Better pray that Lieberman is out before the New York primary

[jos]

Because if he's still in, he's going to demagogue the Israeli/Palestinian issue to the hilt just to hurt Dean. And what's worse, he's going to be aided by the New York Post, which loves nothing more than to weaken Democratic candidates and to spew the Likudnick line. I think he's going to be out after the February 3 primaries. But if he isn't, and he rolls into New York, watch out!

Lieberman is on a mission from PNAC/DLC/AIPAC.

[Brucey]

1. I'm not anywhere near worried yet,

I believe Joe's constituency is very small... he has no resonating message, no charism, no presence, and is not good looking or a good speaker. I believe there is no way he'll be on the ticket.

[trogdor]

37. Has anyone in NY taken a statewide poll?

I'd be interested to see how that breaks down. Anyway, there are too many Deanites in NY. Hell, we had 55 show up in Utica, of all places, at the Sept. 3rd Meetup.

The thing is, NY is NOT a winner-take-all state. The question is, how many delegates will Lieberman win. My guess is, Dean owns Upstate by default; he has presence here, and the other eight do not. Besides, people up here relate more to Vermont than they do to New York City. The fact that Lieberman may have more pull down there only adds to Dean's appeal.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Poor Dean

Perhaps he should recall who our allies are then and be less vulnerable on this issue.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. I don't see that he is vulnerable on the issue at all.

There is plenty of disagreement to go around on the issue, but the bottom line is, as a nation, our past strategy has been, historically and presently, a dismal failure. And to be honest, I expect better of any of our candidates than to try to capitalize on what I see as just another form of baiting in hopes to make themselves look better.

In fact, last night pretty much locked in for me that if Lieberman gets the nomination (which he won't), I will be going third party.

[Sinistrous]

7. Yeah, silly Dean.

How ridiculous for him to advocate that the US be a NEUTRAL arbitrator betw the Palestinians and the Israelis. Good gracious, if we were to follow that tack, those people might actually stop killing each other. Can't have that, can we, muddle?

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Yeah, right

Like the Palestinian terror groups will stop killing Israelis just because Dr. Dean says so.

Sure, tell me another story.

[Sinistrous]

9. Have somebody look up "arbitrator"

and have them explain it to you.

"Just saying so" doesn't enter into it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Arbitration doesn't work with terrorists

Somebody needs to explain that to you. And apparently, the good doctor.

[Sagan]

11. And what we've done so far has worked SO well?

You have a right to your opinion, but by choosing sides in the I/P conflict, you essentially abdicate on any thought of a real solution.

So, take Israel's side. What is the outcome of that? Will the Palestinians be broken? Have they yet, after all these years? Take the Palestinian's side. Have they been able to drive the Israelis into the sea?

Only by maintaining a neutral stance and knocking the heads together of BOTH sides will we be able to disenfranchise the fringe elements that are causing this mess. They're both nuts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. I disagree

And will NOT abdicate comment on the matter.

Israel is not being offered peace. It is NEVER being offered peace. All that is happening is that the Palestinians want what they want but no Palestinian leadership is willing to tackle the terrorists.

That means, even if Israel gave every inch of post-1967 ground to the PA, Israel would still face terror.

That's not negotiation, that's stupidity.

Until the Palestinians are willing to shut down the terror for good, they don't belong in the community of nations.

[CWebster]

19. Sharon exploits and incites retaliation

These events are not happening in a void. There is an environment and legitimate Palestinian grievances which contribute to the dynamics - and these facts on the ground must be addressed in order for there to be any progress. Now, you have to ask yourself, do you want safety and security for the future of Israel or do you want to perpetrate a situation where Israel will be despised by the world and hated in the ME, in order to serve American interests benefitting from portraying Israel as eternally beleaguered?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Those are NOT the options

Israel is NEVER offered safety and security. It only gets Palestinian demands, not legitimate offers of peace.

[jos]

24. And all the Palestinians get

is occupation, land confiscation, and illegal settlements.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. When the Palestinians truly offer peace

They should get a free and independent nation. Until then, it is up to them what happens.

