Kerry's support for Israel repels Arab voters

[TeeYiYi]

Kerry's support for Israel repels Arab voters

By Ashraf Fahim
Special to The Daily Star
Tuesday, June 01, 2004

NEW YORK: The battle for the hearts and minds of Arab-American voters has taken a decidedly negative turn for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry.

A raft of statements by Kerry lauding President George W. Bush's unequivocal support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has alienated some in a community that, though relatively small, is strategically situated in certain states expected to be closely contested in the November election.

<snip>

Kerry's recently expressed views have been a letdown to community leaders like James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute (AAI), who is in close contact with the Kerry campaign. At an AAI conference in October, Kerry had won plaudits for labeling Israel's separation barrier "provocative and counter-productive." But he has since called it a "legitimate act of self-defense."

Zogby says that Kerry's views on Israeli-Palestinian issues risk alienating those for whom that issue is paramount. "There is a significant portion of the community - about 30 percent - that is not convinced that there is a fundamental difference (between Bush and Kerry) on this issue," he says, "which is a critical issue that they care a great deal about, maybe to the exclusion of others."

More: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=4729

TYY

[Jim Sagle]

1. Tough titty, said the kitty.

[Aidoneus]

2. Kerry's stance on Israel ain't nuthin' but shit

Marx on history's repetition: 2nd time as a parody... check.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Kerry RAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

[wtmusic]

5. "Kerry FLOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!"

adding more fuel to the RW spin machine...:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

6. Here is an example of your "Kerry RAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!"

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, April 18, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Jim Sagle]

10. Yessssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

11. Two war criminals and a potential future war criminal, what a trio!

Sharon, Bush, and Kerry agreed to Sharon's crimes in Gaza and to the greedy settlers living on Palestinian land.

No matter who wins in November, there won't be any peace in the Middle East, but more war and more Israeli "excuses" together with more American vetoes at the UN Security Council.

[Jim Sagle]

19. Now THAT'S what I call supporting the Democrats.

;)

[Nlighten1]

36. Indiana Green.

It would seem to me that Jim is either..

a. stupid
b. pushing buttons

[sampsonblk]

59. Agree 100%

You are unfortunately right.

[Just Me]

55. Childish. Bullish. Discriminatory. Divisive. Crap. Hmpff. n/t

[Forkboy]

81. That'sJim

Making the world a better place...

[Just Me]

84. *smile* eom

[Aidoneus]

9. again, I don't agree

Believe it or not, that isn't a popular statement for me to make here..

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

15. I don't understand why moderators don't see how clearly

hostile you are to this ethnic group as a group.

[Jim Sagle]

17. Because I'm not, that's why.

[Nlighten1]

37. Riiight.

Well, you seem to take great joy in the fact that Kerry supports the further repression and killing of the Palestinians.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Right. And your supporting evidence is....?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

76. Yep, and Bush actually IS a Compassionate Conservative. (nt)

[mmm]

58. Good post

It's a shame that this spewing of sewage is continually
ignored

[Forkboy]

82. I understand it

all too clearly.

[wtmusic]

3. "legitimate act of self-defense"?

Oh come on. Why doesn't he just endorse Nader?

[aquart]

7. So? They gonna vote for Bush?

I see their dilemna....it just doesn't break my heart.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

12. Exactly.

This is a fairly smart move on Kerry's part. IMHO, taking ANY POSITION AT ALL on the I/P issue automatically "alienates" "key swing state voters." As Bartcop often remarks, the I/P issue makes otherwise sane rational people into complete stark raving nutcases. (And on a personal note, every conversation I have with my dad confirms this).

Kerry's brilliant solution? Simply take the issue off the table for now. If there's no difference between the two candidates' stated positions, then all those Arabs in Michigan (and Jews in Florida) will, horror of horrors, have to find some other issue upon which to base their vote. Imagine that! The Arab-Americans will apparently now have a choice between a candidate who is bad on I/P issues, and one who is equally bad on I/P issues, but who will also throw many of them in jail without recourse to lawyers or the courts. See how that works?

