I'm confused...what's Deans position on Israel?

[Alex146]

No Dean bashing please.

[durutti]

1. Same as Just About Every Other Politician

That is, he's against even criticizing Israel in any way, shape, or form.

[Cha]

2. Why are you confused? Can't you just go to his website and

find out straightaway? http://www.deanforamerica.com


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8978&JServSessionIdr012=628rdxbptw.app14b&news_iv_ctrl=1421


"Governor Dean on Middle East Peace"

[tsipple]

3. Dean's Position is President Clinton's

Pretty simple, really.

Even Nancy Pelosi and Robert Novak agree. Move along here. Nothing to see.

[w4rma]

5. Yup. Dean = Clinton on I/P.

Statement of Principles on the Middle East Peace Process
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_mideast

[renie408]

6. Sorry,

I am really not TRYING to bash, so don't take it that way...but how long has Dean=Clinton? And what assurances do people have that Dean isn't going to evolve some more and change his position again? I don't want to raise a stink or be icky, but can't any of you guys see how that is a concern for some of us? I don't want someone who is rigid and never changes their mind on a stance, but it seems like we are being bombarded by Dean's continuously 'evolving' policies. Shouldn't he have waited to run for President until he was fully evolved?

[w4rma]

7. It's the same position he's always held. It hasn't changed.

Dean was about to push Bush to let Clinton try to work for peace in I/P but he decided to wait to make the anouncement for a larger crowd, and then Lieberman attacked him, then Kerry attacked him, then he made the announcement and noone noticed.

No. You're flat wrong on this renie408. He's Clinton on I/P. He's actually learning I/P faster than Clinton did, because Clinton didn't do much with it for the first couple of years of his presidency, then Clinton went into the I/P peace talks in a major way.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. It hasn't changed?

Dean's position hasn't changed?

"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/

Seems like a 180 degree change to me.

What will his position be next time he's asked?

[tsipple]

8. Dean Always Matched Up w/ Clinton on Israel

What exactly has Dean said re: Israel that you disagree with? And has Dean changed his position on Israel? I haven't seen any evidence for that. (Except that Lieberman says he has. Which should raise lots of red flags here at DU. :-))

But, to answer your question directly, you have no assurance that Dean will not change his position. You have no assurance that Edwards will not change his position. You have no assurance that (insert name here) will not change his (her) position. Heck, I have no assurance that I won't change my position!

What you can judge is whether a candidate is thoughtful and logical, having some factual basis for any change in position. You can also find a candidate who does change his position, based on facts and evidence, rather than sticking to a position because of ideology. And you can do that both in the primary campaign and general election. I think Dean is thoughtful and logical, and, on the few occasions he has changed positions, he provides reasonable factual bases. I don't agree with every position, but I see evidence he's got his head on straight.

[blm]

22. Dean promised Sharon MORE military aid than Bush

and said a state of Palestine should be demilitarized.

Was that Clinton's position?

[w4rma]

25. Here is the indirect quote. It's $3B more than what Bush gave them.

I don't agree with everything anyone says. This is a minor issue compared to Bush's (and Kerry's, Gephardt's, Lieberman's) $150B war in Iraq (that could be argued that it is being done for Isreal).

…
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

[renie408]

39. We wouldn't

be fighting that war if we were handling the I/P problem more...hell, I dunno, maybe just MORE.

Isn't that a large part of our problem in that area? The way that we have backed Israel so that it leaves the other countries there believing that we support Israel at their expense?

[w4rma]

43. Yup. That is a large part of our problem, IMHO.

Nearly unequivacal support for anything that the Israeli leadership wants. It's detremental to both Israel and Palistine, IMHO.

Remember that the extreme right-wing Likud Party holds the most power in the Israeli parlament.

[Egnever]

4. To tell you the truth

I think deans I/P stance is evolving. In the begining he was very hardline for israel. He seems to be backing away from that position. Lately he has been touting an even handed aproach. I take this to mean trying to negotiate from a position of neutrality without taking sides.

He believes in israels right to exist but also seems to see the legitimacy of the palestinian position.

