Sign The Petition To Change Dean's Mind On The Palestinian Occupation

As members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, The Green Party, Progressives, Independents, and other parties interested in your candidacy, we would like to express our deep reservations regarding your stated positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Based on speeches and interviews given last year and early this year, you spoke often of the Israeli victims of terror, yet you failed to acknowledge the three-fold number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces, or the Israeli military's incursion and illegal occupation of large portions of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

<>

These incendiary actions by the Israeli military have fueled much of the animosity in the region, and they must be acknowledged in any fair assessment of the situation. It is also important to recognize that the expropriation of land and settlement activities have been repeatedly condemned by the U.N. Security Council, and the United Nation's General Assembly has determined that Israel's occupation of the territories have "no legal basis".

<>

<>

Additionally, in an interview with The Forward earlier this year, you stated that your views are closer to AIPAC's (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) than APN's (Americans for Peace Now). We view AIPAC's positions as more hawkish and one-sided, resembling the vision of the neocons within the Bush administration; and APNs as multilateral, reaching out to all sides of the conflict. We understand that statements can be taken out of context and misread. Can you clarify this statement?

http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/deanpetition/

<>

<>

Please either remove that first image or put a "graphic image" alert in your subject line. I for one don't appreciate being surprised by that kind of visual horror over breakfast.

Thanks!
Paschall

Only pictures of implied horror remain for your breakfast.;-)

I have a good imagination. I can conjure up plenty of images of dismembered children without the actual digital evidence. (Good luck with the petition, by the way. :thumbsup: )

Whether you look away, skip breakfast or send Dean a telegram of congratulations for his committment to make sure you keep paying for it, it goes on happening, day after day, and those to whom it happens do not have the luxury of looking away, nor do they suffer from a surfeit of breakfast.

have any of you tried actually asking him about it ? and why you feel or think the way you do ? maybe he is not totally informed of the situation.

It is identical to the position of the bush regime.

This is the policy that he or any other candidate must maintain in order to get any AIPAC money, or any of several other flavors of PAC money.

It is a policy that transcends branches of the US corporate party, theology or religious affiliation.

It is not a policy that is in the interests of Americans and Israelis whose financial stake in the oil and petroleum industries is miniscule or non-existent.

...not being subjected to bloody images without being forewarned. Obviously, I know that changes nothing about the situation for the people suffering on the ground. Post all the graphic images of the horror we and our allies are inflicting you want, but please warn people so they know what to expect when opening a thread. That's all I ask.

That this particular aspect of the culture of affluent Americans, purchasing and otherwise causing horrific deaths and injuries to human beings, while insisting that it is offensive to them to even see images of the consequences of their decisions, is not one that many people are anxious to accomodate.

Most people in the world, even the poor in the US, see horrible things every day. Those things are an inescapable reality of life.

Also, I think the petition to Dean or any of them is a worthy gesture, and shows that there are at least some people who do not support it, either due to their moral character, or great enough intelligence to understand that it is not in their long term interests, but the petition has been going around for 3 weeks and has 700 and some signatures.

Even if it had 20 thousand, people should not be disappointed if it does not have an effect on Dean's position.

Candidates need money.

maybe dean's position has nothing to do with money and he really supports it. as i said before, can you be sure he actually understands the situation and what your views are and why ?

Are you suggesting that he merely copied it, unaware and uninterested in the flagship, the jewel in the crown, the foundation stone of all US foreign policy for the last 50 years?

Unconditional funding and "support" for the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people is the single issue than more than any other, defines the United States for a very hefty chunk of the world's population.

Is it your belief that Dean or any other individual who considers himself to be a candidate for the office of President would have given no thought to his position on this issue before publishing his official views?

Or do you mean to imply that Dean, like Gary Bauer, is ideologically committed to the notion of hastening Armageddon in order to hurl the Jews into a lake of fire?

We have met before, on Agonist.

I liked you then, and continue to like you, and your criticism is warranted.

I think the following:

1) Dean's position as currently stated IS similar in many ways (but not identical) to Bush's, and that is a shame, and should be addressed one way or the other.

I do not agree with this stance, but it is considered to be the "safe" stance for the moment, on an issue that is incredibly hot, prickly, difficult, and dangerous.

There is not ONE candidate from the Dems who posits a position on Israel that I support in full, not one. Not even Kucinich, sorry.

http://www.kucinich.net/issues/issue_middleeast.htm

I declare my support for the State of Israel and for the security of the Israeli people. I also declare my support for a Palestinian state and for the security of the Palestinian people. So I will vote present today because I believe the security of Israel requires the security of the Palestinians.

I will vote present because I believe the United States can do better through honest brokering, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence.

Both of us know that the two-state solution and "peaceful coexistence" or "mutual security" is NOT the answer. Both of us know that NONE of the Democratic candidates offer anything beyond nicely turned phrases and empty rhetoric on what may be the thorniest problem of the 20th and 21st centuries. Both of us know that the ONLY answer (other than internecine terror and war and civil strife ending in extermination of one population or the other) is the single, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious proportionally representative secular region/nation run by the vast bulk of both Israeli and Palestinian working people, unions, and progressives. And both of us know that this will not happen without a severe and complete shakeup in the entire region.

No, you cannot single out Dean for this...they ALL do this and support this, and ALL of them are wrong.

Second,

2) Just because the dean and Bush (and Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Graham, Edwards, Gore, Hart, Clark, and etc) positions are similar does not mean that the position is necessarily a good or bad one - Bush's "stated policy" on the middle east in general is one of the promotion of democracy and blah blah blah...well, gee, I am all for that!

