Who Is The Best Candidate For The Mid-East Peace Process?

[DrFunkenstein]

Who do you think has the chops to cut through the crap and bring about a viable Palestinian state? I'm not asking who supports a two-state solution - even Bush is in favor of that. What I'm asking is who you think has the best plan for ending one of the greatest causes of instability in the region (arguably greater than Iraq, even) and a source of both local and global terrorism. And, if possible, give a little background to your answer about the plan, not just "My Guy Is Best Because He's The Best." This is a serious issue and needs to be addressed by our candidates.

<>

[sfecap]

1. Senator Joe Lieberman.

Definitely.

<sarcasm mode>

[Iluvleiberman]

2. Nobody

They hate and kill each other with a passion. Neither Clinton nor Bush nor the next guy will stop the killing and hatred.

It's really sad.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Kucinich

He has the fairest, most sensible position of any of the candidates on this issue, imho...

(Rep. Kucinich's statement on House Resolution 392, expressing "solidarity with Israel" as it battles "the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas" -- May 2002)

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.

<snip>

Today, we are missing an opportunity to lead people of the Middle East toward a secure and stable future together. This resolution equates Israel's dilemma, which is the outcome of the Palestinian's struggle for self-determination, with the United States' campaign against the criminal organization, Al Queda.

<snip>

The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom?

If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?

There is a role for Congress and the Administration in helping to bring a lasting peace in the Middle East; however, this resolution does not create that role. After today we will still need to determine a course of action to bring about peace. This course will require multilateral diplomacy, which strengthens cooperation among all countries in the region. It will require focused, unwavering attention. It will require sufficient financial resources. And it will require that our nation have the political will to bring about a true, a fair, and a sustainable resolution of the conflict.


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

[AnAmerican]

6. Ya beat me to it

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who admits that both sides in the conflict bear eqaul responsibility. The American aid to Isreal since it's inception has tainted the waters. Dennis is alone in saying that to achieve true peace both sides need to forswear the lethal force which has been used consistently. The suicide bombings must be halted, as do the illegal Isreali settlements and the destruction of Palestinian homes.

An approach that favors neither side is the ONLY way the United States can influence the peace process. We have been playing favorites for too long, with deadly consequences for all involved.

[diamondsoul]

17. BINGO!

You guys have stated my reasons perfectly, no need for me to say anything else.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. The choice is do what AIPAC and Sharon say or get out of the race

So I guess the realistic answer to your question is none.

Any politician who dares to stray too far from the Gary Bauer-Tom DeLay-AIPAC-Sharon script will get Cynthia McKinneyed.

That is just rule one of American politics.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Check Out This Record of The US and Israel Against The World

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/vote.htm

The most recent examples are at the bottom. This is precisely the kind of record we need to stand up against.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. I've never understood how it is in our national interests

to be on Israel's side irregardless of what they do. Is Israel the 51st state or something? Why this unshakeable bedrock idea that we have to be Israel's ally?

I know the answer though - voting bloc politics trump the national interest.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. How would peace there increase revenues for the defense industry?

Do you think those weapons shows are cheap to put on?

Booth rental alone is out the kazoo.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Your irony is too true to dispute.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Is Israel Our Top Recepient Of Foreign Aid?

I thought I heard somewhere that they are second to Egypt. Does anyone have hard statistics on this?

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Egypt is second to them http://www.sustaincampaign.org/

Israel is a glorified US military base, an overfed mangy pitbull whose purpose is to guard the region's oil.

Personally, I think the Israeli people deserve better.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Thanks For The Website Link!

Actually, I just read a fascinating article about the role the creation of Israel played in European colonialism in the Middle East during the first half of the 20th century. It was the very first chapter of The Iraq War Reader, which I give the absolute highest recommendations to.

<>

[AnAmerican]

12. Here ya go

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=753&CategoryId=4

Israel accounts for 30% of all US foreign aid

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Wow, Those Are Some Incredible Numbers!

<>

<>

<>

"Three quarters of the military aid to Israel goes for importing US-made military equipment such as F-16 and Apache attack helicopters. This creates a job market for US citizens and transforms Palestine into a test ground for US made weaponry, used daily against Palestinians."

<>

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. But what is the standard, politically correct answer

to "why do the Arabs hate us?" "Because they hate freedom"

Wake up America!