I dont think we will see any of the candidates actual plans till they are in offce only vague statements implying what they see as a rational aproach.

But like someone above said Deans website is always full of statements made by dean on a host of issues.

[Procopius]

9. He is trying to seem moderate

and not too pro-Israel to get elected. All the Christian fundies love Israel.

[Tinoire]

10. I am unclear also

because first it was so hawkish that the Muslims started organizing against him (3-6 million Muslim votes + 3+ million Arabic Christian votes + Black Muslims) and the position changed practically overnight to one so dovish that we were treated to concerned attacks by Lieberman and Pelosi. That whole thing doesn't add up to me. ((Please remember as you read this that I am extremely jaded when it comes to politicians, their motives, and what they will say for votes)).

Looking at his new, very short and very vague, statement with my jaded eye, I come away with a sense of "he didn't say a thing" and picked up on a few phrases that don't reassure me re even-handedness:

1. providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security

- with a quadruping of military aid and loan guarantees that Dean promised Sharon. Yes this still bothers me

- Why on earth must we provide a guarantee of long-term defense and security to a premiere nuclear power, the 4th largest army in the world and the World's Third Largest Weapons Exporter It makes no sense. For 4-8 Billion a year, we can buy a hell of a lot of health care for this country!

2. The U.S. has another important role to play in the region - that of an honest broker who has the trust of both sides and a facilitator of direct talks between the parties.

- The US only has the trust of 1 side because it's repeatedly stabbed the Palestinians in the back

- Who died and made the biggest arms dealer God? Hand this over to the UN lock, stock and barrel. Our entire intervention in the region has been one of rank partiality and rank hypocrisy

3. Playing the role of honest broker is consistent with the special relationship that the U.S. has with Israel

- I don't understand this contradictory sentence at all. One one hand 'special relationship' and on the other hand 'honest broker'?

---------------

I won't bring up all the past he said in the past but, as recently as this month, Sept 2003, Dean stated that an "enormous number" of Israeli settlements would have to be removed in the peace process. Am enormous number? What is an enormous number? According to Sharon one settlement is an enormous number.

This is no time for vague, unclear or changing positions.

In news from 2 days ago,

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has changed his mind about the establishment of a Palestinian state. At least so writes his good friend and confidante, journalist Uri Dan.

<snip>

"The Palestinian leadership will not get to see a Palestinian state - at least not in this generation. The chance that they were given has expired." Dan, who has never been known to criticize a position taken by Sharon, wrote that the events of the past few days have convinced the Prime Minister that the PA must "disappear from the map."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=49582


Also from 2 days ago:

The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly as possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative.

<snip>

Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=49615

This is no time for an unclear stance. I/P is the most volatile, explosive powder keg out there and I have a hard time accepting Dean's sudden evolution from AIPAC philosophy to these now vague statements.

If you want an objective answer to your question, I'd suggest you contact either http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ or www.tikkun.org because you can believe they're both keeping an eye on all the candidates stances. I'll tell you honestly right now though that Kucinich is their candidate and that this issue has a lot to do with their support of him though.

Peace... Hope you find a good answer and if you do write to those guys for one, please post it here because I would like to know what it is. This honestly is strike 1, 2 and 3 for me when it comes to Dean and I would be over-joyed if someone could provide solid evidence that he would be even-handed, would have the great courage it will take to be even-handed.

Peace

[tsipple]

12. Again, What Changed?

Anyone? Helloooo?

[Tinoire]

13. What changed?

lol! Do a search... Dean went from a tete a tete with Sharon during a 3 day AIPAC-paid trip to Israel during which time he did not meet with any moderate Israelis or any Palestinian politicians. Even-handed would have dicated at least a courtesy visit to Arafat or Abbas I would say.

Supports the building of the fence even though it is stealing more Palestinian land for Israel and dispossessing people. I don't consider that very even-handed as the world begs Israel to stop this madness.

But you know, you're a donor to this site. I don't want to see an honest thread turn into a flame fest. Do a little search of the archives or better yet, visit the Dean blogs to witness all the hand-wringing over the overnight transformation from being in line with AIPAC to vague APN dove.