The question is do you BELIEVE bush?

If Bush and Dean share similar Rhetoric, does that make them qualitatively or quantitatively the same?

No.

If Kucinich and Dean and Bush and Kerry and Gore and Clinton and Clark and Hart and Dole and Powell and and and share the same position, does that make them all right or all wrong?

No...the policy and the person and the believability and the plan are all different...and they ARE all wrong about the two-state solution....but that is neither here nor there.

you assume he understands the situation of the palestinians. maybe all he knows is that israelis are getting killed by suicide bombers and therefore israel is the victim and needs help. maybe he just does n't k now the palestinian side of it. that's why i'm asking if any of you actually ever asked him about that specifically.

I'm safely assuming that you were against the war in Iraq. Was the suffering of the Iraqis "inescapable?"

"Candidates need money."

I am finding myself more and more disquieted by Dean supporters willingness to twist themselves into all sorts of contortions to justify his actions.

With that being said, I think people need to really think more about Dean's actual position on this subject. The people who take issue with this are not looking at Dean's actual vision, which is a 2 state solution with a Democracy for Palestinians. That is what he wants. He has clearly stated that is what he envisions and wants to see happen. Isn't that what those upset with Dean on this issue ALSO wants? I don't think anyone takes issue with his ultimate goal...but rather their opinions differ on what steps to take to actually reach that goal. How many of you know that Dean actually went to Israel and toured places and talked to people? Also keep in mind that the tour was hosted by Israel. What do you think he saw and what do you think he didn't see? He's basing his views on what he saw, period. Rather than attacking him about his position, why don't you try politely pointing out that both sides of this conflict are guilty of wrongdoing? You can't just blame Israel no more than you can just blame Palestinians. Both sides are out of control and killing each other and neither side can claim the higher ground here. You don't change people's opinions by attacking and making demands in a rude fashion. Instead, you change them with fairness and providing information. There is NO doubt in my mind that Dean will take a VERY proactive role in making peace and a Palestinian state a reality in the region. Realistically, before that can happen the citizens on both sides being held hostage by the violence are going to have to say enough is enough and stand up to the idiots among them to stop it. Palestinians have to stand up to those of their own who terrorize. Israelis have to stand up to those of their own who dehumanize, discriminate and terrorize. Until the people who live in the mess take a firm stand against those who are the problem, nothing anyone elsewhere does is going to resolve the problem. Just for the hell of it, let's say the US stops supporting Israel. What do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you...it will be equivalent to dropping off a lone black man at a 1960 KKK rally and walking away. Where's the morality in that? Yes, we need to do what we can to influence Israel to stop the crap. But likewise, those who honestly care about the Palestinian people need to do what they can to influence Hamas and the like. It's a two way street, a mess and is going to take a heck of a lot more than withdrawing support to Israel. This is coming from someone who finds the images of suicide bombings and the images of Qana equally disturbing and sad. There needs to be a fair balance...and blaming one side over the other for the violence is not fair or balanced. There are better ways.

I have avoided this issue and the board about them, because I consider myself to be on the side of the ordinary Palistineans and Isrealis who want to live their lives with some degree of normalcy. I think that that is the majority on both sides, and I think that both opposing sides are equally responsible for trashing the lives of all of the people in that region.
I have also been one who has believed that a two-state solution is the most promising politically with a competent diplomatic facillitator. The fact that Dean wants to bring us back to a place where pre-emption is no longer acceptable, certainly would go a long way towards increasing my confidence in his competence. His stated goal for foriegn policy is to regain our status as healer of conflicts. It seems to me that these ideas could have potential for a positive outcome.

"Just for the hell of it, let's say the US stops supporting Israel. What do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you...it will be equivalent to dropping off a lone black man at a 1960 KKK rally and walking away. Where's the morality in that?

Yes, we need to do what we can to influence Israel to stop the crap. But likewise, those who honestly care about the Palestinian people need to do what they can to influence Hamas and the like. It's a two way street, a mess and is going to take a heck of a lot more than withdrawing support to Israel."

I don't know of anyone suggesting leaving Israel high and dry. Progressives are looking to return balance to this issue. The Palestinian attacks are atrocious, and should be roundly condemned, but not while remaining silent over Israeli atrocities ("the crap" as you put it).

Dean is looking to boost Israeli military aid from $1 billion to $4 billion. With three billion dollars, you could begin to grow the Palestinian trade market, giving these people jobs and hope. That is what Kerry plans on doing. I'm sorry that Dean does not share his positive vision.

In all fairness...he DOES have the same goal. I can almost guarantee you that if someone presented Dean with the kind of information routinely missing in our press he'd most likely have something more to say about the issue.

Face the facts, Funk...openly criticizing Israel is political suicide. There is a lot that can be done behind the scenes, but no politician can come out too harshly on Israeli aggression without being labelled a Jew hater. If Kerry is really taking a pro Palestinian stand he's "Dead In The Water"...just like the USS Liberty and Cynthia Mckinney. Those are the facts. Dean is fair and he'll do everything he can to resolve the mess there. But like I said in the other post...it's not going to work until the people held hostage by the violence has had enough and rises up against it.

Being Pro-Palestinian (by which you imply anti-Israel) and being truly fair. But fairness is not even the central issue. Sadly, I think everybody would be happy if the Palestinians got an unfair shake, but were content enough to end the violence.

The real issue is who can truly bring the peace process forward. Dean's ridiculously slanted bias will not do the job. Even Dean supporters famous for looking the other way admit that this is a real problem.

