Reply #112: Yes there is and that candidate, from the start, has been Kucinich [View All]

[Tinoire]

Kucinich's stance on the Middle East is actually the best one

And he has never waffled. This is why he is the only candidate who has been interviewed and supported by Tikkun since the beginning and the main candidate being pushed by Jews for Peace; they will only list 3 on their web-site (Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely-Braun): http://www.positiveuniverse.org/Archives2003May/JewsforPeaceandJusticeint.html

This is yet another reason he's been endorsed most of the peace groups and recieved strong supporting statements from people like Chomsky.

Kucinich has gone so far as to address Water Rights which are an important and overlooked aspect at the root of the I/P conflict.

Water as a Human Right

Water as a Human Right: Ten Principles

1. All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain.

2. It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples.

3. There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control.

4. Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival.

5. Water shall be protected from commodification and exempted from all trade agreements.

6. Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness.

7. Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights.

8. Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets.

9. Water resources shall be protected from pollution.

10. Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life.

www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_water.htm
www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/006176.php


-----------------------------

This is the statement Kucinich released when he abstained from voting on the Tom Delay's "solidarity with Israel legislation" which was nothing more than a cheer-leading resolution for Sharon last year.(You can read that resolution and see the votes here:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/sres247.html)

For Immediate Release

May 2, 2002



Statement of Congressman Dennis Kucinich
On H.R. 392

I declare my support for the State of Israel and for the security of the Israeli people. I also declare my support for a Palestinian state and for the security of the Palestinian people. So I will vote present today because I believe the security of Israel requires the security of the Palestinians.

I will vote present because I believe the United States can do better through honest brokering, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence. Today we are missing an opportunity to lead people of the Middle East toward a secure and stable future together.

This resolution equates Israel's dilemma, which is the outcome of the Palestinian's struggle for self-determination with the United States' campaign against the criminal organization, Al Queda. Unfortunately, our own policy is undefined, amorphous, without borders, without limits, and without congressional oversight. For this Congress to place the historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context of the current fashion of US global policy pitches Israelis and Palestinians alike into a black hole of policy without purpose, and conflict without resolution.

The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom?

If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law? ((Dean has NOT done this))

There is a role for Congress and the Administration in helping to bring a lasting peace in the Middle East, however, this resolution does not create that role. After today we will still need to determine a course of action to bring about peace. This course will require multilateral diplomacy, which strengthens cooperation among all countries in the region. It will require focused, unwavering attention. It will require sufficient financial resources. And it will require that our nation have the political will to bring about a true, a fair, and a sustainable resolution of the conflict.

When this Congress enters into the conflict and takes sides between Israel and Palestine we do not help to achieve peace, but the opposite. Similarly, the Administration should consider that when it conducts a war against terrorism without limits the principle of war is quickened everywhere in the world, including the Middle East. When it talks incessantly about invading Iraq, the tempo of war is picked up everywhere. If we truly want peace in the Middle East this resolution is counter productive. I will vote present because I do not believe that this resolution dignifies the role towards creating peace, which this Congress can and must fulfill.

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020502-israeli.htm