workin'" there is no evidence any other approach would either.

No, the impetus is NOT on Israel to take the step. The Palestinians want a state. The pressure is on them to change things or they risk having their dreams put off for decades.

[IrateCitizen]

47. It may not help THOSE people, but it will help plenty of others

You're allowing yourself to ignore the forest for the trees. I readily admit that there is plenty that Kerry is proposing that I am less than enthusiastic about. But I also can say with complete confidence that there are more than enough areas in which he is a substantial improvement over * that I will have absolutely no problem voting for him.

Before you decide not to pull that lever, ask yourself what you think will happen in a second Bush term, where they are no longer constrained with concerns over re-election. You can kiss just about every major societal advance of the 20th century goodbye -- the country will be on the path back to the days of McKinley!

[K-W]

48. It is possible that voting R or D will not help those people.

I think that isnt true, clearly the parties and candidates would approach it with some differences. I think your real point is that on this particular issue neither of the two major parties is remotely close to a correct position.

Now if this was the only issue that matttered in this election, you would be right. If we were voting solely on the middle east platforms, I would be behind you here.

But that isnt the case, there are alot of issues, domestic and abroad where the Dems and Republicans and bush and Kerry differ substantially.

So because you cant help one group of people you choose not to help whole other groups of people whos lives would be significantly better under a Kerry administration. Think of those people. If you are someone who cares about the lives of other people, you must vote Kerry. Refusing to use your political power to get him elected is tantamount to saying you dont at all care about the many people who will benefit from a Kerry presidency.

[Robbien]

55. This is not the only issue

There are so many issues Kerry supports that I do not but for all the reasons you three have stated, I planned on holding my nose and pulling the D lever.

I will say this one more time, this is a deal breaker. The final issue that cannot be compromised.

For the last three months I have been concerned over the Democratic candidate and have done a lot of soul searching. But kept coming back to my ABB stance.


But not now. For the last time, this is straw/camel/back.

[K-W]

60. No one is asking you to compromise. There is no compromise involved.

VOTING IS NOT AN IDEOLOGICAL TEST

Our society is setup in a way that affords you a certain amount of political power through your vote. This is a mechanism in a flawed system that nevertheless gives you some power over the government.

It is not a question of your values, or asking you to fully endorse a candidate as following all your ideas and morals.

You are lucky enough to have even this limited power in government. You get to choose between two options for an important part of the government. Very clearly one of those choices would result in a government that was overall better for our nation and the world.

So by choosing not to vote, you are saying you refuse to take this opportunity to make the country and the world a better place simply because it cases you some ideoligical trauma when you cant seperate voting for a man from personally endorsing him.

[Robbien]

73. And what if I do not now feel that by voting this world will be better?

And yes, many compromises have been required to keep the ABB position.

Up to now I have felt that most of the things with which I do not agree in Kerry's platform have only been put there to get the swing voters. I have been keeping a hope alive in my heart that these issues will not be supported once he is in office. But now I do not see how Kerry will change anything substantially from what is currently happening.

For me the hope is now gone.

I will work on a local level but when November comes the Presidential slot will remain blank on my ballot. I will keep watching the process up until then hoping that something Kerry does will bring me back to the ABB stance and I will fulfill my promise of driving people to the polls. But my time, money and vote will only go for my local Dems.

[K-W]

85. If you dont think Kerry will be better for the world than bush...

than I dont know what to tell you. Just that I, and most everyone here disagrees with you.

The word compromise implies that you are giving up something. Voting for Kerry is not a sacrifice for you. There is no compromise involved.

What you have done is tangled up voting as some kind of measure of your political ideology. That isnt what voting is. Voting is execising a little influence on the machine of government that has so much power in our society. If we all join together and keep our little bit of power over that machine, we as a group can steer it. But that goal will never be accomplished unless we all go out and vote. The machine is big and we can only push it so far, but it is still worth the effort to get it that far.

[fob]

42. Just imagine for a minute a lame duck bush* in December of 2008

with pardon powers.

I for one don't care how Kerry "runs", it's when he wins and how he governs that I care about.

Remember bush* ran as a liberal(aka compassionate conservative) and has governed so far right he lapped himself in 2002!

Get the friggin' man in office, I GUARANTEE you will like his policies more than shrubs*, and we can all push on him to listen to us, unlike shrub* who doesn't even listen to his counterterrorism experts!!

[ACK]

49. Because Kerry has the capacity to change his mind

Bush does not.

[JCMach1]

50. MY HOPE= he is a flipflopper on this one

:)

[KoKo]

53. JCMach1, I just wrote a reply to you as a post here in Campaign 2004 Forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x502081

Since, I've dealt with the same issues you have. See what you think.

[goclark]

61. Kerry says "he thinks"

To me that leaves him more wiggle room to wait until the dust settles on this.
I am ABB and all of his thugs.

My thoughts are...

Would we rather have Bush in office monitoring the Israel situation or have Kerry?

Would we rather have Kerry working WITH other nations to solve problems or Bush working without other nations?

Bottom line is that Kerry is a politician and he is saying some things to get elected.

To me, I'm with Kerry.

[rinsd]

62. Kerry's view is the Dem view.

Al Gore:

"Al Gore, the US vice- president, said in one of his recent speeches before the American-Jewish lobby AIPAC, that UN Resolution 181 (which grants Palestinians the right of return to their homeland) is no longer a valid document."

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special99/pal-grief.htm

Bill Clinton:

Clinton used the right to return as a bargaining chip in his negotiations and stated that the Palestinians should take it off the table to forward the process.

Jimmy Carter:

Endorsed a plan with a severe limitation of the return of refugees

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-11-02-carter_x.htm

[JCMach1]

66. ALAS, the real problem AIPAC

:(

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. The problem is the right of return would destroy Israel

Recognizing that is reality.

[IrateCitizen]

74. And maintaining West Bank settlements will inflame violence

Recognizing that is reality as well. So long as Sharon insists on carving the West Bank up into a series of bantustans without any hope of a viable Palestinian state, the violence WILL NOT STOP.

I think that the Right of Return is more of a bargaining chip than anything else -- and that if the settlements were disbanded and pre-1967 borders restored, along with the formation of an independent Palestinian state, the right-of-return would pretty much be negotiated away.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. It's the Mideast, EVERYTHING inflames violence

Arafat had a chance to negotiate a Palestinian state, he chose terror instead. He won't get that good of a bargain again.

If the Palestinians treated the right of return as a bargaining chip, that would be one thing. They don't. As for the other things, they could even get most of them. Jerusalem is the other major sticking point and Israel won't relinquish it.

[JCMach1]

75. What WILL destroy Israel is NOT having Peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. There is no action or actions Israel can take

Short of complete surrender or mass suicide that will guarantee peace.

[JCMach1]

84. So, we should give up?

That's what the Sharon plan offers...

[Sliverofhope]

77. Just keep repeating the mantra

judicial appointments, judicial appointments.

[rucky]

83. Here's why it's not a dealbreaker

Vote for Kerry. Kerry gets elected. Sharon's plan goes through.

Don't vote for Kerry. Bush gets elected. Sharon's plan goes through. We suffer 4 more years of Bush.