[jos]

28. No

Israel is the occupier. It's is "up to them" to make the first move.

They've been occupying the land since 1967. They began constructing the illegal settlements in 1975. There were no suicide bombings until the 1990s. Continued occupation, then violence. So, it is not Palestinian violence that is the impediment to peace. It is the Israeli occupation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Occupier

Sounds like the words of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Except they mean ALL of Israel. And they vow to fight now matter what happens in the territories.

As for the lands taken during 1967, none of the previous nations that occupied them want them back. If a new nation wishes to be granted those lands, I suggest they work together with Israel. Otherwise, they won't ever see that happen.

[jos]

32. "Work together with Israel"

By doing what? Agreeing to be driven off their land? Maybe they can help Israel construct the illegal settlements.

Nice evasion.:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Perhaps they might try fighting terrorism for a change

Not that I really expect they will.

[tinnypriv]

41. Correction

The first settlement in the West Bank was Kfar Ezyon, established in September 1967 (not GOI initiated however)

By 1975 there were already 19 settlements established, with a population of around 3,000 Jewish residents (several GOI initiated).

Bear in mind this excludes East Jerusalem, where settlement began immediately with governmental (Labor) approval.

ITA with the rest. :)

[Liberal Veteran]

31. I don't what I find sadder....

The fact the endless tit for tat cycle of violence continues in the middle east or the fact that we have people that are falling for Lieberman's shameless baiting of another democrat to try to drive a wedge between our solidarity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Solidarity?

I don't see it here, not on this topic. Not today and not any day.

[Liberal Veteran]

44. Perhaps solidarity is just a myth....

But we could sure take a cue from the other side of the aisle when it comes to sticking together. It seems to me that our party damn sure better hang together or we will hang separately. This internecine warfare is hurting our party and as far as I am concerned, Lieberman is contributing to that by trying to capitalize on wedge issues. One of the many reasons I despise him.

[CWebster]

35. Garbage

Israel has a US funded first-class military machine and more foreign aid dollars than any place on earth. It ain't Israeli homes being bulldozed or their farms being razed, their olive groves being torched... The death toll for Palestinians far exceeds those of the Israelis, but it isn't a widely known fact in the US where information is tightly controlled about Israel. And, why is that? Is there something that must be hidden? The more people know, the more they can make an informed judgements, rather than just reacting to the well-orchestrated attempts to cast the Palestinians as the only bad actors in this tragedy.

[Sagan]

20. I never said you should abdicate comment...

I said you essentially abdicate hope of a solution by lining up solidly behind Israel and being intransigent about it. Remember what Austria-Hungary did with the Kaiser's blank check?

Nor am I saying that we should take the Palestinian's side.

What I'm saying is that if we want to even attempt to craft a lasting peace in Israel/Palestine, going about it as staunch Israel partisans is not going to do it. No credibility, you see.

We can help the Palestinians shut down terrorism. But they won't let us if they think we're just puppets of Israel. It's easy to talk in broad swathes about Israel and Palestine, but the devil is in the details.

We have supported Israel through thick and thin for 55 years. Even when they attacked that ship of ours. In many ways, it was definitely in our interests to do so. Now, I'm not sure it is in our best interests to lend blind support to Israel all the time. I'm willing to look at alternatives in order to advance American interests.

I'm not an Israeli citizen. Why should my country always back them up, even to our own detriment?

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Not really true

America hasn't always backed Israel, but onto the other points.

America is the beacon of democracy. Compared to the other nations that surround it, Israel is Plato's Republic. No, Israel is not perfect. But it is a loyal friend and a thriving democracy.

[Sagan]

27. Loyal friend? I don't know about that.

I would go as far as "talented employee". Loyal friends don't spy on you. Loyal friends don't shoot up your ships and kill your sailors.

We GIVE them billions upon billions every year in direct aid. God only knows how much the cost to us is of Israel's "loyal friendship" is to us indirectly. During the Cold War, I would agree with the need to stand behind Israel 100%.