Some of the previous positions you see him trying to distance himself from now are pointed out in this petition:
http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/deanpetition/

[tsipple]

19. Um, Bill Clinton Has Met Only With Sharon

Sharon is a head of state, after all. You're allowed to meet with only one of them when you go somewhere.

Yes, I have looked at those (rambling, long) messages. There's one that someone keeps reposting that allegedly compares what Kerry says about Israel to what Dean says about Israel. Complete with bolded words and such about the huge -- no, make that gigantic -- difference between their positions.

I can't find a speck of daylight between them. And I'm trying.

One more thing. Do you happen to know where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ranks on the list of American voters' most pressing concerns? Any Gallup, Zogby, or other sort of poll that ranks these? Because I talk with a lot of people. For the tiny fraction of the population who cares -- most of it here on DU :evilgrin: -- it's important. Everybody else is thinking, "Huh?" I confess I'm in that latter camp, and I just don't get the fixation on this thing (and every syllable uttered, looking for the faintest hint of non-meaning). And I can't find a single thing Dean said that I disagree with. (Of course some settlements will have to go to resolve the conflict, for example. How could it possibly be otherwise? Bush #1 had a blowup over this very issue with Israel.)

[renie408]

20. Iraq? Afghanistan? Al Quaeda?

Any of that ring a bell? We have to be concerned with Israel and the Middle East and the way in which we handle the I/P conflict because when we don't, people get together and fly airplanes into tall buildings in our country.

[tsipple]

27. Well, Yeah

Iraq, Afghanistan, and terrorism are all more important than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You've made my exact point for me.

Now, if you're arguing they're all connected, perhaps. But how is electing someone who demagogues the Israeli issue going to result in achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace? And is there anything Dean has said that anyone disagrees with (and why)? Because I haven't found anything.

The U.S. should be evenhanded (while recognizing Israel is an ally), and settlements are a huge problem. Sounds like truth to me. Thank goodness we have someone in the race who's willing to speak it.

[renie408]

40. Perhaps?

When the people who flew the planes into the buildings said that part of the reason was the way their Palestinian brothers were being treated? Isn't a REALLY big part of the Middle East's problems with the US our support of Israel and our failure to offer any kind of consistent support of a peace process? I am game for the fact that I could be wrong here, but I kind of think that THEY think that the whole thing is a little more connected than you are suggesting.

[blm]

24. Clinton met with Arafat plenty of times.

Why revise history to make your guy seem plausible? He goofed. He tried to overcorrect his original hardliner position to placate his critics on the issue. He is now clinging to Clinton's position like a security blanket.

[tsipple]

28. On Every Trip?

Check your facts, please. Clinton has even received the Israeli prime minister, one-on-one, at the White House on many occasions.

[sandnsea]

34. He was lamblasted for this

He should have arrested Arafat, not welcomed him into the White House, that's what the right said. Don't you remember? Hillary was the first one to mention a Palestinian State and instantly became as evil as 'Hanoi Jane'.

But once again, Democrats were proven right. Let's get somebody into the White House who already understands the dynamics of US policy and also has the courage to take the lead as Bill Clinton did. John Kerry is that guy and there just isn't any other candidate who has the same credentials to handle these problems as he does. Bob Graham maybe, but that's it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. You are saying Bill Clinton never met with Arafat?

memory problems?

[tsipple]

35. I Claimed Clinton Met Israeli Prime Ministers ALONE...

...Without also inviting Arafat. Clinton also met Arafat (on other occasions). And I'm sure President Dean would have a similar opportunity.

But it's plain wacky to conclude anything if Dean makes a single trip to Israel and doesn't happen to include Arafat in his itinerary. (The guy could be trapped behind scores of Israeli tanks in a bunker anyhow. Not exactly easy to reach via public transportation. :-))

Of course, we're now rapidly moving into a first grade playground here. Which is fine. Some Democratic candidates are desperate, I guess.

All I know is that Dean is getting attacked from the right and the left at the same time on this less-than-top-concern issue, a 2000 year old conflict. And, since even Jesus Christ had trouble solving the issue, I'm willing to cut him a whole lot of slack. But I don't really have to, because I haven't found a single word to disagree with.

