Doesn't this shed light on why Kerry made his statement about

[lindashaw]

Israel? From Raghida Dergham's perspective, Kerry has done the only thing he could do.

Two Options
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat 2004/04/16

...snip...What Arab parties should not ignore is that the letter of assurances that George W. Bush signed will tie the hands of the democratic candidate John Kerry should he reach the White House. That is why it's a mistake to consider the letter insignificant, should Bush lose the elections.

...snip...That is why, when examining Palestinian and Arab decisions, it's imperative not to stop at anger with Bush or despise for what he's done acting as if the future will be better if he's out of office. What Sharon has done, with the assistance of those who are influential in making American foreign policies, is a coup d¹etat in American foreign policy, which Kerry will not be able to back away from easily.

...snip...But if the Palestinians decide that negotiations are the path to the establishment of Palestine, it's useful that they remember that no one realistically expected during the negotiations that Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders; no one expected implementing the "right of return" to Israel except for few hundreds. Furthermore, aborting the Israeli idea of a "transfer" , must have a consistent comprehensive strategy. Instead of displacing a million Palestinians who live inside Israel, in addition to the displacement of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, it may be beneficial to take advantage of an Israeli withdrawal even though incomplete and disjointed because it could be an opening to getting rid of occupation and to a Palestinian State.

http://english.daralhayat.com/OPED/04-2004/Article-20040416-f3a1ccf2-c0a8-01ed-0029-bea3a6ea82e0/story.html

[sangh0]

1. None of the people who complain about Kerry's statement

have a clue about what Kerry could have done to help the situation. They say Kerry should have spoken out in opposition, but not one of them can explain how that would help the Palestinians.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. He could have denounced Bush's giveaway of the West Bank

settlements to Sharon. He could have limited his complement to the Gaza part only.

[sangh0]

5. And how would that help the Palestinians?

.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. If Kerry doesn't recognise the settlements

The Palestinians will have an easier time getting a state.

Do you dispute this?

I have answered it several times in other threads. If you ask this question again, or start talking about Gaza, I'll alert it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Crikey.

It's fucking obvious.

There's an apologist in every crowd.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. apologist for what? True peace for Israel

I confess.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Not you.

"And how would that help the Palestinians?

What I meant, sarcastically: "How could preemptively legitimizing Israeli claims have a negative impact on Palestinians?" Duh, I don't know George.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

10. Yes, I dispute it

Kerry's not recognizing the settlements will not make it easier for the Palestinians to get a state. Kerry is a US Senator, and his recognition (or lack thereof) has no legal standing, and will do NOTHING for the Palestinians.

So far, you still haen't shown how Kerry can help the Palestinians now, BEFORE he becomes President. You only assert that he can, but you never provide a realistic explanation. Just slogans about how Kerry's magical superpowers will enable his words to help the Palestinians achieve a state.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. If he recognizes the settlements now,

why will that position change when he is president? I don't give a fuck whether it helps them before he is elected. I want a pro peace process candidate, and this statement indicates he is not.

[sangh0]

13. You still don't get it

1) Kerry has no authority to officially recognize the settlements.

2) He can change his position once he's elected. He can use the "everything has changed since 1/20/2005" line.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. No I don't understand why he can't take a position

against recognizing the settlements, since he will take that position as President.

In campaigns you are suppose to give people like me an idea of what you fucking stand for.

He says he supports Bush on this. So I assume he will do what Bush does.

It is that simple.

If he disagrees with Bush on this he should say so.

[sangh0]

15. He can take a position, but it won't help the Palestinians

He's a Senator, and his position is NOT the official opinion of the US Government. His opinion and his statements will have as much effect on Israel as YOUR opinions and YOUR statements.

So again, I ask you, what can Kerry do or say that would actually HELP the Palestinians?

In Campaigns you are suppose to give people like me an idea of what you fucking stand for.

Wrong. People like you read. Campaigns are for those who don't read.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. He can take a position on whether we should recognize the settlements

He can also take a position on whether antiabortion judges should sit on the Supreme Court.

He can take a position on whether he will veto domestic partnership bills, or propose constitutional amendments against them.

He can take positions on whether or not he will involve the UN in Iraq.

He can do all these things without being President yet, so he can take a position on this.

It will also help the Israelis and the Palestinians, because it would be an endorsement of two states by a major candidate. Two states are the only path to peace according to many here. It will also help because it will make it look to the Palestinians like they can accomplish something through negotiations.

[billybob537]

2. Bushstappo

trying to buy a few more Jewish votes!!!:mad:

[terisel]

3. Bush overturned many actions of former presidents. n/t