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Dean and Kerry - For Those Who Say There Are NO Good Candidates

Howard Dean (note how incredible one-sided he is):

"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."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5606&news_iv_ctrl=1421

Now compare with Kerry's call for PARALLEL concessions:

"Israel is our ally, the only true democracy in this troubled region, and we know that Israel as a partner is fundamental to our security. From Truman through Clinton, America has always been committed to Israel's independence and survival - we will never waver.

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.

American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war against terrorism.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Every major Palestinian scholar agrees that PARALLEL concessions are the only road to lasting peace. I wish someone would have told Howard Dean that.

But, contrary to calls for throwing our hands in the air, there is at least one good candidate (well, two if you count Kucinich) out there.

[Tinoire]

19. More information about Kerry please since you seem to know

Especially his history and votes on the Middle East. I'm open to learning.

Also, I'm assuming that Kerry signed House Resolution 392 back in May 2002 demonizing Arafat and the Palestinians and declaring full support for Israel's War on Terrorism which bears too many similarities to our own. I pasted Kucinich's statement below- he declined to sign such a one-sided resolution and issued that statement instead. Kerry seems like the second most liberal after Kucinich but I'm distressed when I read statement like this:

(8) Senator John Kerry.

(a) Speaking to 2000 Florida political activists, Kerry declared, “If the United States has a right to respond in Afghanistan to suicide attackers in New York City - and we do - then Israel has a right to respond to suicide bombers in the West Bank.” (Johnson and Schlesinger 4-15-2002)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/palestineisraeliconflict/divisionwithingov.html

What else do you know?

Thanks

For Immediate Release
May 2, 2002


Statement of Congressman Dennis Kucinich
On H.R. 392

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. Today we are missing an opportunity to lead people of the Middle East toward a secure and stable future together.

This resolution equates Israel's dilemma, which is the outcome of the Palestinian's struggle for self-determination with the United States' campaign against the criminal organization, Al Queda. Unfortunately, our own policy is undefined, amorphous, without borders, without limits, and without congressional oversight. For this Congress to place the historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context of the current fashion of US global policy pitches Israelis and Palestinians alike into a black hole of policy without purpose, and conflict without resolution.

The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom?

If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?

There is a role for Congress and the Administration in helping to bring a lasting peace in the Middle East, however, this resolution does not create that role. After today we will still need to determine a course of action to bring about peace. This course will require multilateral diplomacy, which strengthens cooperation among all countries in the region. It will require focused, unwavering attention. It will require sufficient financial resources. And it will require that our nation have the political will to bring about a true, a fair, and a sustainable resolution of the conflict.

When this Congress enters into the conflict and takes sides between Israel and Palestine we do not help to achieve peace, but the opposite. Similarly, the Administration should consider that when it conducts a war against terrorism without limits the principle of war is quickened everywhere in the world, including the Middle East. When it talks incessantly about invading Iraq, the tempo of war is picked up everywhere. If we truly want peace in the Middle East this resolution is counter productive. I will vote present because I do not believe that this resolution dignifies the role towards creating peace, which this Congress can and must fulfill.


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020502-israeli.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. The right to respond

doesn't mean the right to bulldoze innocent people's homes, randomly shoot people at checkpoints, or launch missiles into residential neighborhoods in the hopes of killing one 'suspected terrorist'.

Of course those are all things America has done in response to 9/11 - even against Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. I believe we had the right to respond, but in many ways we responded in the wrong fashion.

Rights also confer responsibilities. The right to respond to an attack comes with the responsibility to do so appropriately. And also, the right to respond to attack does not mean an obligation to respond to every attack in 'eye for eye' fashion.

And think about if our President were trying to negotiate peace between the parties on the premise that Israel does not have the right to respond to suicide attacks - it would be a non-starter. Every nation reserves the right of self-defense - and that has to include Palestine and Israel.

Just some of my thoughts on the 'right to respond' comment.

[sandnsea]

22. Try a little more reading

Kucinich is great, I have no problem with anything he says. However, you might want to read a little more about what Kerry says instead of quoting one remark made in a speech that wasn't even about the Middle East to begin with.

"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."

You're not going to find all peace, love and happiness in this speech. You're going to find realistic policy with the correct focus on diplomacy and global interest; without arrogant blustering but also not giving up the right to self defense. Israel does have the right to self defense, that doesn't mean Kerry supports Israel engaging in the kinds of military incursions that were happening last year.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[genius]

34. Kerry's better than Dean. But Kucinich is best

Dean has a pro-Israeli bias and that lets him out.