Times have changed. OUR interests have changed. We will encounter the I/P situation in other countries. We are encountering it now in Iraq. We will have to change our way of doing things if we are going to be successful.

Complete unquestioning support of Israel is no longer in America's best interests, in my opinion. I would never abandon them, but it's time to straighten out that I/P situation, which we will NEVER do if we are on one side. It is in our best interests to show the Arab world we can be honest brokers. If we can't do that, then more American troops will die. There will be more terrorist attacks on Americans. It's all one big picture.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Spying

You mean you've never eavesdropped on friends or dates or your spouse? Come on. Israel knows it has enemies here (not just at DU, though here they are fairly obvious), but in the U.S. ALL nations spy to make sure they are not caught unaware. In the case of some nations, that lack of knowledge can cause problems. In Israel's case, it can mean utter destruction.

As for the ship, why not bring up something from a current decade or two or three?

Israel is not an employee, it is a good friend. It has its own interests and own ideas and future. As do we. Fortunately, those intersect to a great degree.

[Sagan]

33. I think our interests are diverging.

It is in our interest to bring a democratic sovereign regime to Iraq. They don't like Israel in Iraq. They won't like them no matter what kind of government they have. And if we are perceived merely as Israel's muscle (which many in the Arab world believe) they're not going to like us all that much.

In fact, that's exactly what is happening right now. This very minute. So there for your current events.

You know, I'd have to look it up, but I can't recall British agents being arrested for trying to steal American secrets. Nor Mexican nor Canadian. Not even those horrible awful French and Germans. But there have been LOTS of Israelis spies caught in the U.S. How many did we NOT catch?

I'm not saying we should screw over Israel. They are a valuable ally. But the fact of the matter is, we're they're only real friend. They should be doing what WE say, not the other way around.

[Northwind]

45. Israel is a friend

That friend that starts fights because he knows you will fight them for him. That friend that always goes out to dinner with you but never gets the check. That friend that dates your sister or your girlfriend behind your back.

Some friend.

[VermontDem2004]

26. And the Isreali government

shouldn't oppress the palestineans and bulldoze houses. Until one of them stop it, not just the palestineans way may have a chance for them to stop killing each other. Taking sides in the conflict certainly doesn't help.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Then perhaps we should just tell the Israeli government....

To follow Bush's example on how to deal with terror and let the chips fall where they may?

If we aren't willing to be fair to both sides, including criticising both sides where they deserve it (and there is plenty of bad on either extreme of this issue) then we should just announce our partisanship and be done with any pretense of trying to be fair.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. There are no fair parties in this conflict

Not the Arabs, not the Americans and sure as hell not the UN.

[WillParkinson]

15. We've been alllies with Israel for how long?

And yet they are still being attacked and attacking at the same time. I don't see us siding with them helping any at all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. What would you propose

How would you magically make the Arabs accept that Israel is there and there to stay?

[LoneStarLiberal]

34. Israel Pays For Amir's Sin

Yitzhak Rabin was the only contemporary Israeli political figure who had a chance at successful negotiation with Arafat. A radical murderer from his own faith assasinated him both at his own decision and with the rhetorical urging of that scumbag Netanyahu. The fact that the criminal Netanyahu was not permanently banned from Israeli public life after his behavior is nothing short of a national disgrace to the entire nation of Israel and to the worldwide Jewish community.

The hard facts are that both sides in this dispute are guilty of furthering the violence and sandbagging their own political fortunes. The Palestinian Authority will never have a chance to evolve into a successful democratic institution with Arafat around. Ergo he must be removed. But removing him is likely to prompt a popular armed uprising in the PA. Arafat is not trying to control Hamas; it is doubtful he could if he tried which is probably why he is not trying. He does exert a lot of influence over al-Aqsa, though. The murder of Israeli civilians and soldiers will continue as long as Arafat is in power but what bloody mayhem will result if he is removed? Certainly worse than what we now see. What to do?