Truly parallel concessions are the only way to stabilize the situation. Stability is what peace means in the Mid-East, because there will never be a total cessation of violence. Waiting around for the absolute abscence of violence only benefits the agendas of extremists on both sides - Hamas and the Likud party.

I will not even go into the problems with the construction of the wall Dean supports. Even the Bush administration(!) has problems with that.

And check out the link I posted earlier today. Kerry is just as friendly to AIPAC as Dean is. I agree that the fence isn't fair. At the same time, I understand why people in Israel want it. If I lived there I'd want it too under the current circumstances. If it does something to prevent terror attacks then hopefully the peace process can move forward. I definitely wouldn't want to see it be permanent, because that would be absolutely horrible. Bottom line, Funk...neither you or I are living there. It's all good and well to see the tragedy and want fairness and peace...but we really aren't in any position to judge either side of this conflict. Our country once had the same kind of mentality towards blacks, and through a peaceful struggle (for the most part) things began to change. We grew up as a nation. Both Israel and the Palestinians are going to have to do the same thing. Fighting oppression with violence has never accomplished anything. Taking the higher ground has accomplished a lot. Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr just to name two. As long as the Palestinians fight violently instead of peacefully it makes it damn near impossible to figure out who's the victim and who's the aggressor in the whole mess. One side has to just stop it, and I don't foresee it being Israel who will do that. Do you want to help Palestinians? Really help them? Send some of our Civil Rights activists over there to teach them what works and a better way to change things.

Jesse Jackson came back alive.

<>

I won't post the aftermath, but this was the tragic scene of her death:

<>

http://www.texemarrs.com/rachel_corrie.htm

I agree that non-violence is the only real solution. But, as you've said, we are not aware of the true day to day struggles on either side. It is easy to call for non-violence when it isn't your baby sister or neighbor killed in an explosion.

I share almost all of your sentiments straight to the bone, except for one sentence towards the end:

"One side has to just stop it, and I don't foresee it being Israel who will do that."

I think you agree with Dean, but I simply do not agree with that statement. I don't think you will ever completely "stop" the violence. However, you can take measures to ensure stability and work towards a place where both sides are reasonably satisfied with the situation.

I'm pretty informed about the whole mess over there. Moreso than most. If the Palestinians want things to change there is only one thing they can do...stop the violence on their side. Yes, Israel is going to try to provoke a terror attack by building more settlements and bulldozing more homes. That's a given. It serves the Israeli government's purpose to provoke a terror attack and then point their finger and demonize Palestinians. But let's be realistic here, shall we? What is going to look more barbaric to the average American citizen...a terrorist attack on civillians or what looks like "cracking down on terrorists"? Keep in mind that our media gives some pretty heavily slanted coverage in favor of Israel.

Bottom line is this...Palestinians have GOT to handle this in a better way. Sending their freaking future (youth) out to blow themselves up and take as many Israelis as they can with them is NEVER going to better their situation. N-E-V-E-R. They need to stop all violence so the world can see beyond any reasonable doubt that they are being victimized and discriminated against. Every time a suicide bomber strikes they take two damn steps backwards. Sure, it will take swallowing their pride and standing up to Hamas and the like...but inevitably, that's what MUST be done because Israel is NOT going to take the higher ground here. They should, but they won't. That's the reality and that's what the Palestinians are left to ponder.

Listen Funk...Dean is a damn good man. And he's fair. Sit down and write him a concerned yet polite letter. Give him some facts and cite some resources. Ask him to look into what you tell him and ask for him to tell you what he would do to help the Palestinians held hostage by this mess. That's the thing with Howard Dean...he DOES care what voters think. If you write a thoughtful, fair letter I think you'll get a response. If you try that and aren't satisfied with the outcome, then would be the time for a petition. You've got to leave some room for the possibility that he just doesn't have enough information or like most Americans, have gotten somewhat one-sided information. You've also got to understand that he (and no politicians for that matter) are going to be in a position to help Palestinians if they piss off pro-Israel Americans...which is the second most powerful political group right behind the NRA. I've watched Dean lead for a very long time...and he's not in the least bit afraid to take big political risks when the time is right to do so. One thing is for certain...he will most definately set out to do everything in his power to make a Palestinian state a reality. I also think he'd get there a lot quicker than anyone else would because he will NOT hem and haw and dicker...he'll just get the job done. That's been one of his hallmarks here in Vermont.

It also seems as if you're on a one man mission to portray Dean as something he's really not. My reaction to that has been to get the urge to do the same with your candidate. I don't think that's the way to go because in the end, it's going to take the supporters of all the candidate to pull together behind the nominee and defeat Bush. We shouldn't be alienating each other with needless negativity when any of the candidates would be a far cry better than the joker we're currently stuck with.

Which I do believe, and I have said on several occasions. At the same time, I think he is in over his head regarding foreign relations at a time when it is most crucial that we have someone able to oversee the vast diplomatic and intelligence operations needed to fight stateless terrorism - which Kerry has literally written the book on.

<>

I'm glad that Dean was effective at governing Vermont (without even a major metropolitan area), but all the bedside manners in the world won't do any good without a viable plan. And Dean's plan will not work any more than Bush's will. They both play willing pawns for the Likud party, each for their own reasons.

"They need to stop all violence so the world can see beyond any reasonable doubt that they are being victimized and discriminated against."

