Kerry: Two Blunders

[Classical_Liberal]

Kerry: Two Blunders link
Recently I praised Kerry for seeming to get Iraq right, when he demanded that the U.S. cede power there to the UN. Since then, the senator is 0 for 2.

First, according to The Washington Post, Kerry twice misnamed UN Iraq mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, calling him "Brandini." Does the erstwhile presidential wannabe think the mediator sent to Iraq by the UN is an Italian? The whole point is that he is an Arab, a former Algerian foreign minister. Doesn't Kerry know that?

Second, and far more important, Kerry has refused to denounce Israel's Ariel Sharon. Doesn't Kerry know that most American Jews—that would be "Jewish voters," to Kerry—don't identify with the thuggish, bloated Israeli prime minister, who's about to be indicted for corruption and who has a long history of being a terrorist? Apparently not. Kerry endorsed President Bush's decision to support Sharon's annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank, endorsing Israeli settlements there. And he didn't object to the Bush-Sharon accord overturning the Palestinians' right to return to Israel. The U.S.— for 37 years—has supported Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank, and it has long considered the settlements illegal . As far as the right to return, it's an important legal issue —no one expects hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to go back to Israel, but in a settlement the Palestinians do expect compensation for Israel's seizure of properties and land.

Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Kerry also approved of Sharon's assassination tactics, endorsing the killing of the top leader of Hamas in Gaza. Kerry didn't even qualify it, as the Bush administration did.

Memo to Kerry: You're running for president of the United States, not Israeli defense minister.....

http://www.tompaine.com/blog.cfm/ID/10234

[Jim Sagle]

1. Kerry RAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

[Classical_Liberal]

2. Do you believe in settlements?

? Settlements: The deliberate removal of Palestinians from their homes, just because they are Palestinians, and moving in Israelis just because they are Israelis?

Yes or no?

[Qanisqineq]

6. I just finished reading an article about this

by Pat Buchanan (the world is ending, he is starting to make sense)

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350

He blasts Bush on his deal with Sharon last week.

[izzie]

16. Just once I wish people could think and put them selfs in this place.

The people that get the land would love it and the people taken off the land would hate it. Seems a thing you do not have to think about.I have even asked people, if we did this would you be happy? We take a strip of this county in Maine, and give it to the American Indians and let the federal govt. arm them and you get nothing. Now the Indians will rule you, your water rights, your stores, schools and if you want to see your mother on other side of strip you need them to tell you if you can. How would you feel? Maybe you would fight back with what ever you had even if it was wild and unfair.Well it was Indian land.To bad if you have lived on it 150 years plus they had it longer and before. Their God also said he is their land.

[aquart]

4. What Jim said.

Why anyone wants Kerry to loudly denounce Sharon's assassinations when we have Clinton's signed order to assassinate bin Ladin.....is there some bizarre perception that Hamas is Arabic for Boy Scouts?

Still waiting for someone to condemn Palestinian tactics of suicide bombing.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. I condemn suicide bombings

but that is beside the point. It's the settlements stupid. They have to stop and their was NO excuse to unconditionally endorse these racist malignant threats to peace.

[aquart]

11. "Beside the point"? Aren't you embarrassed to say that? Just a little?

Thanks for calling me stupid, dear. Yes, the racism in the settlements is vile.

Thing is, the racism outside the settlements is vile, too. Not a word from you about that.

BTW, just between us, racism is the WRONG word. Jewish and Palestinian men have identical DNA. Jewish women, no. But the guys are the same guys. Go figure.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. It is the right word, even if it is technically religion.

. I condemn racism in all forms.

[dfong63]

12. Sharon has signed over 300 such orders...

while Clinton's signing of one such order is regrettable, clearly there's orders of magnitude difference.

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. Kerry is trying to get elected...

The same people here that are too dense to realize that he is playing to the crowd to get elected are the same people that saw right through GW being a "compassionate conservative" on his campaign trail...

[Classical_Liberal]

5. Not sure what you point is.

. Ofcoarse I saw through George Bush's compassionate conservative claims. Is this a bad thing?

After endorsing Sharon's plan including recognition of the settlements unconditionally on MTP. How is Kerry going to back away from this as President?

How does this help Kerry get elected? Since most Jews(the minority of them) who like settlements probably are pretty firmly in the Bush camp.

