| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Analysis: President Kerry on Israel |
| 2004-07-11 |
| Wash Times - EFL This is Kerry at his best - which means his worst. Prepare to be nuanced within an inch of Israel’s life... it’s a work in progress. By Gadi Dechter Washington, DC, Jul. 9 (UPI) A leaked draft of the Democratic Party platform and recent statements by John Kerry suggest that a Democratic White House would continue the Bush administration’s enthusiastic support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. However, the decidedly circumspect wording of these documents do hint at subtle, but potentially significant, differences in a Kerry administration’s likely policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Last month, Kerry released a position paper titled, "John Kerry: Strengthening Israel’s Security and Bolstering the U.S.-Israel Special Relationship." The paper was designed to assuage concerns of pro-Israel voters still rankled by Kerry’s comments during the primaries, in which he harshly criticized the Israeli construction of the barrier in the West Bank. "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the ’Green Line,’ cutting deeply into Palestinian areas," Kerry told members of the Arab-American Institute in October 2003, a month after he had announced his candidacy. "We do not need another barrier to peace." He went on to say that the barrier was a "provocative and counterproductive measure" that was not in Israel’s interest. Assured of the nomination, Kerry appears to have reversed his position on the West Bank barrier, which was ruled illegal Friday by the International Court of Justice. "John Kerry supports the construction of Israel’s security fence to stop terrorists from entering Israel," the June statement reads. "The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense erected in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israeli citizens. He believes the security fence is not a matter for the International Court of Justice." In a statement released Friday evening after the court’s ruling, Kerry reiterated his support for the barrier, and said he was "deeply disappointed by today’s International Court of Justice ruling." |
| Posted by:.com |
| #16 Once again, more pandering. Kerry was agaisnt the fence before he was for it... |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-07-11 7:14:12 PM |
| #15 Bulldog, true to the stereotype though, American Jews are fairly well off, and contribute $ far in excess to their numbers. The GOP needs to stay strong for Israel on principle, and if it brings in $, votes, so much the better. Interestingly, some of the strongest support for Israel come from conservative Christians, which vote overwhelmingly Republican |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-11 6:15:46 PM |
| #14 The Dems are dead meat politically if they alienate a much larger segment of the Jewish vote. Really, AC? I know the Jewish community are influential, but they're - what - 2 % of the total US population? I know polls show it's a close race at the moment, but you're looking at a swing group that's got to be a fraction of one percent of the electorate. I'll bet there are a lot more voters with anti-Semitic political leanings, and a lot more people who could be targeted with anti-Semitic/anti-Israel propaganda than there are Jews, the the US... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-11 5:59:38 PM |
| #13 Kerry's statements are a masterpiece of tightrope rhetoric. The Dems are dead meat politically if they alienate a much larger segment of the Jewish vote. At the same time, they have a large and rabid anti-semitic contingent on the far left. Ralph Nader has openly invited the latter to join his effort, and he is doing the same, albeit more circumspectly, with residual right-wing antisemites. The election could well hinge on just how far Kerry wants to go in appeasing the far-left moonbat contingent. They have great power and influence within the party organization, but the products of that influence; pacifism, taxation, regulation, and multiculturalism, are the kiss of death in national politics. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-07-11 1:35:30 PM |
| #12 acknowledged, mhw. Stripping off the non-socialist/ultralib Jews would be a good start. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-11 11:31:39 AM |
| #11 ... there is a very large contingent of Jewish voters who really don't care much about Israel or who care more about other things ... ... or who do care but don't perceive a significant difference between the two parties on the issue. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-07-11 11:31:05 AM |
| #10 Frank G. I think it is almost a sure bet that W will get a higher percentage of Jewish votes in 04 then he did in 00. This may be critical in Florida. However, there is a very large contingent of Jewish voters who really don't care much about Israel or who care more about other things. Probably 50% of Reform Jews are virulently anti Bush and most of the rest are leaning to the dems. Virtually every Jew who is an activist for homosexual rights or higher preschool teacher pay or any of the other warm/fuzzy leftist causes is virulently anti Bush. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-07-11 11:24:21 AM |
| #9 you don't see Colin Powell hanging out in Ramallah, do you. Dem whackos (like Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Elijah Cummings) do not support this "bipartisan" foreign policy, do they? Republicans have been the strongest supporters of Israel, particularly W, and the sooner American Jews awaken to that the better for them |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-11 11:10:06 AM |
| #8 When Carter was President, his policy on the Israel-Palestinian issue was generally supported by the Republicans. When Reagan and Bush Sr. were Presidents, the Democrats as a whole never opposed the administration policies on the Israel-Palestinian issue. The same is true in the current administration. Our bi-partisan policy is generally supported by the US population as a whole. That's why neither party will make a major issue of it in this election. The US population is overwhelmingly united on the issue. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-07-11 11:04:53 AM |
| #7 Jimmy Carter has been the Dem voice of authority on the ME, and has never failed to back the Paleos over the Israelis. Bzzzzt! Nice try Mikey. Another strike |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-11 10:44:13 AM |
| #6 It's still a crock to believe that there's "no difference! AS IF it'll be OK under a President Kerry (Retch).... Kerry is evil and will sell Israel out the same way Clinton did and the real way Jimmy Carter did with the Camp David fiasco. All that did was lock us into giving Egypt $2 billion a year in aid for "being nice." |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-11 10:41:06 AM |
| #5 Kerry fense sitting on the fense issue is vital. The dems have a very large pro Israel faction, a large Israel neutral faction but also there is an anti Israel faction. Although this latter group is probably less than 10% of registered dems, it makes up a higher percentage of activists. For Kerry to win, he has to keep the pro Israel voters but also keep the anti Israel activists. This is why the PA is delaying any anti fense resolution in the UN until after the election. The PA knows that if Kerry wins, he can be made to waffle on Israel's security - and a waffle is a victory for terrorism. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-07-11 10:40:30 AM |
| #4 Bush's policy on the Israel-Palestine issue is generally supported by the Democrats, as Clinton's policy was generally supported by the Republicans. As the Israel-Palestine situation evolves, and as our US policy evolves, our policy remains generally bi-partisan, no matter which party occupies the White House. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-07-11 10:37:40 AM |
| #3 What a crock of shit, Mike! There's a world of difference--You don't see Arafat being the only guest at the White House, the way you did under Clinton. And Clinton used his power as Prez to pressure Barak into giving away almost all of Israel's land for peace! Thank God Arafat didn't take it! And on Friday, Hitlery was supporting the fence, but when she was "Co-Prez," she had to kiss Suha Arafat like a lover. President Bush is the best friend Israel's ever had--Ask around! Sharon, Netanyahu and even Mubarak of Egypt (and probably King Abdullah of Jordan) will tell you that Bush is the first U.S. President to present a workable solution to the Middle East "problem." |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-11 10:24:23 AM |
| #2 US policy on the Middle East is very bi-partisan. In general, there is little difference between the opinions of Democrats and Republicans on the Israel-Palestinian issue. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-07-11 9:53:42 AM |
| #1 Kerry merely points out -- using the ambiguous present perfect tense -- that he "has supported (Arafat’s) total isolation," but does not explicitly call for a continuation of the Palestinian Authority chairman’s restriction to his Ramallah compound by Israel. Let's get this straight. He supports total isolation but is not explicitly supporting "house arrest" in Ramallah. So how does he suggest it be implemented? In a grave maybe? |
| Posted by: Cynic 2004-07-11 8:33:33 AM |