You make an understandable mistake of confusing America for the world. If you look at UN resolutions, the world is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. If you watch the BBC, you would realize that. But America has shot down and vetoed countless Security Council resolutions on the issue. It really is amazing to see the record. It is not the world that needs convincing, it is the US President.

I'm not one to say that Dean is the anti-Christ. On most issues, he is startlingly close to Kerry. But although this is not a make-or-break issue for me, it is hardly a minor issue. In fact, it is the centerpiece of the war on terrorism. That's something to think about.

But then I know how he does things and am at an advantage there because I live where I do. He has always surrounded himself with people who not only know their stuff, but who he can trust. The President isn't the foreign policy, national security or military specialist...he's the one who makes the statements that advisors prepare. Sure, Kerry fought in a war, and that makes him know how to, well, fight in a war. It doesn't give him any kind of advantage on national security or foreign policy. He went to Vietnam to fight and then protested when he came back. Dean has also been to Vietnam trying to locate the remains of his brother who was killed there. Kerry didn't deal with the government of Vietnam when he was fighting there, but Dean has off and on for many, many years. Dean has been to about 60 different countries including a good chunk of the Middle East. He also lived abroad for a year. He has a really good grasp on how things work in the rest of the world.

I don't see where Kerry is any stronger on foreign policy than any of the other candidates. In fact, Clark is much stronger in that area than Kerry is. Braun probably is as well with the Ambassador experience. Kerry is a good candidate, too. Most of them are and they all bring something good to the table. In fact, the whole group together would make one hell of a good administration. I just have to stick with what I know is a good thing.

1. The President makes the calls, determines the agenda. Unlike Bush, they are not usually puppets.

2. Actually, Kerry did deal with the government of Vietnam. He led the way for several years to re-establish normalized realtions with Vietnam as a Senator, following his important, though unpopular investigation into POW/MIAs.

3. Didn't anyone tell you that Kerry has spent most of Senate career on the Foreign Relations Committee? Not only that, but that he specifically led the Subcommittee on terrorism? The reason he got that gig? Because Democrats were worried if he stayed on the Iran/Contra investigation (which he began), he just might impeach Reagan. Trust me, I am not making this up.

4. His investigation into drug connections in Panama and Nicaragua that made possible today's understanding of how money is funneled to terrorists.

5. He literally wrote the book on international terrorism.

<>

6. I wouldn't mention Deans trips to the Middle East if I were you. On the other hand, Kerry has been to the Middle East and around the world several times. Both he and his wife speak several languages, having met when he was attending the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to pave the way for the Kyoto treaty (sorry ladies, he's spoken for).

And you're going to tell me that some Governor from a state that doesn't even have a real city is equal to him!?!

Are you saying it was wrong for those who participated in the American Revolution to aimlessly hope for an endless "peaceful settlement?" Or would you be fighting like hell with to drive out the British forces?

Nonviolent movements and peaceful demonstrations work when you are seeking change within your own system of government. It does not work when a people are occupied, and are treated like animals out of vengence. Nor will it work when these people are not treated as citizens, but are having their homes and communities destroyed to provide living space for their occupiers.

If my country was occupied, they would have to kill me before they tore down my home or removed me or my family from my community. I suppose you think the citizens of Israel have a right to steal property, while the Palestinians are murdered and driven away from their communities without any hope of life, liberity, and pursuit of happiness.

America had the means and ability to fight back and be competitive. Palestinians don't have that luxury. That makes for a HUGE difference. I might also note that Palestinians didn't have control of Palestine when this all began...the British did. They had already lost control of their homeland and was never in any position to fight in the first place.

The Palestinians fought alongside the British against the Nazi's in WW II. They allowed millions of Jewish refugees that were fleeing from the holocast into their country. By 1947 they expected the British to live up to their promises of an independant Palestine that had been made since the 1900's. But when the British finally withdrew, they handed control of Palestine to the United Nations rather than to the Palestinians they had occupied.

After the British withdrawal of Palistine, the puppet Prime Minister announced the existance of the state of Israel. The Palistinians were again an occupied people, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Transjordan took action to liberate the Palistinians from the UN and the state of "Israel". When the war was over, the West Bank and east Jerusalem became part of Jordan while the Gaza Strip went to Egypt. Over 700,000 persecuted Palestinian refugees fled to these areas with the hope that they could someday return to their homes.

In 1967 this hope was smashed when Israel attacked Jordan and Egypt, occupying both the Gaza strip and the West Bank. Palestinians have seen their communities, homes, and dreams destroyed with the oppression of the Israeli occupation..and they are being exterminated to create living space for their Israeli brothers.

Just switch teams.

I had already posted that and hope Dr. Dean takes people's concerns to heart and clarifies his position so that there is no ambiguity.

I think that petition is great.

I support Dean for various pragmatic, cynical, and idealistic reasons...and oppose his position on Israel/Palestine.

I think the petition is great for several reasons:

1) It is a grassroots appeal to a grassroots campaigner.

2) It is reasonably "fair and balanced" -- I certainly abhor the Israeli actions and history, but also feel that those actions do not justify or excuse the tactics used by SOME, not ALL, and not a REPRESENTATIVE fraction of Palestinians

3) It provides an excellent chance for Dean to a) address this issue, b) respond to a grassroots appeal, c) shut up his critics -- assuming that he does respond and respond well, of course.

Dr. Funkenstein, Ductape, and others, what say you to a two week waiting period on this?

Let the petition circulate -- I will even post it on the Dean Blog for Dean Members to read, critique, and pass through the Dean Apparatus...

