Dean Continues His Version of An "Evenhanded" Approach To Mideast Peace

I have bitched about it before, but Dean makes it sound really nice to have all the burden shouldered by Palestinians. Unfortunately, Palestinians get nice words, while Sharon gets promised 4x the military aid used to kill them. I had hoped that the progressive base of his grassroots would have changed his mind, but apparently they've only changed his language.

Here is a perfect example of how Dean demands an end to violence only from Palestinians, while Israel is told to take care of them like a child.

"Dean said the Palestinian leadership will have to make the decision to abandon violence and dismantle terrorist infrastructure while Israel should do all it can to alleviate Palestinian suffering and spur economic development."

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/73328.html

Let's see that again:

"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.

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.

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

...And again:

When they have bothered to state them, the Administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel.

Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years. To be viable, the Palestinian Authority must become democratic and purged of corruption.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

Can anyone tell me that this truly represents an "even-handed" principle behind Mideast peace?

Whereas this seems far more true to the slogan:

"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/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Palestinian state. I would bet that doesn't exist.

This is my most important issue- my litmus test if you want and the only one who hasn't disappointed me is Kucinich. He's also the only one being endorsed by the Arab and Jewish peace groups.

For the record, I did not consider Clinton even-handed either. We have always been partial to Israel and that partiality has been the kiss of death for peace in the Middle East.

What an absolute mess. Thank you Britain and America with your dreams of colonialization and destabilization of the Middle East. You've succeeded and now the entire world is about to blow up. Wonderful. We can't even run an election in this country without being affected by your colonialist lust.

http://www.aaiusa.org/kerry.htm#Isr

In a speech at Georgetown University in January 2003, Kerry discussed his view of the conflict. “Israel's security will be best assured over the long term if real and lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East…the majority of the Israeli people understand and expect that one day there will be a Palestinian state. Their frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental building block of the peace process.” Kerry declared that “Israel is our ally…and we know that Israel as a partner is fundamental to our security… America has always been committed to Israel's independence and survival - we will never waver.” Kerry told USA Today in April 2002 that if “the United States has a right to respond in Afghanistan to suicide bombers in New York City, and we do, then Israel has a right to respond to suicide bombers in the West Bank.” He believes that dismantling settlements on the West Bank must be included in a peace agreement, but that Israel should not give them up “unilaterally and before the fact.”


Recently, Kerry criticized Howard Dean for stating that "it's not our place to take sides" in the conflict." Kerry called this "a radical shift in United States policy toward the Middle East. If the president were to make a remark such as this it would throw an already volatile region into even more turmoil


end of quote

Please, oh please point out the huge difference here. I don't see a call for an end to Israeli violence. Do you?

"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/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

I think that pretty much covers "Israel should not give them up 'unilaterally and before the fact.'"

I think that also covers "maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security."

The truth is that we will always favor Israel, and we should for several reasons, most importantly geopolitical. However, an imbalance of interest in Israel does not proclude parallel concessions (as Kucinich would point out, as well).

As for ending Israeli violence, he calls for a "series of confidence building steps" on both sides. Waiting for Palestinians to lay down their weapons alone does no one any good (except Sharon and possibly Arafat). That is the whole point of parallel concessions - you do not wait for some magical "Peace" to exist before you do anything. Both sides must stop the violence, but you keep the end goal in sight if one of them does not.

The main difference is Dean is giving them triangulated happy words while secretly dealing with Sharon, whereas Kerry is calling it exactly as it is without pandering betrayals of his audiences.

has every right to go after suicide bombers is unclear. It is the retaliations for those that make up most of the Israeli violence. By definition he is requiring Palestinians to end the violence first.