[aquart]

18. It's good that you're so conversant with Jewish thought and voting.

Me, I think the settlements were the stupidest idea, but I have no eagerness to hand them over. I'd like to slap every American who left home to colonize that frontier, because I HEARD them say they wanted to kill Arabs. And I don't think that's a sane or workable policy.

But you know what? I don't blame an Israeli who kills an Arab. I don't. There are many modes of resistance and they chose terror. And the Israelis lived in terror till it bent them, until the rage was always under the surface. I've been mugged four times. I know a little how it feels. I was in my apartment in lower Manhattan on 9/11. So I know just a little how an Israeli feels.

I never hear a word, not one single word, of that on these boards. Because Arabs murdering Jews is "beside the point," but Jews murdering Arabs must be forcefully condemned. Condemn away.

I'll vote for Kerry, and watch him squirm over this.

It IS NOT the settlements stupid. It IS the land of Israel.

But it isn't that either, is it?

[Classical_Liberal]

37. The settlements are one of the main causes of terrorism

so this does nothing for Israel. IF they had gotten out I don't believe either America or Israel would be experiencing terrorist attacks. I can't slap the people who settlemend the west. They died probably all be 1950.

[izzie]

22. I can not see why Kerry went with Bush on this. For the votes?

I can not see where we as Americans have done much right in the Middle East and it feels like a sell out with Kerry to me. He is a little to like Bush on the Middle East for me. Where is his passion for not going to war around the world. He had it once.Is he going to be like Gore and run to the middle so we find it hard to figure out who is who? I am already hearing, who cares who gets in, they are all the same, crooks.

[Guaranteed]

8. Yeah, he's denying us.

It's fucking insulting.

On edit: And a bad political maneuver.

[KissMyAsscroft]

9. He's looking at the numbers and playing to the Jews in Flor and NY...

Just ignore it! He won't be like GW on this crap...he will be like CLinton.

He has to say this crap to get ELECTED. Pull your head out of your ass, and realize that this is how elections work!

[Classical_Liberal]

10. I don't believe pro-settlement jews are swing voters

.

Furthermore, he could have just endorsed the gaza part without insulting people like me.

Clinton never endorsed settlements when he was running. NOr did Al Gore, so this is not how elections work.

[dfong63]

15. you're saying Kerry has to lie to get elected?

He has to say this crap to get ELECTED.

so you're arguing that Kerry has to lie in order to be elected?

and as far as being like Clinton... that is not a great commendation. Clinton let the problem fester during his two terms, allowing Israel to become more and more entrenched on their stolen occupied lands.

[aquart]

20. STOLEN?????????????????????????????????????????????

Won in war. Arabs lost. Arabs started the war. Arabs started the war. Arabs started the war.

Stolen is slanderous and inappropriate. But Jews are fair game, hey?

[w13rd0]

25. The aquisition of land...

...thru military means is a violation of international law.

[Jim Sagle]

34. Ever shed a tear for Syrian-occupied Lebanon?

[w13rd0]

36. I think you have the wrong guy...

...you can dig around for my thoughts on the so-called "holy land"...I'm opposed to extremism, religious fundamentalism, and wars of conquest of all stripes...

[Classical_Liberal]

38. No, because if they didn't occupy it Israel would be occupying it

and there would still be terrorism in Beruit.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. Why did winning the war give Israelis the right to ethnically

cleans Palestinians out of their homes. Stolen is completely appropiate. If I kicked you out of your house and moved into it, what else would you call besides stealing. The earlier thefts don't excuse it either.

[Jim Sagle]

35. The Arabs should'vethought of that before starting a war.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. How enlightened

.

[Jim Sagle]

41. Actually yes. Penalizing aggression IS enlightened, thank you very much.

[Classical_Liberal]

42. The land theft started before the aggression.

. aRe we supposed to reward theft? I am not a jewish israeli. If I lived in Palestine, the settlers would take my land. No thinking person would support such a position.

[Jim Sagle]

43. What theft was that?

[Classical_Liberal]

44. The settlements on the west bank.

.

[Jim Sagle]

45. Which came about after the 1967 war.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Jewish Voters

First, do you have data on your assertion of what "most Jewish voters" think? I'm not doubting you. I'm just curious because I haven't seen it.