Let's see if Dean can meet the challenge, and address this issue in a way that satisfies his critics and addresses the issues in a rational, decent, and even-handed way.

Of course we all agree that mere words do not mean a whole lot....actions count more. But campaigns are about words and promises...dean can do no more than that right now...

From their official websites

Kerry:

Senator Kerry has long been a staunch supporter of Israel. As he said in his address at Georgetown University, “Israel is our ally, the only true democracy in a troubled region…America has always been committed to Israel’s independence and survival we will never waiver.” He believes that America must be actively engaged in working towards a peaceful solution of the Middle East conflict that ensures Israel’s security while eventually providing for an independent Palestinian State. “American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area,” he said, “but also critical to the success of our own efforts against terrorism.” In order to address the root causes of terrorism, Senator Kerry advocates implementing measures to improve social, economic, and political conditions throughout the Middle East as part of a comprehensive multilateral effort to move the region towards the modern world and away from Islamic fundamentalism. “What we need in the Middle East is an aggressive, proactive, superengaged, leveraged kind of diplomacy that agrees on how we can move them to modernity and in fact invests in it,” he said. “In the next few years, if changes aren’t made, the potential for violence in that region will only increase…We must give countries in the Middle East a reason to want peace.”

Lieberman:

"I'm heartened by news that Prime Minister Abbas has called for an end to the armed intifada and renounced the terrorism that has been the single biggest roadblock to progress in the region. I'm also heartened by Prime Minister Sharon's support for a Palestinian state. As I have been saying for some time, both sides must make sacrifices to move forward, toward the ultimate goal of a strong, secure, Jewish state of Israel alongside a peaceful and sovereign Palestine.

"This is a day of real hope. Now, the real test is whether or not we can translate these promises into concrete progress. Prime Minister Abbas must make a 100 percent effort to stop the violence that has poisoned the well of peace. And Prime Minister Sharon must build on his words with action, helping the Palestinian people build the better future they deserve.

Gephardt:

The United States has a special relationship with Israel and the Jewish people. As president, Dick Gephardt will continue to work tirelessly to foster that relationship and maintain military and economic aid to Israel.

Gephardt will expand federal jurisdiction over hate crimes at home, and he will work to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Gephardt will also re-engage the U.S. in the Middle East peace process which will enhance the long-term security of Israel while combating the intolerable acts of terror that have disrupted diplomacy in the region.

I mean come on...there is NO QUALITATIVE or QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE between Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, or Bush on this issue.

Will you encourage the same "rethink" from Kerry, your fave?

Or will Kucinich supporters encourage him to "rethink"?

How about Lieberman supporters?

Or Gephardt supporters?

So, while I certainly agree with the tone and style of that petition and I have already posted it on the Dean weblog for perusal and response, I think your posting of that petition is rather hypocritical, given the stated position of your candidate.

Or perhaps this is just another childish game of GOTCHA?

It really is repulsive, you know. Dr. Funk, you are far from the worst offender, and there are offenders from all camps...but have you ever stopped to wonder why the Dems are so fractured, why the progressives, lefties and greens are deserting in disgust, and why the Dems have now lost control of governorships, house, senate, executive, and judiciary for the first time in a LONG LONG time?

Perhaps the reason can be found in the childish, stupid, egotistical, irresponsible, inane behavior of multiple, prolific, and extremely annoying posters on this board?

Hmmmm?

to all DU people who regularly frequent this board, from all camps, and from all sides of the spectrum...

If we don't GROW THE F*@K UP, and soon, we will lose agan, and the nation will be that much worse off.

Plain and simple... I'd be suprised if you got a response, Danny.

Ok, listen. I may take Dean to task, but I think he is a good man. He remains my second choice, with good reason. On this issue, though, he is just plain wrong. And Middle East peace is absolutely critical to winning the so-called war on terror. I am glad that Dean opposed the IWR, but that is ultimately in his past. He needs to focus on what he is going to do in the future.

I don't think I am being particularly childish or inane about this subject that concerns me very deeply. It's not like I am talking about cheesesteaks.

And, finally, no matter how much we disagree now, you can be sure that once someone gets the nomination, we will be as one in removing George W. Bush from power.

I do not like what our money is doing to some of these people. To kill or be killed is both bad.

...then he is not qualified to be president. Either he has a spine and opinion or he doesn't. If he polls to find out what he believes he will (and should) be toast.

This is one of many resons the aniti-war crowd will not vote for Dean. He is very biased in favor of Israel. While it is admirable that he is so devoted to his wife (who is Jewish), there are a great many others who could be injured or killed as a result of a biased foreign policy.

Our guy has a Jewish girlfriend and I think his spokesman is Jewish, Gordon is a Jewish name right? last name that is, and I saw a guy named Cohen. I for the record am Catholic.

I thought Gordon was a Scottish name.

but my friend had a Gordon in his class, and he remembers him being Jewish.

So we have to look at why he such a strong bias against the Palestineans. Do you know of any other possible reasons for his bias?

All I am saying is having a jewish spouse or somethin like that aint gonna make you biased, I like Kucinich's even handed view. I am netural I want peace not through massively arming the Israelis/

I know a lot of Jews who support a Palestinean state and who oppose the kind of militaristic apprach Israel's government is using. I was just trying to figure out the possible reasons behind Dean's bias.

The root of it could be his Jewish wife but something tells me no, an even handed policy over there would be best, I read somewhere Archbishop Tutu compared it to Apartheid. I dont know much about it but I assume that it is like Northern Ireland.

why do you say that ? i think he just doesn't understand the situation. to him he sees israelis getting killed by suicide bombers and comments on that. he doesn't see the other side of it.