IMO, When Kerry is actually president, I think we'll see him a little more evenhanded than his present rhetoric suggests.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Siding with Bush completely isn't taking the issue off the table

or not taking a position.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

51. I think it is, in a sense.

Just ask yourself: if a person wanted to vote for president based on their position on this one issue alone (say, my dad for example)... what would they do?

To take another example, neither Bush nor Kerry supports gay marriage. So what do I do? (Well, this example isn't quite as good because Kerry's against the constitutional amendment, and is pro-civil unions, I know...) But the point is, NO MATTER WHO WINS I'm not going to have a president sworn in in January 2005 who is going to support gay marriage. I have to find some other issue on which to base my vote, like, say, the fact that Bush is going to get us all killed. That's a good one.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. The I/P issue is the reason Bush is going get us killed

.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

66. I disagree.

the I/P issue has been around long before Bush and will be around long after him.

Bush is going to get us killed for entirely different reasons. Or, if the I/P issue is a reason, it is simply one of many.

[Classical_Liberal]

73. Face Reality By Zbigniew Brzezinski

Fourth, but far from least, the United States must recognize that success in Iraq depends on significant parallel progress toward peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most combustible and galvanizing issue in the Arab world. If the United States disengages from Iraq before making significant headway toward settling that dispute, it could face a sovereign Iraqi government that is militantly hostile to both Israel and the United States.

Therefore, the United States - if it is to gain any international (and especially European) support for remedying its Middle Eastern dilemmas - will have to clarify its stand on the eventual shape of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. It should by now be clear that the conflict will never be ended by the two parties on their own. U.S. unwillingness to define, even in broad terms, the fundamentals of a peaceful outcome abandons those Israelis and Palestinians who genuinely desire peace to the mercies of their extremist leaders. Furthermore, endorsing Ariel Sharon's goals but ignoring the Palestinian side of any compromise is delaying, rather than accelerating, the peace process - while compounding the suffering on both sides.

To mobilize those Israelis and Palestinians who seek peace, and to convince the Middle East that U.S. occupation of Iraq is not simply a conspiratorial extension of Israeli domination of the West Bank, the United States should more explicitly state its position regarding the six key issues that a final Israeli-Palestinian peace will have to resolve: not only (as Israel demands) that there can be no right of return for Palestinian refugees, and that the 1967 lines cannot automatically become the final frontier, but also that there will have to be equitable territorial compensation for any Israeli expansion into the West Bank; that settlements not proximate to the 1967 line will have to be vacated; that Jerusalem as a united city will have to be shared as two capitals; and that Palestine will be a demilitarized state, perhaps with some nato military presence to enhance the durability of the peace settlement.

A fundamental course correction is urgently needed if the Middle East is to be transformed for the better. Slogans about "staying the course" are a prescription for inflaming the region while polarizing the United States and undermining U.S. global leadership. A bold change of course - given the gravity of the situation confronting the Iraqis, Israelis, and Arabs more generally, as well as concerned Europeans - could still snatch success from the tightening jaws of failure. But there is little time left.


Al Qaeda recrutes using Arab Anger over the settlements
Israel has to get out of the West Bank and we must stop supporting them in this effort.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

74. I tend to agree, however...

The settlements are far from the only recruiting tool Al Qaeda has.

Ask yourself this: if the settlements were all dismantled today, would Al Qaeda simply disappear into thin air? "Well, that's over with, now we can get on with our lives and stop hating America!" I somehow doubt it.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. The Al Qaeda threat would diminish by 90%

It is much easier to dismantle it then. That is worth it to me. Fu4thermore I just think the settlements are pretty evil, and unjust, and I understand why arabs are pissed about them. I don't want my country supporting such a disreputable scheme. I re=edited my post, with an essay by Bresinsky. He is much more knowledgable on this than anyone at PPI or the PNAC. Those people supported the war and were primarily responsible for our mess. Why listen to them on the settlements. Why does Kerry think the people responsible for the mess are good foriegn policy advisors?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

83. Again, I agree with you about the settlements...

but I just think that Kerry's playing it smart by not giving the insanely pro-Israel crowd any ammunition.

