The Democrats - good for Israel in 2008

[oberliner]

The 2008 election will give American voters in Israel an opportunity to rectify the harmful legacy of the two Bush administrations by electing a Democrat to the presidency. The Republican candidates pride themselves on their identification with President George W. Bush and his policies. Only a Democrat can bring about change and lead the United States and Israel out of the current quagmire and into a position of greater peace and security.

The centerpiece of Bush's foreign policy, his war on terror, has been a disastrous failure. America has not lessened the threat of international terrorism, which has grown. American weakness - symbolized by troops mired in Afghanistan and Iraq - and the consequent loss of international political clout have had a devastating effect on Israel's security, making it less secure today than it was during the Bill Clinton era.

In addition to emboldening Hizbullah and Hamas, America has failed to dissuade Iran from pursuing an aggressive program of nuclear weapons development.

Both leading Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are strong friends of Israel, who understand its needs and who support Israel's efforts to achieve peace and security. A new Democratic president will continue the party's long tradition of support for Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894552490&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Porcupine]

1. Peace in Iraq would be good for Israel

Warfare begats opportunists of every stripe and some of those tigers we don't want to see. Peace would be better.

[Tom Joad]

2. aipac was so disappointed to see Bolton go...

I think many of them cried themselves to sleep. Organizations like that are so out of touch with reality. They may not be too happy to see a more moderate Democratic administation.

http://www.forward.com/articles/dear-john/

[oberliner]

3. What the hell does AIPAC have to do with this?

That organization is not mentioned anywhere in this article.

[Tom Joad]

4. I just updated that. No, it was not mentioned, but there are some

organizations that purport to support Israel, that are not too keen on a more moderate administration.

According to some reports, even though Hillary gave a tough speech to aipac a few weeks ago, many were not even content with that, because she did mention diplomacy with Iran. And if Hillary can't make them happy... what Democrat can?

[The Magistrate]

5. What Do You Think Such A Distraction Will Help, Mr. Joad?

The gist of the article, which nowhere mentions Bolton, unless one takes the unfavorable mention of 'cowboy diplomacy' as a denunciation of him, is that the leading contenders for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination are supporters of Israel, and that their election would be no cause for worry, but rather cause for satisfaction there. That is certainly true, even if it does appear as a commentary in the Jerusalem Post. It is, of course, the natural consequence of the broad support for Israel displayed by rank and file Demcorats, and by the people of the United States as a whole: no serious contender for national office will do otherwise than take a position that will be approved of by so many voters.

Your shying away from this once again moves me to ask you a simple question you have not answered on previous occassions, namely, which contender for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination would you prefer to see secure it?

[Tom Joad]

6. how come you have not stated your preference?

I would then know how to answer your question correctly.

[The Magistrate]

7. Several Would Be Fine With Me, Sir

The crop is excellent. Sens. Clinton and Obama both would make excellent Presidents, and a ticket combining them would be a powerful one. Sen. Edwards would also do very well, as would Vice-President Gore. Certainly, whoever does secure the Party's nomination will have my vote in November next year....

[Tom Joad]

8. that's dandy. I will wait and see, it's too early for me to say.

[The Magistrate]

9. Will You Vote For The Party's Nominee, Mr. Joad?

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Can't you take the interrogation somewhere else?

The reason I rarely post in the upstairs forums is to get away from this candidate nonsense...

[Tom Joad]

16. It's religious nonsense.

I have already stated my first choice to Magistrate.

I think Jim Sagle would be a fine POTUS, with Magistrate as VP.
Dream ticket.

[The Magistrate]

19. Cute, But No Cigar, Mr. Joad

Neither of the persons you name are contending for the nomination.

What do mean by "it's religious nonesense", by the way, Sir?

[Tom Joad]

20. Because you are hounding me to declare absolute

religious loyalty to a political party.

I have already given you my answer.

Too early to say.

[The Magistrate]

22. 'Religious Loyalty To A Political Party', Mr. Joad?

Do you really think that is an advantageous line to pursue?

Is politics interchangeable with religion to you?

Is your continual criticism of Israel here an item properly described as religious?

Nor do you even come close to accurately describing my purpose: it is not to gain any particular statement from you, but rather to clarify what your actual views and positions are with regard to the domestic politics of the United States. It does whet my curiousity somewhat that you seem resolved to maintain concealment regarding these.

[Tom Joad]

23. I support human rights and peace.

[The Magistrate]

25. That Is Mere Fog And Moonshine, Mr. Joad

No one here opposes those things.

The question is, what concrete steps do you intend to take in the sphere of domestic politics in consequence of that?

Specifics are to platitudes as specie is to fiat paper in this sort of thing, Mr. Joad....

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I've seen the belief that Israel should withdraw to the Green Line called religious many times...

It was happening regularly in multiple threads, and interestingly enough I don't recall you ever once asking that particular poster if politics was interchangeable with religion for them...