Dean has the same ultimate goal most here do...a two state solution with democracy for the Palestinians. He's said that over and over again. He went to Israel to tour the country and see for himself how things are. Do you honestly think Sharon was going to let him see the other side of things? Of course not. Dean will be fair...he always is.

DuctapeFatwa and DannyRed among others have rejected the "two state solution" . Like many Palestinians they claim to represent, they don't want peace with Israel. They want Israel destroyed.

Dean isn't going to change his position based on the opinions of a bunch of Muslim Arab fascists. I think this petition is going nowhere.

- C.D.

That Dean needs to learn more about the Palestinian side of the story. I don't think this is the right way to approach it, though. Ultimately, Dean has the righ goal...a two state solution. I think those who are opposing him need to consider this and I don't think many are. The vision a person has is far more important than what they believe is the best path to the goal. Some room needs to be left for that, in my opinion.

With this being said, I do understand the frustration of many people who debate this issue (Israeli/Palestinian conflict). There is so much sensitivity to any criticism of Israel. When someone tries to make a very valid point about the bad behavior employed by the Israeli government they are quite frequently accused of being anti-semetic or jew haters. That just makes the situation worse. Any government should be open to criticism for their behavior. The holocaust was a horrible thing, as is genuine bigotry. But there comes a time when Israel's behavior has to come into question without viewing it as an attack on world jewry. The biggest source of the frustration for those who are critical of Israel is that they feel unfairly labelled and guilted into silence. That's not okay.

Rejecting the two state solution is not the same thing as wanting Israel destroyed.

Don't be reductionist or simplistic...it is not a simple situation, and black/white, good/evil playground rhetoric is stupid.

It is much more "conservative" than democratic...and bids fair to paint you into the Bush camp more than anything else.

"Muslim Arab Fascists"? gimme a freakin' break.

Look at what I advocated.

One state. Proportional representation. Secular government...

How fascist indeed. How destructive, indeed.

Both sides harbor an awful lot of bitterness and distrust. The only way to find a lasting peace is a two state solution. Maybe someday everyone can be unified under one equal for all state...but not from where things stand now. It's going to take a long, long time to heal the rift and it's going to have to be done in small steps. Shooting for anything else is just unrealistic and liable to throw a wrench in any change at all taking place.

Rejecting the two state solution is not the same thing as wanting Israel destroyed.

"Muslim Arab Fascists"? gimme a freakin' break.

Look at what I advocated.

One state. Proportional representation. Secular government...

How fascist indeed. How destructive, indeed.

I was wrong. You're not fascist. You are utterly laughably naive. You have absolutely no clue about the Middle East or its history.

#1 The Palestinians don't want a "secular government". They want an Islamic State. The major representatives have said so repeatedly.

#2 "Proportional representation" only works when you have people who want to live together as a people. Otherwise it's an open invitation to race riot and attempts to claim 'victory by the cradle' (e.g. overpopulate a country to gain political power for your ethnic group) - as happened in Rowanda.

#3 Treaties without honest agreement aren't worth the paper they're written on. Palestinians want to destroy Israel. Go look at the Fatah website if you don't believe me; scroll down to article 19. Remember, Fateh represents the liberals in Palestine.

The state you would impose wouldn't last nearly as long as the Weimar republic. Go back to dreaming.

- C.D.

You are utterly laughably naive. You have absolutely no clue about the Middle East or its history.

Uh huh. Right. Try reading "The Iron Wall" or "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" both by Lenni Brenner. Try checking out some of the material offered by "JewsnotZionists" and other Anti-Zionist Jewish groups. Try looking into some of the writings and programs of the original Zionist leaders and their ideological offspring (Jabotinsky, Gruenbaum, Begin, Sharon, and the rest of the rightwing Likudniks). Try looking into the collaboration between the Zionist militants and the fascisti in Italy and the Nazis. Try looking into the "questions for Zionist leadership" raised by Rabbi Weissmandl in regards to the extermination of Eastern European Jews, and Zionist leaders' active frustration and sabotage of those efforts

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/jo/tpersonality/rweissmandl.html

In short, YOU are, apparently the one who knows very little besides what you read in the newspaper or see on CNN...

That I do not call for the destruction of Israel is due to the fact that the people of Israel do not carry the blame for the idiocy and savagery of the "leaders" who founded a state on land not their own, using blood, bribes, lies, and betrayal to get what they wanted...no. Israel is, and destroying Israel to right the wrongs of the past will only create further wrongs. There are many, many religious and secular Jews, religious and secular Arabs and people of good heart and good spirit from all over the world who know this and work to achieve that goal.

That you refuse to recognize and deal with the historical and political reality, and instead rely on stale, canned, and easily dispensed with propagandistic lies, distortions, inaccuracies, and smears (verging on racist garbage like "Muslim Fascist") does you and the cause you support no credit. None at all.

#1 The Palestinians don't want a "secular government". They want an Islamic State. The major representatives have said so repeatedly.

And you claim that the people you see on TV and read in the news, the people that have the money and access to devoting their time and energy to propagandizing actually represent the Palestinian peoples' wishes?

Talk about naive.

#2 "Proportional representation" only works when you have people who want to live together as a people.