One particularly hardline Likudnik I've spoken to expressed outraged at Howard Dean saying he would have a more "evenhanded" I/P policy. Apparently to these people, "evenhanded" is a code for "throw Israel to the wolves." I thought it meant "evenhanded," but that's just me I guess.

I would also say that Kerry's statements now may not actually reflect how he will govern when he becomes president. Time will tell, but I see him returning to a more Clintonian approach, i.e. actually trying to do something constructive. Right now what Kerry's doing is not policymaking, it's electoral politics. My only point is I think it's fairly smart of him not to raise hackles on either side of this issue right now.

[Classical_Liberal]

101. I find campaign promises reflect the way people govern

He doesn't have to fucking fully support Bush to nt give the pro-israel bullies ammunition. He should just say nothing at all. He could atleast support Carter and Clinton, but no fucking way. He has criticized both. How the hell did Cater and Clinton get elected if the pro=israel voters are such one issue people? Maybe Kerry is just right wing? Anyway the pro-israel bullies need to be challenged instead of capitualted too.

If Kerry really gives us a change of faces rather substance he will completely suck, just like Bush.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

102. "He should just say nothing at all?"

I don't think any candidate could possibly get away with that.

Also, I reject the thesis that "campaign promises reflect the way people govern." Remember when Bush* pledged to have a "humble" foreign policy?

I'm willing to cut Kerry some slack on this. We'll see how he governs. I think single-issue voting (no matter what the issue!) is self-defeating when we have a candidate who's a million times better on so many of the other issues.

Am I disappointed with Kerry's stance on this? Sure. Was he my first or even my second choice for the nomination? No. Does it make me wring my hands and gnash my teeth and wail all manner of doom and gloom? Nope, not really. Not yet. Maybe if Bush wasn't so bad, I could bring myself to bitch about Kerry. But he is, and I can't.

Believe me, if Kerry "gives us a change of faces rather than substance" I will be with you in the streets protesting. But it's June 1, 2004, and I am choosing to have some faith.

[Classical_Liberal]

105. What would be wrong with saying he will persue Clinton and

Carter's foriegn policy? Why the fuck did he move to their right? they were both winners!

[Tellurian]

31. Yes, I agree. Designating the Israeli/Palestinian issue moot!

at least for now, anyway.

Maybe Kerry has a plan in mind, making it an Israeli/Republican issue, or a Palestinian/Republican issue. Where the Israelis/Palestinians find common ground against the Republicans/Crusaders.

[BiggJawn]

61. If he busts Sharon's chops, he pisses off the Jews....

If he says Shrub is doing the right thing by Sharon, he pisses off the Palestinians.

Sounds like Hobson's Choice to me.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. I think the Jews that like Sharon are Bush voters

anyway. We need leadership on this issue as it is the main root cause of antiamerican sentiment in the middle east.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

68. Exactly my point.

Jews who like Sharon now have the option of voting Kerry, which may make a difference in a state like Florida. My dad is one such Jew (sorry to keep mentioning him, he just happens to be a perfect example) and I don't think he's pleased with Bush on many issues, like Ashcroft's gutting of civil liberties, for example. The I/P issue is the only thing he really cares about, though... so it's possible that my dad could vote Kerry. (Although he lives in Indiana, so lotsa good that's gonna do...)

[Classical_Liberal]

77. It would make a bigger difference in Florida if Kerry would

piss and moan about the second Vote Purge of African Americans. If your dad will only vote for a prosettler President, I am not sure I care for his vote. I don't want dixiecrats either. I don't believe there are that many non conservatives who think that land theft from Palestinians is a good thing. I want a choice to vote for someone who is antisettler and represents progressive values. Furthermore Arab and antiwar voters in Michigan are just as important. We could lose many midwestern states because of bleeding to Ralph Nader.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

88. Now see, here is where we part company...

"If your dad will only vote for a prosettler President, I am not sure I care for his vote. I don't want dixiecrats either."