[Mairead]

30. "Sharon is a head of state, after all"

So as long as the Palestinian Arabs aren't allowed to have a state, it's okay if nobody meets with their leaders?

Jings, wha widdae thocht it!

[janx]

36. You are probably referring to the article from an American

muslim who mentioned that Dean agreed with AIPAC on one issue (actually, one component of one issue).

I remember seeing that article; a Green sent it to me. When I investigated the sources and found out what scant evidence the whole thing was based on, it solidified my support for Dean even more.

NOW, of course, his opponents are bashing him from the other direction by saying he's not pro-Israel enough; they criticize him for referring to Hamas as soldiers, for instance.

His positions on the web site are pretty clear. The fence is an initial security issue that does not preclude or necessarily entail taking more Palestinian land. To suggest so is to make a logical fallacy. It's not as if he's in favor of nailing up the fence without Isreal's making certain concessions. He has made it clear that BOTH SIDES will have to make significant concessions, and for Isreal that means getting the heck out of a lot of that Palestinian land.

People are parsing his words so furiously that I can no longer keep up with it. It's getting ridiculous.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Thanks for all the links. This issue's being batted around a lot but

few people seem to have done their homework on it.

You rock! :loveya:

[genius]

11. It depends on which day of the week it is.

When he stops switching positions, maybe we'll all know.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Anyone Waiting For Me To Open My Mouth On This One?

Dean has recently adopted the language of nuetrality to pacify his progressive base, but if you look closely it is not. Even Dean's "new" stance demands an end to violence only from Palestinians (3rd time for that), and that any new Palestinian state would be "demilitarized."

I have yet to see him reconcile these quotes:

“Perhaps Dr. Dean's most unequivocal policy stance is his staunch, hawkish support for Israel, which will attract the support of America's hugely influential Jewish lobby. Earlier this month Dr Dean, whose wife is Jewish, traveled to Jerusalem for a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, declaring afterwards: ‘I do not think that as long as Yassir Arafat is president there will be peace.’”

"That Sharon agreed to meet him at all shows how seriously the Israeli leader takes Dr Dean as a political force. Just as significant is that Sharon asked him to support the Israeli request for new loan guarantees from Washington, ‘and I promised him I would.’ Israel is asking the Bush administration for up to $10 billion in loan guarantees to shore up its economy.” (The Times of London, December 18, 2002)

Note: That's 2 billion more than I've previously seen mentioned. That would make it 5x the current level.

--

“Asked if his appearance at the Peace Now event should be read as a signal of his views on the Middle East, Dean said, ‘No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view…At one time the Peace Now view was important but now Israel is under enormous pressure,’ he continued. ‘We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations.... I don't do things for political reasons. I'm very loyal to my friends. Nobody should read anything into my ideology.’” (The Forward, November 22, 2002)

http://www.aaiusa.org/dean_quotes.htm

Note: The co-chair of Dean's campaign is Steve Grossman, the former head of AIPAC.

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." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

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

And, finally, Dean's foreign policy speech at Drake. Note how one-sided it 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 coexistence. 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/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

Most recently:

The basic framework for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a two state solution -- a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state.

Now let's compare to Kerry's foreign policy speech at Georgetown:

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

Which one seems more Presidential to you?

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Thanks to you for gathering these links. There's no substitute for

facts.

[renie408]

17. Thanks , Funk

It looks like I will spend Sunday morning reading!

[JohnKleeb]

18. three is a charm, thanks doc

[kalian]

21. Another reason NOT to vote for this guy....

..

[w4rma]

26. The muslimwakeup quote is obviously wrong. It's misleading to use it.

you quote the source that the muslimwakeup people used here (original source):

…
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

Remember that it can be argued that your guy, Kerry (along with Lieberman and Gephardt) authorized a ~$100B gift to Israel (along with the lives of US soliders) in the form of the IWR vote.

[DrFunkenstein]

31. It Can Be Argued

Just not very well.