There are plenty of both influential and invisible Palestinians and Jews who most certainly do want to live together as a people. That you have never heard of them or read their work speaks more about 1) the perfidy of the press and the various governments in the region and in the US, and 2) your disinterest in researching and understanding the history and dynamics of the region and your ideological commitment to a poisonous, demographically small, politically and economically powerful subset of the Israeli polity...which is mirrored by a similar subset on the Palestinian side...a subset that has (interestingly) received the most money, attention, and support from ... Israel and the US... why? to break down the socialist and communist workers movements in the region, of course...doh...the cold war was such a success, no?

#3 Treaties without honest agreement aren't worth the paper they're written on.

really? Tell it to the settlers. tell it to Likud. tell it to the water stealers and land grabbers and orchard destroyers and home wreckers. You are VERY good at telling it to the murderers, terrorists, and suicide bombers...and you should be -- I say the same to them that I do to the Israeli equivalent...

Palestinians want to destroy Israel. Go look at the Fatah website if you don't believe me; scroll down to article 19. Remember, Fateh represents the liberals in Palestine.

Uh huh...right...

As I was saying above, crap all over fatah, they do not represent liberals in the least...and they most certainly do not represent the left in the region. They are reactionary nationalists, what do you expect from reactionary nationalists?

You apparently have no interest in actually understanding the issue, the various sides, the history, or the reality on the ground in the region...

So...

FLUSSSSSHHHH down the ideologue toilet you go.

I also understand Dean's apparent position. There's an element of who started what to the Israel/Palestinian conflict that even I can't unravel, and believe me I've tried. This is a level of hatred, pure, intense, and longstanding that most of us cannot fathom.

I have a lot of sympathy for both sides, and as much as I adore my candidate, I don't know which man has the better grasp of that particular issue. I think what makes me place my faith in Kucinich is his personal dedication to peaceful resolutions.

Before I make my final statement, let me say it isn't necessarily a bad thing, just not appealing to me, personally. I have the sense that Dr. Dean would not be quite as reluctant to solve a conflict with military force as Congressman Kucinich would. Again, I can't say that's an automatic flaw, because there are times when armed conflict can NOT be avoided.

Can you back that up with evidence? Where did you get that Dean is "anti-Palestinian"?

WASHINGTON -- On a recent trek around the capital seeking support from pro-Israel lobbyists and Reform movement activists, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean may have been the only non-Jew in the room.

But Dean, the former governor of Vermont, should be used to that. It's the same way in his own home.

Dean, a Congregationalist, has a Jewish wife, and both his children, 17-year-old Paul and 18-year-old Anne, have chosen to identify as Jews.

Passover played a large role in that decision, Dean said in a recent interview.

"We were sort of a mixed family; we do celebrate both Christian and Jewish holidays," Dean said.

"But the family rituals around the seder were what really led them to decide they wanted to be Jewish."

The transition from physician-turned-governor to presidential candidate means learning a lot about foreign policy issues and other hot topics.

He has been aided by a key figure in Democratic and Jewish politics, Steve Grossman, the former president of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, and national chairman of Democratic National Committee.

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

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

Howard Dean (note the one-sidedness):

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.

But none of this will happen naturally. The United States is the only country with the ability to give both sides the confidence to move toward a future of co-existence. Appearances matter, and if we are not engaged, it looks like we simply do not care and that we have condemned the entire Palestinian people because of their leadership. In my view, this hurts the United States, it hurts Israel, and it makes it less likely the violence and the terrorism will end."

Doesn't it hurt the Palestinians, too, Dr. Dean?

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

John Kerry (note the two-sidedness):

"Israel's security will be best assured over the long term if real and lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East. I know from my own trips to Israel that 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.

The Palestinian leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.

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

<>

Last month Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace.” He went on to say that he “did not fully appreciate the scale — how everything is right on top of each other” and that “my assessment also is that terrorism is an enormous problem here and no peace is going to be made as long as the terrorism is going on.” Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

From a Burlington Free Press letter to the editor by former ABC News correspondent Barrie Dunsmore:

“How is it that Gov. Howard Dean has suddenly become a Mideast expert. Evidently he has been in Israel three whole days, learning at the feet of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, on a trip paid for by the American Israeli Political Action Committee. As someone who spent several decades reporting from the Middle East, I am frankly embarrassed for Dean. Does he really think he is going to shore up his lack of foreign policy experience by accepting a free trip from one of this country’s largest Jewish lobbying groups, having a chat with right-wing Prime Minister Sharon and coming out spouting Sharon’s hard line?”

http://www.arabamericanbusiness.com/January%202003/washingtonfile.htm

kick

That is the best you can come up with? A condemnation of violence signed by most of the Democrats in Senate, including its most progressive members (like Kerry)?

There is a slight difference between signing this letter and having an entire trip and tour of Israel sponsored by Political Action Committee. Not to mention meeting several times with the Israeli leadership on that tour and promising to increase military aid. A promise made good soon after, when Dean asked for for 4x the military aid(!) to raise it from $1 billion to $4 billion.

Kerry does not slavishly support the Palestinian cause. Being the opposite of Dean doesn't require that. Kerry is interested in justice. He knows that he cannot overplay his hand, and that he must be careful not to draw the ire of the Israeli supporters in America. But he has done an impressive job within those confines.