As far as I'm concerned, I damn well care about every Kerry vote possible, and I don't much care if someone votes for Kerry for the wrong reason. Just so long as he's sworn in next January. Then we can start arguing policy.

But all this is just armchair quarterbacking. This position will get votes here, but lose votes there. That position will gain this voting bloc but lose this other voting bloc over here. Yikes. This type of thing I prefer to leave to the professionals. I just happen to think that this particular issue is so volatile that when Kerry basically stakes out the same position as Bush it may tend to neutralize the issue.

I know you want to vote for someone who is antisettler. I want to vote for someone who is pro gay marriage. But neither you nor I will have that choice come November. So I'm gonna go with Kerry anyway, because I think he's the one less likely to get me killed.

[Classical_Liberal]

100. My uncle Donny would vote dem if it weren't for abortion

There are millions more prolife catholics and evangelicals that are there are pro-sharon jews. As for the pros. The pros should be fired. We don't control one fucking branch of government.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

103. It's not the pros' fault we don't control one branch of gov't.

Executive branch: Stolen. The pros couldn't stop that. Gore did get more votes. (Even in Florida!)

Judicial Branch (Supreme Court): the product of decades of appointments. Sometimes does the right thing. Disastrously did NOT do the right thing in Bush v. Gore. Again, not the pros fault. And, lower federal courts still have many Clinton appointees.

Congress: Some blame for this may indeed be laid at the feet of the pros, but AFAIK we stand a decent chance of taking back the Senate this year.

I think you should work on your uncle Donny and I will work on my dad. Perhaps we can get them to think big picture just this once!

[Classical_Liberal]

104. I don't want uncle Donny pandered to, I am prochoice.

. The pros lost florida because they didn't seriously fight for it. Lieberman wanted to allow the military votes that came in after the due date(probably forged after they knew Bush was losing). They also ingored the vote purge. They still are doing nothing to prevent the new vote purge. They gave up and refused to make a civil rights case out of it despite the protest of the congressional black caucus. Furthermore if they had taken on Bush more stongly on Enron and all those other scandals they would have run congress last time around. Lieberman suppressed that investigation too.

[Senior citizen]

8. I thought the wingnut propaganda was that Al Queda liked Kerry.

Are they flip-flopping again?


:evilgrin:

[Just Me]

87. Since aQ wants its form of "armageddon", Bush would be its suitor. n/t

[Voltaire99]

13. And not only Arab voters, I assure you.

Progressives of all ethnicities are disgusted with Kerry. His lapdog position on Israeli colonization defies American interests while perpetuating a monumental injustice. How very Bush of him.

[Senior citizen]

16. Who elected you spokesperson

for progressives of all ethnicities, SCOTUS?


:kick:

[Jim Sagle]

18. He voted 5-4, all by himself.

[Zhade]

21. I agree with him.

NT!

[Nlighten1]

39. I agree with him.

Do you consider yourself a progressive?

[The Stranger]

46. Progressivism transcends ethnicity.

Make no mistake about it. Progressivism stands firmly against the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians. No one could ever call him or herself a progressive and not stand against Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And no amount of inane internet posting, campaign money or lobbying can ever change that.

[Just Me]

92. Progressive = appreciating all life and opposing inequity. n/t

[Nlighten1]

38. Indeed.

But then the truly progressive people in the Democratic party aren't exactly enthused that Kerry is our candidate. His support for other throwing Chavez, the war in Iraq and now this grates on every progressive nerve I have.

[Classical_Liberal]

80. Kerry could easily use the same rational with prolife voters

I mean where will naral go?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. So, when did the Progressives nominate you as their Pres. candidate?