[Tinoire]

18. Kucinich

Kucinich which is why he's being supported by Tikkun, Jews for Peace and Vets for Peace. His Jewish girl-friend is very involved in the peace organizations also.

Quick googles of the candidate's name + Israel or Palestine will give you tons of information with which you can judge for yourselves... A DU search will also yield information because this has been discussed here before.

There are information and articles in the 2 DU threads below. Additionaly, you should check the candidate's blogs.

http://pub10.ezboard.com/fhowarddean2004frm7.showMessage?topicID=103.topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5282

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=6047

[genius]

21. Clearly Kucinich

He has the most unbiased, comprehensive plan for peace in the Middle East. Dean and Lieberman have a pro-Israeli bias (just like the current administration) and we need someone, like Kucinich who is open-minded and fair and who will take the most neutral, even-handed path towards peace.

[The Sushi Bandit]

23. Totaly Kucinich

[Egnever]

24. Kucinich

Seems to be the closest to reality on this one.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. Would Arafat Still Be In The Driver's Seat Under Kucinich?

Arafat has a great deal at stake in keeping the situation aggravated. I have a hard time seeing him as a committed player in the peace process. While I agree that the Taba talks were a serious withdrawal by Israel from Arafat's real concessions at Camp David, I have not been convinced since then by his desire to see the conflict end.

My worry is that Kucinich would be concerned about Palestinian self-determination to the point where it undermined the ultimate goal of a peaceful Middle East. If I am not mistaken, Kucinich was not very forceful about Iraqi disarmament, saying that containment of the weakened Iraq would suffice. But I may be wrong.

I love Dennis, and I don't want a President to be forceful for the sake of appeasing media hawks, but a President should be willing to lean hard on countries when it needs to be done.

I still believe that the Taliban should have been coerced into giving up Osama (peacefully if possible), Saddam should have been coerced into full disarmament and accountability (peacefully if possible), and that both Palestinian and Israeli leadership should be coerced into controlling their more violent factions (peacefully if possible) before the other side would need to.

Dean is one-sided towards the Israelis, but is Dennis willing to really turn the heat on the Palestinians towards reform? It wouldn't have to be threat of force, but instead the promise of real investment in US dollars in rebuilding Palestinian infrastructure. Any idea what Kucinich would do to keep Palestinians on the right track?

Obviously (I hope) this is not a Dennis bash. But there are many of his supporters here and I hope they can clear this up for me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Voting for war isn't conducive to the peace process, so I'd say:

Kucinich
Braun
Dean
or Sharpton

Graham doesn't count.

[DrFunkenstein]

29. Voting For A Massive Barrier Isn't Very Conducive To Peace

Nor is demanding unilateral concessions from the Palestinians to start the peace process. I guess that takes Dean off your list.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. All accusations being true.....(pretend)

War is less peaceful than a wall.

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Kerry Would Have Had Arabs On Our Side

Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies.

When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal.

Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Dean's policies on the Mid-East process would have impossibly complicated Arab support of the US. Kerry's policies of engendering Arab job growth and inter-Arab trade, with his truly fair hand in the peace process, would have made an Arab coalition towards disarmament a relative piece of cake.

[goodhue]

33. arabic

http://www.minnesotaforkucinich.com/extras/KucinichTenPointsARABIC.pdf

[Julien Sorel]

26. Kucinich or Sharpton. Nobody else comes close.

[poskonig]

27. Sharpton.

Something about him says he could "get along" without being flaccid.

I'm not too sure about Kucinich. I get the feeling he'd send the wrong message and only give incentives for the palestinians to step up their violence.

Lieberman would be awful for obvious reasons.

[genius]

35. Dennis has the most balanced approach. But Sharpton

has a great way of addressing issues.

[Desertrose]

28. Dennis Kucinich- hands down....

As one who voted against the iraq war...for me he stands heads & shoulders above the others ...

He has a fair & evenhanded approach and seems to be the most balanced in his views on the mideast. His dept of Peace ideas also go a long way towards discussing & negotiating peace...it isn't something that just happens...takes work & planning and someone who has nothing to gain from one side or the other. Dennis hopes to bring resolution not dissolution.
Yup...DK....

Peace is possible!
DR