[Nicholas_J]

23. Dean doesnt know

What his position is. Never does, never has.
Hisw main problem is is that Dean's ONLY political abilities lie around being able to get people worked up and in trying to balance a checkbook. He has no original ideas, his mis-statements and most recent blunders with the Hamas statement indicate that he has virtually no abilities as a diplomat, as anyone with even the smallest shred of foreign affaris experience would have couched the statements differently. His statements when on Israel:

I cannot leave the subject of terrorism without bringing up a subject President Bush unaccountably neglected to bring up during his recent State of the Union address - and that is the need to end the seemingly endless cycle of violence in the Middle East.

Here, I do not differ with the President's stated policy; I just wish he would actually apply it. Since taking office, the Administration has been disengaged from the Middle East, then engaged, and then disengaged once more. This is another example of the President trying to distance himself from President Clinton, even though the Clinton Administration's approach reflected decades of bipartisan support for a comprehensive Middle East peace.

When they have bothered to state them, the Administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel. Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years. To be viable, the Palestinian Authority must become democratic and purged of corruption.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Asked if his appearance at the Peace Now event should be read as a signal of his views on the Middle East, Dean said, "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view." He said he was bestowing the award because the honoree and fellow Vermonter Barr "is a remarkable humanitarian who has served her state and me. I would not turn down an opportunity to honor her."

"At one time the Peace Now view was important but now Israel is under enormous pressure," he continued. "We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations.... I don't do things for political reasons. I'm very loyal to my friends. Nobody should read anything into my ideology."

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html



“I think no one likes to see violence of any kind. That’s why the United States is involved. I will say, however, there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war,” Dean said. “Therefore, it seems to me, that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war.”

The remarks sparked an outcry among his Democratic rivals, who already have blasted Dean’s suggestion last week that it was not the United State’s place to “take sides” in the decades-long dispute between staunch U.S. ally Israel and the Palestinians.


http://rutlandherald.com/News/AtAGlance/Story/71491.html



Dean Defense: Sources in the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean say he is writing a letter in response to one sent to him by 34 Democratic congressmen chastising him for saying America “ought not to take sides” in the Middle East.

The September 10 letter, organized by Rep. Howard Berman of California, was signed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Matsui and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. “This is not a time to be sending mixed messages,” the Berman letter said. “On the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement.”

The pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse Aipac praised the Democrats for writing the letter in a press release Thursday afternoon. “America's strong relationship with Israel made possible both its peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan. And just as U.S. support for Israel has enabled the Jewish state to make peace in the past, that same U.S.-Israel partnership is needed to conclude a future peace agreement with the Palestinians,” the release quoted Aipac president Amy Friedkin and executive director Howard Kohr as saying.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.09.12/campaignextra.html

Of course Dean has had to come up with his explanation's after the fact, But Dean ALWAYS has to apologize AFTER the fact.

Even Deans suport from AIPAC seems to be withering, as APIAC praised Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Congress for writing the letter criticising Dean's totally inept statement.

Dean is just not ready for prime time, not ready for a position that requires the greatest of diplomatic skills, not particularly at this juncture in history.

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Dean Really Wanted To Get This Issue Public During General Elections

When it wouldn't matter if he pissed off his progressive base. He could come right out and say, "Hey, I flew to friggin' Israel on hawkish pro-Israeli dime and made promises that would make Paul Wolfowitz blush."

But right now he's caught between pacifying his core supporters, and preparing himself for the general elections. So he tries to pull a fast one by couching unilateralist demands on Palestinians in language that sounds like "honest brokering," but manages to slip in that any Palestinian State would be "demilitarized."

The rock or the hard place? I guess we'll find out.

[janx]

37. What promises did he make?

?

[DrFunkenstein]

41. See Post #14

I think people are growing weary of me re-posting this info.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. It's a multiple choice question, right?

A.

"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

B.

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/

C. All of the above.

[DrFunkenstein]

42. That's Too Funny!

"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."

-John Kerry

[deutsey]

38. "Kerry, Lieberman, Democratic Leadership Attack Dean"

An interesting take on the Israel thing from Commondreams.org:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0914-04.htm