[Zolok]

71. I think the DU mods

ought to create a separate board for Middle East/Israel flame wars...and then forcibly expell wandering ME threads into the same.
I've never seen a DU thread about Israel end on a remotely sensible note.
Something about Israel just stirs people up, best to simply create a separate monkey-house for the issue.
I also think there are a lot of paid freeper provocateurs who troll the DU and elsewhere to start flame wars about Israel on the pretext of taking a "progressive" stand on the issue.
If I was Ed Gillespie that is something I'd have going on.


www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

[demdave]

85. There already is one....the I/P dungeon. You have to look for it though.

Most of these threads end up there sooner or later. Some end there much sooner than necessary, but it is a coin flip.


As for the freeper claim, I don't think we need any freepers to have this kind of discourse. The Dem party historically is home to many Jewish voters. It is also a home for many ME supporters. Clashes are bound to happen.

[Zolok]

106. "The JEWISH lobby"?

This thread has gone off the deep end.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. The Democratic primary voters sure seemed to like him and his policies

;)

[Classical_Liberal]

78. That is because the primary process is stacked toward conservatives

and the pundits did a good job of demonizing Dean. We need to move the West Coast primaries forward.

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Liberals were screaming that Deans stances were unfair to the Palestinians

I'm not sure that you would have gotten much different policy from Governor Dean.

[Classical_Liberal]

108. Well he did alot of pandering after he was pummelled for being

even handed. He made a stategic error in pandering to the pro-Sharon bullies, but we knew where his heart was. He supported Carter's views, unlike Kerry who is to the right of Carter and Clinton. Also Dean would have actually done something about media consolidation, and that is killing us.

[cestmoi]

90. I agree that KErry is a lap dog.

Bending over backward to to gain the hardline Jewish vote is not doing anyone a favour. Kerry should think about the better situation the US would be in right now if, BushCo listened to allies who weren't jumping up and down to please him. Israel aggressive tactics may spell her doom. Clearer heads needs to prevail.

[Barkley]

110. The UN would agree with you too!

Here is a list of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied with, far more than Iraq. Note that she has also illegally developed nuclear weapons. Further, the situation is far worse than would at first appear, it involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. (See Table) Israel's, defiance goes back to its very beginnings. This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation as Israel stands in violation of more UN resolutions than ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH.

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1372

[Matilda]

20. The truth is, the Jewish lobby donates more money to campaign funds.

And money talks.

[physioex]

22. That's right..

Look at AIPAC and their political clout. Unfortunately, I do not blame this on either Bunnypants or Kerry since they have both been bought off on this issue. If you listened to Dean, he expressed a very pro-Israeli view also...

[Zhade]

23. Dean actually got smacked down for suggesting an "even-handed approach".

To think - he had the temerity to suggest being fair with both sides!

Well, I never...!

</sarcasm>

[DaveSZ]

24. This makes it hard for me to vote Kerry

Well all the Jews who believe in screwing the Palestinians should be happy with both Bush or Kerry.

It's nice to know Israel rules our country.

Even if we could return to a balanced approach like under Clinton I'd be happy.

[physioex]

27. I agree with you Dave...

That one issue will not change regardless of who is the President. If you want to change this issue, it needs to begin at the grassroots. The Israeli, Evangelical, and Defense lobby has got us way out gunned, not that rest of the right wing hasn't at this point.

[physioex]

25. That's something this country needs to look into...

Not only the taking of sides is harming this country, but the billions in foreign aid to Israel....I doubt there is an easy solution to this problem.

[Jim Sagle]

28. How about the foreign aid to the Palestinians, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan,

etc. Does that bother you, or only the aid to Israel?

[physioex]

29. Hmm...complicated question..

How much foregin aid is given to Israel as compared to Palestinians? Look at the numbers, I think you will be surprised. Look at the way the Palestinian population lives in utter poverty while the Israeli government fights with M1 Tanks and Apache helicopters. Oh and the aid to Egypt is just there to pacify their hatered of Israel. So as far as I am concerend our foregin policy has a single minded purpose unless you can show I am wrong.

