JEWS RIP KERRY'S MIDDLE EAST PLAN

[Classical_Liberal]

personal note: I would cange this headline to conservative republican jews rip Kerry's middle east plan" if I could change headlines.

JEWS RIP KERRY'S MIDDLE EAST PLAN

By STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN and DEBORAH ORIN
TRIPLE THREAT: Jewish leaders ripped Sen. John Kerry's (above) idea to use Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or James Baker to defuse the Mideast crisis.

December 4, 2003 -- Presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry set off a firestorm among Jewish leaders yesterday by saying Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or former Secretary of State James Baker could be used as a special envoy to the Middle East in the Massachusetts senator's administration.

Kerry's comments - made during what was billed as a major foreign-policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations - were met with light applause at the event.

But the proposal sparked shock and anger in the Jewish community, especially in view of former President Carter's perceived anti-Israel stance at the latest "peace summit" in Geneva.

"I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. None of those three would be on my list," said Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League..........

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/12546.htm

[Classical_Liberal]

1. Apparently Clinton is too far left for Abe Foxman!

Kerry eyes Clinton as Mideast envoy


By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts yesterday said if elected president, he would consider sending former President Bill Clinton to the Middle East as a U.S. envoy, raising the possibility of Mr. Clinton returning to government in a Democratic administration.
Mr. Kerry, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, told the Council on Foreign Relations that the former president would be one of his three top choices for a presidential "ambassador to the peace process" to work with Israel, its neighbors and the Palestinians.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean made a similar suggestion in October, saying Mr. Clinton would be his envoy to the Middle East.
Republicans said turning to Mr. Clinton is a bad idea.......

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031203-100134-8343r.htm

[blm]

2. Kerry's been pushing Bush for two years to send Clinton

and I think that is why he also used Baker as an example to say that partisanship shouldn't stand in the way of peace efforts.

[IndianaGreen]

3. The rightwing unmasked!

Another prominent Jewish leader said,: "What is (Kerry) trying to do - commit suicide? It's at best naive and ignorant. Remarks like this are why more Jews are considering voting for Bush."

The rightwing unmasked!

Kerry took a lot of heat upstairs in GD and LBN yesterday for his Jim Baker remarks. Even Wes Clark took Kerry to task for relying on consiglieri Baker. Baker is an evil Carlyle Group character that has been involved in all kinds of shady deals, including representing the Saudis against the 9/11 victims.

Jimmy Carter is something else altogether. The rightwing hates Carter because Carter wants peace. They hated Camp David. They hated Oslo. They cheered when Rabin was assassinated. They danced when Sharon went to the Noble Sanctuary, Al-Haram al-Sharif, (aka Temple Mount) that triggered the first intifada. They oppose the Roadmap. They engage in the same intimidation tactics that the Cuban-American National Foundation engages to keep the US hostage to their extreme agenda for Cuba.

[pistoff democrat]

4. R/W Sources

Washington Times?

New York Post?

:eyes:

Please see post 8, 11 & 17 on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=95922

[Violet_Crumble]

5. You forgot to add...

Jerusalem Post?

Cox & Forkum?

Articles written by Conrad Black's wife?




Violet...

[pistoff democrat]

6. No, I was just dealing with the Pal Firsters

in the way we Team Israel posters get dealt with. It's not right. It's not fair.

I refuse to dismiss the articles just because they are in Wa Times or NY Post...no matter what I think of their editorial boards.

What I was doing was called S - A - T - I - R -E...; not a "list" and all that connotes.

But, hey, Violet:



:yourock:

[Violet_Crumble]

7. So do you or do you not have a problem with R/W sources?

I remember only a day or so ago you popped up in another thread informing everyone that a UPI news article shouldn't be believed because it appeared in a R/W rag. Now yr saying the complete opposite. So, which is it? It appears that you have a problem with sources when they disagree with yr views and have no problems using them when they do agree....

This being a progressive forum and all, it's understandable that people tend to consistantly mistrust R/W editorials and opinion pieces. To use those expressions of mistrust and try to portray that as the only rebuttals to opposing views is totally incorrect. I suggest seeing yr new to DU that you go back through the archives and have a read through some threads before you jump to these sorts of conclusions...


Satire's pretty amusing when carried out well. When it's not, it's just dull and insipid and doesn't hit the spot...

Speaking of lists, there's one I must attend to before I turn in for the night. Thanks for reminding me! Must go!

Violet...

[edzontar]

10. I think the administrators have explained re posting from R/W sites

That it is a matter of attitude, context, and overall pattern.

For example, they request that when posting from an RW opinion piece, the poster should provide a short statement clarifying their view of its content.

Given this premise, it seems to me that there is a rather significant difference between ENDORSING the RW views of such anti-progressive voices as, say, Jeff Jacoby, David Horowitz, Mort Zuckerman, Daniel Pipes, Gianfranco Fini, Alessandra Mussolini, or Areil Sharon, on the one hand...and presenting an example of an RW view as part of an argument AGAINST those views, which is clearly the case here.

Needless to say, I would support Kerry's proposal to send REAL statesmentlike Clinton or Carter as an envoy to the region.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Thankfully, the Jerusalem Post is going on the auction block

as Conrad Black's empire collapses around him. The bad thing would be if Rupert Murdoch decides to buy some of Hollinger's assets, including the JP.

[edzontar]

12. I shudder at THAT thought....

But it will probably happen--Lord A'mighty help us all!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

13. If Murdoch buys the JPost

If Murdoch buys the JPost, if would be no different than it is now. Murdoch and Black are cut from the same cloth. They both believe journalism exists to propogate rightwing nonsense, not to present the truth or facilitate public discourse.

Frankly, I'd like to see the Jerusalem Post fall into the hands of a responsible, sober conservative. There aren't very many remaining in the world, but we can hope. It would be better than seeing the Post become a liberal/progressive paper, since Ha'aretz already fills that niche.

A sober conservative opionion would argue for Israel's interests over those of Palestinians without sinking into racist or Islamophobic canards. It would provide constructive criticism of peace propsals rather than excuses that really amount to the objection that no serious peace proposal can ever possibly facilitate the existance of a Greater Israel. That would help enable meaningful discourse.

[Darranar]

8. Uh...

the Washington Times is pro-Israel. I know little about the New york Post, though from what I've heard it is, too.

[GabysPoppy]

9. My friend

You wouldn't use the NY Post to wrap dead fish in.

Except for their sports section it hardly qualifies as toilet paper.