Second, whether American Jewish voters identify with Sharon is immaterial to whether Kerry should denounce him. In the press, denouncing Sharon is identical to denouncing Israel itself. That's how it will be played. That's how it will be received. And that's how Kerry loses Florida altogether and substantial Jewish votes elsewhere. No, I don't have data on that because I'm speculating, but I'm speculating like a campaign strategist, which is what Kerry should be and is doing as well.

I, personally, have no use for Sharon or his policies, and if anyone asked, I would condemn the recent assassination of a Hamas leader and especially the announcement of plans to preemptively assassinate any future leaders of that group just for being their leader. But that's the luxury of being a private citizen not running for office and thus not being required to appeal to different constituencies.

Ya know, it's fine to criticize Kerry. There are plenty of things for which he is deserving of criticism. But if issues like this are allowed to split those who would otherwise vote for Kerry, we're just going to end up with Junior in the White House again, and what will that get us? Answer: Nothing good and absolutely no chance at all for a redress of grievances.

When Kerry gets in, then yell, and he will at least listen. Until he gets in, you have no one in power willing even to hear you, much less actually listen.

[dfong63]

17. so you're saying that in effect Jews really do control the US

[RoyGBiv]

19. No

I said what I said.

[aquart]

21. Wow. 2 percent controls the 98 and we don't even have the money.

Must be because we're so darn smart.

God, ugly things crawl out at night on this board.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. I will yell now as well. I don't want Kerry to cement his

position, but I think he already has by giving UNCONDITIONAL support to sharon.
Here is the Zogby polling data an American Jews.


http://www.peacenow.org/nia/pr/07252003.html

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS ISSUES



Palestinian State:

Both communities expressed strong support for the right of Palestinians to live in a secure and independent state of their own. Among Jewish Americans, 82% either strongly or somewhat agree with the notion of such a state. In the Arab American community, 92.7% either strongly or somewhat agree with the right of Palestinians to a state.

Compared with the response to this question in October 2002, there was a 6.8% increase in the number of Jewish Americans who disagree with the right of Palestinians to an independent state, drawing about equally from those who earlier either agreed or were not sure.

Israeli State:

When asked if Israelis have a right to live in a secure and independent state of their own, Jewish Americans almost unanimously (99.5%) either strongly or somewhat agree with the proposition, as do almost all Arab Americans (95.2%).

Road Map:

Jewish Americans and Arab Americans both voiced strong support for the Road Map to Middle East peace as laid out by the Bush Administration. 71% of American Jews either strongly or somewhat support the Road Map, just as 73.8% of Arab Americans either strongly or somewhat support the Road Map. Only 16.4% of American Jews expressed some level of opposition, while 12.6% are not sure. Similarly, just 11% of Arab Americans said they somewhat or strongly oppose the Road Map and 15.3% said they are not sure.

Road Map Implementation:

The survey asked respondents what needs to be done first in order to ensure the success of the peace plan: Israelis need to start dismantling settlements and outposts in the West Bank and Gaza and freeze settlement expansion; Palestinians need to declare a ceasefire and stop the suicide bombings; or both Israelis and Palestinians need to take these steps at the same time. A majority of Jewish Americans (56.7%) said that both sides need to take these steps at the same time; the second-most selected answer was that the Palestinians need to first declare a ceasefire and stop the suicide bombings (37.4%). Among Arab Americans, 73.2% said that both sides need to take these steps at the same time; the second-most popular answer was that Israelis must first dismantle settlements and freeze expansion (18.4%).

Settlement Freeze:

Respondents were asked their level of support or opposition to a freeze on all Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and Gaza. A significant majority of Jewish Americans (70.6%) either strongly or somewhat supports a settlement expansion freeze, with a plurality (45.7%) strongly backing such a freeze. Only 20.8% somewhat or strongly oppose a settlement freeze, while the rest (8.6%) are not sure. Arab Americans also strongly or somewhat support a settlement freeze (80.2%).

Ending Israeli Occupation:

When asked their level of support or opposition to Israel ending its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, a majority of American Jews (58.5%) said they either strongly or somewhat support an end to the occupation, 29.1% said they either somewhat or strongly oppose ending it, and 12.3% are not sure. In the Arab American community, the majority of those polled (83.6%) said they either strongly or somewhat support ending Israeli occupation.