[MisterP]

57. and little of the money goes to the Israeli "peons"

supports and infrastructure are slashed to pay for weapons for "defense"--the Likud plays along gladly with the Armageddon lobby and adopts Reaganomics, to the detriment of all but itself

[physioex]

30. As far as Pakistan goes...

They are extremely dangerous. They have a secular government which the people of the country absolutely despise. As far as they are concerned, the government is propped up by the americans and is entirely corrupt. Musharraf is totally walking on thin ice. The scariest part is that they are a nuclear power.

The problem in general with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan is the fact the people of their country do not like their governments. The US is supporting their governments to keep the people of these countries opressed. And they all united in their hatered of what they feel Israel/USA is doing to opress the Palestinian people.

[Malva Zebrina]

44. One third of all US foreign aid goes to Israel

a tiny little country with a tiny little population.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign- aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.

More interesting facts here:



http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. I bet we give much more to Israel than all of the others combined...

Does it bother you that a portion of that tax-payer funding returns to the U. S. in the form of PAC donations to key members of Congress in return for votes on measures supportive of Israel?

Does it also bother you at all that these members of Congress support ALL issues favorable to Israel, even at the expense of America and the American people?

Just curious how far YOUR rabid support of Israel goes.

[The Stranger]

47. It is not even close.

http://www.ifamericansknew.com/

[Matilda]

97. Those graphs should make everyone think.

Thanks for putting up the link.

[oasis]

26. Kerry has to play it cagey. Polls indicate that his strategy is working.

[monkeymind]

32. Arabs should quit crying

and realize that they are in the same boat as working class liberals, homosexuals, etc...
We all know Kerry has no intention of representing us.

[dand]

33. Sharon stated that "Israel rules the USA,

and everybody knows it", and you know, he is right, they take the aid we send them and they use it to buy our politicians. Is it any wonder that a billion Arabs hate our guts.

[Nlighten1]

40. Yes but...

Our homes aren't being bulldozed and there is no genocidal campaign against us.

[TheWraith]

52. To hell with you, and the attitude you rode in on.

Suicide doves like you people anger me. The split second that our guy doesn't pander and ditto-worship every single issue you want, no matter how fringe, you go off whining and bitching about how he's no better than Bush. Bullshit. You're willfully blinding yourselves to reality so that you can go on feeling persecuted. You ignore the fact that there are certain things Kerry has to deal with in order to get elected, and that just because he gives a little lip-time to something doesn't mean that he endorses it. The reason that people like you do not get a voice in politics is because you demand death-stands over everything, and death-stands against something that will happen anyway are stricly the perogative of political amateurs.

To everyone else, sorry for going off like that. I just felt it needed to be said.

[idontwantaname]

54. simmer down.

"suicide doves"?

pandering and ditto-worship?

death stands?

sounds like you belong in the DLC.

[No Passaran]

34. So you think they'll be voting for Bush?

give me a break.

But on the other hand, nothing could ever surprise me anymore. In 2000 FL Arabs voted for Bush and you saw what those thousands of votes meant in the end.

[kitkatrose]

49. Maybe they'll decide to sit this one out.

Or vote third party. There are other options, some are more productive than others.

[Nlighten1]

35. no fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry on the issue?

They must be listening to Nader...how can they say this about the savior?

[NNN0LHI]

41. This is the biggest stinking pile of crap I have ever read in my life

The majority of US Arabs are christians. They think Chimpy is god just like the rest of the whacked out fundies do. They have in the past and will in the future vote for Smirk no matter what happens. Who is kidding who here?

Don

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[keithyboy]

86. This is where Kerry loses his bid for President. Many will just stay home

because they don't see a clear choice. Especially given what Kerry has been saying about Iraq, Iran, Venezuela in the past few days. You simply can't win this election by out Bushing Bush. It just can not be done. People want to vote for a real difference. If they don't see one, they will stay home or vote for Nader.