That letter asked Bush to refuse to have any kind of meetings with Arafat until Palestinians stopped committing terror attacks. So Kerry thinks that's a good plan? Violence NEVER stops from either side and Arafat doesn't have THAT much influence to stop terror attacks. And what about all the people caught in the middle of this mess? They don't deserve to plead their case to the US just because Hamas and the other groups don't want peace? That's part of the problem, you know. Hamas doesn't want peace any more than Sharon does. As long as the fighting continues each has power and influence. If peace happens there won't be any purpose for either of them. Hamas and the Lukid party are working WITH each other to prevent peace. Seriously. Anyone who tries to leave Hamas and Hamas makes a call to the IDF and turns them in. The IDF kills them. If anyone speaks up against Hamas, they are made an example of by Hamas and killed. Yes, they are "enemies", but both profit greatly by warring with each other, and neither wants it to end. The people caught in the middle and held hostage to the violence, they are the ones who desperately want it to end.

Although the Oslo talks were sabotaged by the subsequent Taba talks, since then Arafat has done little to suggest that he wants to make the reforms necessary to bring the PLO to the bargaining table. Certainly Howard Dean would agree with that, and so would I. The introduction of a Prime Minister position has worked marvelously to get around Arafat's stranglehold on power there. Arafat was not solely responsible for every terrorist attack, of course, but he kept other, more committed figures from attaining any power.

The rest of your commentary suggests that you support Kerry's position that extremists on either side cannot be allowed to control and derail the peace process.

Are you trying to tell me that you believe that Likud, Sharon, Netanyahu, or the other Israeli rightists are committed to peace?

Get real.

Neither one of those sides is committed to peace, because perpetual low-level terror/war is what keeps BOTH of those groups firmly in control of their respective polities.

See?

When he visits Israel. Which was my problem in the first place. Have I gotten real enough for you?

He can't control them. He's the one the Palestinians chose to represent them. Dean agrees that Arafat isn't condusive to peace. Yet he has also acknowledged that Bush can't go around saying things like "Arafat needs to be removed" when he's the leader the Palestinians chose. Palestinians despise Sharon and refer to him as "The Butcher", and his past isn't much better than Arafat's...but that's who Palestinians have to deal with because that's who the Israelis elected.

The problem is that he was suppressing any real challenges to his power, which was not in the best interests of the peace process. He does not need to be "removed," but he does need to be kept from strangling political reform within the Palestinian power structure.

The same with Sharon. Although he is the elected ruler of Israel, we can still make it clear that he does not have a monopoly on the sentiments of Israelis regarding the peace process. We don't need to "remove" him, but there are ways to go around him (I know, fat joke time) and nuetralize the extremist hawks in the Likud party.

Funk, are you good with difficult research and interested in conspiracy theories? If you are, you should dig up what you can about the secret connections and collaboration between the Israeli government and Palestinian terror groups. I know connections exists but haven't been able to find anything written on it. I was told about this by someone very close to this issue but was also told that it was a very complicated and well hidden collaboration that is so bizarre that people would never believe it in a million years.

Although between 9/11 and Afghanistan, I must admit that my normal skepticism was at an all-time low.

In most cases, I believe in the Austin Powers model - why bother with diabolical schemes, when technically-legitimate corporations can do all the thievery with minimal risk, if not perfect impunity?

As for the I/P situation, I don't think there needs to be any actual collaborations to realize that certain groups stand to gain power and influence from an aggravated relationship between the two groups. Hamas has really gained in stature since the beginning of the intifada, and the Israeli land-grab during that time has been bald-faced.

But this information came from someone who was in a position to know. That's the only reason I've had some curiosity about it.

Spirituality is a fundamental for us. I mean, it's the-it is the overpowering, driving foundation of most of the struggles that we go through here on earth, in my judgement. I am a believer in the Supreme Being, in God. I believe, without any question in this force that is so much larger and more powerful than anything human beings can conceivably define.

I think the more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about black holes and the expansion of the universe and the more we learn what we don't know about: our beginnings and-not just of us, but the universe itself, the more I find that people believe in this supreme being. I'm a Catholic and I practice but at the same time I have an open-mindedness to many other expressions of spirituality that come through different religions. I'm very respectful and am interested-I find it intriguing.

I went to Jerusalem a number of years ago on an official journey to Israel and I was absolutely fascinated by the 32 or so different branches of Catholicism that were there. That's before you even get to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. I have spent a lot of time since then trying to understand these fundamental differences between religions in order to really better understand the politics that grow out of them. So much of the conflict on the face of this planet is rooted in religions and the belief systems they give rise to. The fundamentalism of one entity or another.

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

And so I've also always been fascinated by the Transcendentalists and the Pantheists and others who found these great connections just in nature, in trees, the ponds, the ripples of the wind on the pond, the great feast of nature itself. I think it's all an expression that grows out of this profound respect people have for those forces that human beings struggle to define and to explain. It's all a matter of spirituality.

I find that even - even atheists and agnostics wind up with some kind of spirituality, maybe begrudgingly acknowledging it here and there, but it's there. I think it's really intriguing. For instance, thinking about China, the people and their policy-how do we respond to their view of us? And how do they arrive at that view of us and of the world and of life choices? I think we have to think about those things in the context of the spiritual to completely understand where they are coming from.

So here are a people who, you know, by and large, have a nation that has no theory of creationism. Well, that has to effect how you approach things. And until we think through how that might effect how you approach things, it's hard to figure out where you could find a meeting of the minds when approaching certain kinds of issues.

So, the exploration of all these things I find intriguing. Notwithstanding our separation between church and state, it is an essential ingredient of trying to piece together an approach to some of the great vexing questions we have internationally.

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

DrFunk, thanks, I had somehow missed it on Moveon. To those above who seem to think that Dean doesn't know about the atrocities against the Palestinians, I would say if he doesn't, he is willfully blind. To the others, my comment is that I read far too many "well, but he REALLY means" in regard to far too many of his stances.