Final Status Agreement:



The survey asked respondents about their support or opposition to a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, roughly along the lines of where the parties ended their last formal negotiations in Taba, Egypt: the establishment of an independent, secure Palestinian state alongside an independent, secure Israeli state, the evacuation of most settlements from the West Bank and Gaza, the establishment of a border roughly along the June 4, 1967 border, a Palestinian right of return only to inside a new Palestinian state, and establishing Jerusalem as the shared capital of both countries. Among Jewish Americans, 59.2% expressed support for such an arrangement, 31% did not support it, and 9.9% are not sure. Among Arab Americans, 85.2% said they support this kind of plan, 6.1% do not support it, and 8.7% are not sure.

In comparison to the findings of the October 2002 survey, there was a 7.5% increase in support for a Taba-style peace plan among American Jews, with this boost in backing apparently coming from the previously undecided. Similarly, there was a 6.3% increase of support for such a plan among Arab Americans, but most of this new backing came from those who had previously said they did not support the plan.

[RoyGBiv]

29. Yelling/Poll

Certainly it is your right to yell whenever you want. I just sometimes wonder what the true goal is with this. I simply see no advantage for Kerry in introducing detailed nuance into the battle of the sound bites right now because I think it simply won't be heard, much less understood. Even the comment he did make has been chopped up to an extent that it has lost quite a bit of context and all nuance. We can agree to disagree on this particular point, but beyond that, I do not see the utility of attempting to force Kerry into a position that could do nothing but create a volatile political issue that otherwise is left to simmer and belongs to no one in particular. If Kerry goes out of his way to own this issue, he also owns the baggage. He can't carry that right now.

Regarding the polling data, there are two problems with it, one of which was created by my improperly asking a question. You said that Jewish voters didn't identify with Sharon, only you phrased it a bit more profanely than that. So, I was actually asking for polling data on American Jewish thought about Sharon specifically, and the poll you cited didn't provide that. Also, the poll you did give is from the summer of last year. Recent events have added variables that may or may not affect more recent results to the same questions.

Thank you for providing it anyway. I did find it interesting.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. unconditional support is what it is

That isn't my fault. He could just have endorsed the Gaza part of the proposal. That creates a sound bite without offending me.

I don't see how Jewish opinion would have drifted right since the afghan war. Nobody elses opinions have.

[RoyGBiv]

31. Not Your Fault

Not saying it's your fault. But ending it with the term "unconditional" does allow the nuance to be lost.

Look, yes, Kerry said "completely" to Russert's question about him supporting Bush on this. Okay. I also think that was a mistake, and I don't like the way it came out, but I did continue listening. And, later, I went back and read what he said. And, he said more than that. You may not like it; a lot of people won't. Still, what he said is suggestive of recognizing the need of a more long-term, engaged process that recognizes certain practical realities, which, imo, has been sorely lacking.

From Kerry's interview on MTP:

SEN. KERRY: Well, that's not important. What's important is how to resolve the crisis, how do you move forward. I believe there's a way to move forward, I'm convinced of that. Now, I think what the president did in the last few days is to recognize a reality that even President Clinton came to. If you're going to have a Jewish state, and that is what we are committed to do and that is what Israel is, you cannot have a right of return that's open-ended or something. You just can't do it. It's always been a non-starter. I personally said that at a speech I gave to the Arab community in New York at the World Economic Forum. I've said that. I've also said that it is realistic because we know that at Taba they negotiated the annexation of certain territory. So it's really stating a reality.

What this administration has not done that it needs to do, what we need is a diplomacy that is ongoing and engaged with the Arab community in order to help to create and help emerge the kind of entity that will provide a peaceful resolution to this. Israel has no partner, no one to be able to negotiate with today. I think the United States and this administration could have done a much more effective job of helping that to emerge, but they were completely disengaged. I will not be disengaged. And I will have somebody involved in that at the highest level that has the respect of the community, the trust of Israel, and we will be able to move forward.

Perhaps you see it differently, but in my view, this is a step back from or at least around the "completely" remark. He identifies problems with the BushCo approach, and he suggests, albeit rather vaguely, an alternative. Regardless of whether you agree with this, the point remains that the suggestion itself is lost in the dialog that's taken place since. No nuance, no "big picture," remarks get through. It's just "unconditional." Had he said, or were he to say, that he "condemned" Sharon and then gone on to suggest a better course, the same thing would have happened. That one comment would have gotten the air play, and everything else would have been lost to major media.