[RedCloud]

50. Blame it on LBJ

He had the chance to whack Israel for their premeditated murders of the US sailors on the USS Liberty back in the 60's. But the sailors fought bravely and not all died. The survivors left no doubt that earlier Israeli flyovers indicated they knew the ship was US, but apparently LBJ had bigger fish to fry with his botched LIHOP or MIHOP.

Because LBJ not only knew what the Israelis had done (even before the Defense Dept. had informed him!!!)he showed that the US people would tolerate such a "friendly mistake". You all know what would have happened to Egypt (which was the presumed fall guy)if they had done it.

Make Israel behave and most of the Middle East takes care of the rest of the problems.

6,000,000 Jews died (and far too many of the apathetic or "dry branches" than Zionists which suggests collaboration!)in WWII but Europe did not respond to its own atrocities, why should the USA?

The USA let a lot of Nazis in after WWII to brainwash the FBI and CIA with their propaganda. Indeed we had a red scare, but no Nazi scare. They deserved it, not our WWII ally which lost 57,000,000 people. (Why doesn't Hollywood touch this topic?)

Kerry needs to show courage and not take the road well traveled just for the sake of voting patterns. At some point the USA has to "spank" Israel.

[Wind Dancer]

53. Interesting read!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/blackmail.html

IS ISRAEL BLACKMAILING AMERICA?
FOX NEWS SPIKES FOUR PART STORY
ON PHONE TAPPING SCANDAL

What follows is the original article I wrote when the news story first broke regarding the existence of a system to tap into any phone in America built into the surveillance system used by law enforcement authorities. Several cases were cited where investigations ranging from drug running and money laundering to the events of 9/11 had been compromised by leaks from the company that operated the phone taps as well as phone data from an associated company that handles billing services for almost every phone in America.
The focus of the article was a single question. Could Israel be blackmailing the entire US Government and media.

The answer is now obvious. Fox News, the so-called "We report, you decide" all news network, has removed the four part story from their website. No explanation is given except for the single Orwellian sentence at the end of one of the links, "This story no longer exists".

Parts 1 to 4 of Fox News' Israeli spy ring story


Israel, purportedly our friend, has been spying on us all. And we're not talking about individual spooks like Jonathan Pollard, or small-time networks such as the 140 Israelis arrested by the FBI prior to 9/11, or the 60 arrested since (including 5 arrested who were cheering and celebrating as the World Trade Towers collapsed).

more

[geek tragedy]

56. This thread reads like

the Protocols. The Jews/Israelis own this country, huh? I guess that means we can start blaming them for all of the other problems going on.

The basic problem is that the Palestinians don't have a very good image with the American electorate. The Israelis and their supporters play the P.R. game much better here.

And the Palestinians have to shoulder some of the blame--the whole terrorism and befriending Saddam thing kinda backfired on them. Had there been a Palestinian Ghandi or MLK Jr., the perception of them here would be much more balanced.

The occupation is horrible and unjust--most Israelis and American Jews, as well as Americans know that. But there probably won't be any progress until someone with more credibility than Arafat emerges on the Palestinian side. Israelis don't respect him, Americans don't respect him, Palestinians don't respect him. He simply can't deliver the goods. As long as he's the public face of the Palestinians, it will be politically implausible for a US politician to campaign on a pro-Palestinian platform.

[Classical_Liberal]

65. The Israelis lobby has more powerful pr simply because they have more

money. They get it from fundies and defense contractors. Sharon is a murderer too, and Palestinians rightly don't trust him. I don't like the fact that money dominates the American political system. I know Kerry probably won't change this fundamental flaw in our system. I believe if there were a serious threat to cut off aid, or offer made to increase aid, but you only get it if you move out of the settlements, the Israelis would change their tune pretty quickly, just as they did in 91.

[geek tragedy]

67. The Israelis have already seen

their economy go completely into the tank over this. I don't think economic leverage is gonna cut it. One of the structural tragedies of the suicide bombings has been to greatly reduce the rationality of discourse in/about Israel. Until the Israelis can be convinced that the Pals really don't want to push them into the sea and destroy Israel, there really isn't much of a chance for negotiations.