If I accurately described yr purpose, my post would end up deleted and I'd possibly be banned from DU, so I'm going to be reasonably guarded in what I say now. If I were an American, at this incredibly early point in proceedings I'd have no idea who I'd be supporting, and having lived in a country where voting was mandatory, would probably be too busy enjoying the fact that I won't cop a fine if I don't vote. If I were an American, because of the heavy involvement of the US in the I/P conflict, it would more than likely play a part in *if* I voted and who for. I'd be looking for detailed explanations of any candidates *support* of Israel, because as yr aware, *support* is a word that is used to define the blind and unquestioning support of everything Israel does when it comes to the occupation. Hillary Clinton, for example, has a stance on the I/P conflict that I find to be one that totally ignores any *support* of the Palestinian people, is extremely one-sided and jaundiced, and opportunistic. Unfortunately in US politics, it seems to be that *support* of Israel is measured by how successful a politician is in completely ignoring the Palestinian people. Any candidate who's elected after expressing blind and unquestioning *support* of Israel is going to be the laughing stock of the world if they then turn around and claim they want to be an impartial mediator in bringing an end to the conflict. They can't have it both ways, and because I think it's very important that a country like the US take on the role of impartial mediator, I think it's important that Americans don't just blindly throw their support behind a yet unknown candidate, but demand that their representatives be a lot more even-handed and balanced in regard to the conflict...

[Tom Joad]

15. You sound like a person who wishes a confession of faith, rather than a political opinion.

I don't see what that has to do with the OP.
I honestly don't don't know, because i don't know who the nominee is going to be.

Please stop asking. It get's annoying fast.

[The Magistrate]

18. Merely Seeking A Simple Declarative Sentence, Mr. Joad

People manage them all the time, you know, and it would surprise me greatly to learn you were unable to form one. That you are unwilling to do so in this instance is increasingly obvious, and invites speculation on why that might be.

The O.P. here deals with the views of a particular Democratic contender on one issue, an issue you are known to feel strongly on, and that you have on occassion indicated you consider more important than any other issue. Thus the question naturally arises: since any Democratic Party Presidential nominee is going to be a supporter of Israel, what will your attitude be towards a Democratic Presidential nominee in the up-coming election?

[Tom Joad]

21. too early to say, Mr. Magistrate.

[The Magistrate]

24. Nonesense, Mr. Joad

It is never too early to declare forthrightly one's political views, and the logical consequences flowing from them in the voting booth. This is not like strong drink, which certainly is best postponed till late afternoon....

"I like a good beer buzz early in the morning."

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

27. Thank You For The Laugh, Mr. Joad!

That is the most amusing item to cross my eyes here in weeks....

"Never send a ferret to do a weasel's work."

[Tom Joad]

28. Not original, unfortunately.

Pat Paulsen, Late Presidential candidate, winemaker, funny man.

[The Magistrate]

29. Nothing Is, Mr. Joad

Shook the gentleman's hand once, in Chicago in '68.

But despite the various asides and side-tracks, Mr. Joad, we should not lose sight of the fact that you continue to avoid a simple declarative sentence regarding your support or lack thereof for Democratic Party Presidential aspirants.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. It appears yr post is out of touch...

Hell, my 8 year old nephew has a far deeper understanding of the conflict than Bush does. Clinton did not have a deep understanding of the conflict. He had no background in foreign policy and relied heavily on what those around him advised....

Interesting that the only thing I can find about delays in the negotiations is about Israel postphoning the talks.

Barak Delays Decision on Arafat's Peace Proposal

Israeli caretaker Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided Friday to postpone a scheduled meeting of the inner-circle peace cabinet in the afternoon, officials in his spokesman's office said.

The meeting, which was set to decide whether to accept Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's peace proposal to hold marathon peace talks in the Egyptian city of Taba until Israel's February 6 Election, now may be held on Saturday evening instead, according to the officials.

The suggestion was proposed by Arafat while he met with Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami in Cairo on Wednesday. Ben-Ami later tried to convince Barak to accept the proposal.

Both sides hope the talks could reach some sort of peace agreement before Israel's prime ministerial election, in which Barak will run against hawkish candidate Ariel Sharon, leader of the opposition party Likud.

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200101/19/eng20010119_60937.html

[Shaktimaan]

14. Hey, I am just telling you why Israelis like Clinton.

I'm not sure how you know how deep his understanding of the conflict is though. I mean, he was president.

As for the delays, you're looking at a delay to the scheduled meeting. Arafat didn't delay a fixed date, he just refused to set one until Clinton's presidency was done. If you check out the date that was scheduled and then delayed it is something like 3 days after Clinton stepped down.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Just because someone's President doesn't mean they have a deep understanding of foreign policy...

I can think of plenty of reasons to like Clinton, but basing that liking on a nonexistant deep understanding of the conflict is a bit of a mugs game. Why I know how deep his understanding was is because when I studied ME politics, I read a book about Clinton and the ME peace process. Like me, the book had plenty of good to say about him, but his strong point was not foreign policy. I'm sure he never thought it'd be simple to try to bring about an end to the conflict, but his knowledge wasn't deep enough for him to be aware of what the US role should be to bring about that peace...

As for the delays, you're looking at a delay to the scheduled meeting. Arafat didn't delay a fixed date, he just refused to set one until Clinton's presidency was done. If you check out the date that was scheduled and then delayed it is something like 3 days after Clinton stepped down.

Huh? It was the US that set the deadline, not Arafat, and the date set was two days before the end of Clinton's presidency. I'm very doubtful that a delay of three days on that timeline would have made any difference one way or the other...

[Tom Joad]

17. Just what in the world do you know of me? Do not pretend to speak of my

"personal needs".

The article i linked to stated it clearly, while most americans, and an even greater majority of Jewish people just voted against the Bush policy, the ADL and AIPAC and so on thought Bolton, who even the Republican Senate could not bring itself to confirm, was wildly praised as a man of peace. They are free to think so. We are free to think they are foolish for doing so.

[cali]

12. Your comment here makes about as much sense

as the article you pasted in the thread about the rape of Israeli girls and women. No sense at all. At least it's not as offensive.