As for drifts in opinion, I frankly don't know if it has. I do know a lot has taken place in the course of almost a year and that those events are likely to have affected opinions in some way. What way, I don't know. In any event, that poll still does not answer the basic question I had, which was whether American Jewish voters identified with Sharon. The corollary I would want to determine would be whether American Jewish voters equated criticisms of Sharon with criticisms of Israel.

I'll let you have the last word. I have to get some sleep. Whatever the outcome, it's been nice discussing it with you. Take care.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. Complementing Bush and Sharon

is not a mark of nuance. It just ads fuel to the fire along with the complete and unconditional support of the Sharon plan.

My only hope is the fact that he will be engaged, because I think he will only turn around if the EU leaders pressure him.

[fujiyama]

23. I agree

to some extent. My guess is that Kerry will be much better than Bush when it comes to the middle east. He has in the past called for envoys that were ill recieved by some groups, such as Carter and James Baker (on second thought...Baker? :puke: ).

However, Kerry has a tendancy to be, let's say, politically timid, and cautious. It's unfortunate that someone that showed bravery in a war, and has on occasion in the senate (gotta give him credit for voting against DOMA), has in the last several years become a bit of a coward politically.

While backing Israel is important (for votes, contributions, and historical reasons), there is no reason to support the Sharon plan on settlements. Most people (including most Jews), understand that the settlements are a roadblock to peace.

The assasinations is a bit trickier. It's tough to condemn Israel's assasination of terrorists, when the US is also engaging in a war on terror, where we are trying to kill or capture nin Laden and others(in Afghanistan, Iraq isn't part of the "war on terror" as much as the administration may claim). Though, I think here too, it's possible to say why the assasinations are also not conducive to peace, since they keep the cycle of violence going.

The right of return seems to be all but impossible I'd say. It seems unlikely that this will be something that will not be agreed to by the Israelis.

The main thing is skillfully making it clear to Americans that Israel is a friend of the US (important to state this whether many on the left agree or not), and that as a friend, we have to duty to tell them when we believe their policies aren't finding a way toward peace. We also have to act as an impartial mediator (though as Dean found out this is very difficult to say -- he backtracked soon after).

[namvet73]

27. This is not the place..

to support Bush. The primaries, for all practical purposes are over.
Whatever Kerry's faults, Bush is far worse. The Repugs are supporting Bush no matter what he does. He could dynamite the White House and they would still love him. So, why not spend more time attacking Bush? There is plenty of fodder.

You want a perfect candidate? You'll never find one. They all have one fault in common. They're HUMAN!

I think the Nader supporters think he's the perfect candidate. They are "all-or-nothing" people. I want it all or I want nothing.

If you want someone to the far left, he would be a sure loser. A moderate is someone who is going to be a mix. A mix is better than the radical extreme we have in office. Don't forget all the other issues and all the other players. Kerry is also, it seems to me, easier to persuade because he acknowledges his faults. Bush does what ever the hell he or his buddies want.

Let's get Bush out, then complain to Kerry. There will be less to complain about.

We have a piece of unmoldable granite in the White House. Lets get some clay in there, whom we can influence if we are not satisfied. It is inevitable that whomever wins is not going to be ideal. No one is.

I live in NJ, where the primaries are very late. I may vote for someone else on principle to communicate some dissatisfaction with the candidate, but it won't replace Kerry at this point in time.

We need more solidarity in this party or we're going to have four more years of a lame duck president who will have nothing to lose by charging through the china shop with a baseball bat. Then the next person in line could be Chaney.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. This is the place democrats talk about issues important to the party

I don't believe what is said here effects the electorate one way or another. The party is drifting right, and I won't go there. No Candidate has taken a position so far to the right as John Kerry just did.

I don't want to be taken for granted by Kerry.

[Jim Sagle]

33. And I don't want my concerns spat on 24x7 on this board.

But I stay on - because it's an important voice for the Democratic Party.

You can't always get what you want.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. That is tough.

. Since you like settlements you can expect your concerns to take heat from real progressives over it. The republican boards would be much kinder to you.

[mouse7]

46. They're all acting like 5th graders in Israel and Palestine

I think we ought to build a huge wall around Israel and Palestine and just let them kill each other.