In the meantime Sharon's administration continues doing all the things that cause young Palestinians to choose death as a martyr over life. Building a security fence (tacit apartheid), bulldozing homes, allowing the formalization of Zionist settlements inside PA boundaries, and killing a few innocent civilians every time they carry out another pinpoint helicopter gunship assasination in the PA. What to do?

Sharon, Arafat, and the Bush administration have ABSOLUTELY NO interest in peace. Failing to see the inclusion of the Bush administration in this is a crucial mistake many make. The roadmap to peace was a straw man from the very beginning. It was not realistic. The Sharon administration knew this which is why they played along until the inevitable failure. Now both the Bush and Sharon administrations can knowingly shake their heads and blame the Palestinians for failure once more and most people will go along with it.

"The heart grieves and the eye weeps, because we -- as a people -- also have taken a chilling slap on an exposed cheek, when it become clear that criminal behavior had also reached our political life, as apparently ideological motives cut down the life of a man. And since history teaches that in any ideology which sanctifies murder as an end, murder becomes the entire ideology. And again we are confronted with proof that the decline in values among us, has become a plague, even such that the importance and sanctity of life -- which had been a lofty and indisputable value -- is again, no longer as it was yesterday or the day before, even in those among us whose hearts have become unfeeling."

-Judge Edmond A. Levy, sentencing decision on Yigal Amir

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. You're right

Those Israeli terrorists just won't listen to us, much like the Palestinian terrorists won't listen to us.

[ShaneGR]

3. You're forgetting what day the NY primary is

Super Tuesday. There are like 9 other states including California and Ohio that day.

[Rooktoven]

4. Super Tuesday is so close to NH this year

I don't see _anyone_ getting out before then.

[CWebster]

5. Dean can handle it

He was on his game last night. Calm, reasoned tones to counter Lieberman's shrillness.

[Atlant]

17. I'm pretty sure that when he polls 1 or 2% in New Hampshire...

I'm pretty sure that when he polls 0% in Iowa and 1 or 2%
in New Hampshire he'll see the error of his ways.

Atlant

[dusty64]

18. joe is the favorite

of most of the Democratic powerbrokers in NY, I'm sure the primary voters will not agree.

[tinnypriv]

21. I'm finding this hysterical denunciation of Dean quite amusing

So far he has said:

1) The US shouldn't take sides (meaning taking sides on competing claims, as far as I understand his use of the term)

2) The US should support the removal of "enormous" numbers of illegal settlements.

Right.

To translate:

* The first is obvious common sense.

* The second is correct, and does not go far enough. The US is obligated to take that position since it signed the Geneva Conventions, and voted against settlement building at the UN/SC. Moreover, a majority of ISRAELIS support Dean on that issue. Never mind Americans, who if they knew the truth, would be outraged at their taxpayer dollars being used to pay for those settlements.

--

Naturally, reactionary "pro-Israel" apparachiks are attempting to spin his position as being this:

Two sides:

1. Eretz Yisrael.
2. S'plodyDopes.

And you can only pick one! :eyes:

Please.

[Sagan]

38. "S'plodyDopes".. lol!

I like that term. :)

I don't really have a horse in this whole I/P race. To me, it's just a lunatic race to self-immolation for both sides.

They're both idiots. Look here -- here they are on THE most popular tourist spot on the PLANET. They should both be living in peace with each other and fleecing tourists, for chrissakes. They'd be rich!

But they'd rather suicide-bomb a bus or bulldoze houses? That's not sane, by any mark.

[tinnypriv]

39. I can't take credit

I'm stealing from LGF. :evilgrin:

[Larkspur]

40. We're working hard in Connecticut to win the state for Dean

on March 2, 2004 -- our primary date.

I'm very sure that my side of the state, Eastern CT, will be very open to Dean's message. It's New Haven and Fairfield county that is more Lieberman territory. We in Dean supporters Eastern CT just have to get the message out. This side of the state is not as Internet savvy as the more populated areas.