[Classical_Liberal]

72. Even before the suicide bombings they kept expanding the settlements

If there is not rational discoarse in Israel, both sides are to blame. The Israeli lobby doesn't get it's money from Israelis so I don't know what the economy has to do with it. Threaten them with aid, they will become more warm to negotiation.

[BabsSong]

64. Wouldn't it be a great day in the neighborhood if

Americans spent just half the time worrying about the democracy we are losing here at home, the economic decline the average American is in, the lack of healthcare for our citizens, education, etc. than they do over what is happening to their old homeland or to a vision they have been given of a place they have never seen, etc.?? Maybe if we would clean up our own cess pool first, we would be better off. And maybe those who are new citizens would better serve their peoples if they stayed in their homelands and worked to better their lot. I find it hard to hear the cry of these "various communities" who did everything they could to flee their homelands and then spend all their time here trying to get the USA to fix their homelands.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Maybe "even-handed" is the answer...

No, no. That got booed down earlier.

[ozone_man]

79. Dean made that mistake.

Can't speak of truth and justice and get away with it.

Kerry has failed to give me a reason to vote for him.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

89. Oh, come on...

How about this reason: He's not BUSH! If you need any more reason than that, then you're part of the problem. Someone upthread used the term "suicide doves." How apt!

I swear, when this perfect politician that some of you are waiting for comes along -- you know, the one with identical stands as you on each and every single issue -- America will be a charred cinder and it will be too late. I beg you - let's at least get Bush out of there and see what happens under a Kerry presidency. If he turns out to be nothing more than Bush-lite, I will gladly apologize for my wrong-headedness.

[Forkboy]

91. America will be a charred cinder?

promise?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

93. LOL.

Yeah. I promise.

I admit it's hyperbolic, but if America keeps going the way it is going, then its eventual charred cinder-hood will have been richly deserved.

(Note: That was also hyperbole.)

[ozone_man]

94. He's not Bush isn't good enough.

I'm afraid he has to do better than that. I can't get behind him if he is supporting these actions by Israel. He looks more and more like Bush to me.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

95. That really says it all.

A sad and alarming view.

"He's not Bush" certainly is good enough! Or haven't you been paying attention these last three years? I notice you have a lot of posts - perhaps those were all in the Lounge?

I mean, there are probably a few people who I think would be worse than Bush. Cheney, for example. Maybe. But Kerry is not one of them!

I urge you to reconsider. For about a thousand reasons, Kerry is better than Bush. How anyone can possibly deny that is beyond my comprehension.

[Forkboy]

96. Some people want to change direction entirely

Heading for a cliff,whether at a fast pace or a slow one,is still heading for a cliff.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

99. True, but...

If given the choice, I would choose to go SLOWLY - that way, there's more time to figure out how not to go off the cliff.

[ozone_man]

109. So said the frog in a pot of increasingly warm water.

It feels better in the short term, but we still get cooked.

If the temperature is initially hot enough, it might occur to us to jump out.

Kerry is different from Bush only by degrees. Instead of PNAC, he favors Progressive Internationalism. Kinder and gentler he is.

[bullimiami]

98. Im a liberal dem and jewish

And Kerrys stance on Israel, Venezuela and a lot of other things offends me but what choice do I have?
Our system sucks. Kerry is a comprimise but the only other choice is an animal.
I hold my nose I vote for Kerry.

[tlcandie]

111. Makes me wonder if each was in an extremely abusive relationship

if you would choose another abuser who abuses you to the same degree just because he wasn't the original abuser?

Or, maybe you would choose another abuser who would only abuse you part-time rather than full-time and/or maybe it would be only physical abuse rather than mental and emotional?

I guess I would be a suicide dove and jump off the cliff for a totally healthy relationship versus compromising my heart and conscious instead of taking the abuses and continuing into a fast or slow spiral to hell.