Kerry Vows to Protect Israel in Peace Moves

[Freddie Stubbs]

U.S. Would Not Disengage, He Says

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page A05


Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) told a prominent Jewish group yesterday that the "security of Israel is paramount" and pledged that as president he would never push Israel into peace agreements against its interest. At the same time, he criticized President Bush for too often "disengaging" from the effort to forge a U.S.-Palestinian settlement.

On a day when Israeli politics were especially unsettled, Kerry's noontime remarks to leaders of the Anti-Defamation League seemed aimed at treading a middle path. While repeating some of his standard criticisms of Bush's foreign policy, he said the emphatic U.S. support for Israel -- which has won Bush a measure of support from what is historically one of the Democratic Party's most reliable voting blocs -- would be no less steadfast in a Kerry administration.

"As president, my promise to the people of Israel is this: I will never force Israel to make concessions that cost or compromise any of Israel's security," Kerry said. "The security of Israel is paramount. . . . We will also never expect Israel to negotiate peace without a credible partner. And it is up to the United States in my judgment to do a better job of helping the Arab world to help that partner to evolve and to develop."

Kerry made only a quick nod to the news of the moment: the vote in a Likud Party referendum Sunday to reject Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip. Bush and Kerry had embraced Sharon's plan at the same time they endorsed several concessions to Israel about the terms of an eventual settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The snubbing of Sharon by his party was a setback for Bush, and leaves the path to a settlement more uncertain than ever.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64018-2004May3.html

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. do what you have to do John

Just win in November.

[Terry_M]

2. Unfortunately I now believe that after he is elected...

He will do whatever he "has to do" to get re-elected.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. fine by me

as long as he does and not Jeb or Carl or Harpo or whatever other Bush brothers there are.

[Ruby Romaine]

5. go John , we're counting on you!

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. So you think that he is taking this stand simply to win votes, rather

than actually believing that it is the best course of policy?

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. what, a politician taking a stand to win votes?

No, perish the thought.

:eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

15. That is what the Kerrybots are saying, to get the left to vote for him

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=516969&mesg_id=516969

Because this policy is disasterous for America, and not one but different from Bush's views.

[Hornito]

6. Does this mean he's going to protect Sharon and Likud? And this

is different from Bush's policy, how? It's sad to see the political reality, and the incredible influence Israeli politics, and Likud backers, have on our own electoral politics.

How many have asked themselves why this influence exists? Only 2% or so of the U. S. population is Jewish, and perhaps only 50% of the 2% support Sharon and Likud, so why DO our politicians prostrate themselves so to this small minority?

One would think pro-Likud voters control a majority of votes in the U.S.! Why? The proportion of influence to population percentage is so far out of whack, as to be ridiculous, and ....wrong. Why is Israel being allowed to influence our electoral processes so? Anyone care to venture some guesses or opinions?

[AndyTiedye]

7. Xtian Fundies are Also Likud Supporters

Part of their end-times prophecy thing.

Of course that won't help Kerry.
I don't think Kerry or his strategists realize where so much
of the Likud support really comes from, or he wouldn't pander
to them so much.

[demdave]

8. Are you calling Kerry a Christian fundie or that he just panders to them?

I didn't really see how your post related to the original statement about Kerry.

[Malva Zebrina]

11. the power of religion

even though the god is different

Christian literalist fundamentalists must be included in the one or two percent who are Jewish as a population that would encourage this war in the ME.

I am not sure of the percentage of those Christians, who do believe in such a thing as the "rapture", where,according to their interpretations of "prophecy", ironically, Jews will be annhilated, except for 140,000 of them who will convert to Christianity in this Armageddon.

To me personally, it is the root of all the violence, wars and the killing and the total inability of peoples and human beings to use the power of their discernment--their brains.

But, looking at all the factors, I am willing to concede however that the religion may become simply a support system to other systems--such as the economic system--such as what happened in this country, when slavery, a necessary factor to the economy of the south, was absolutely sanctioned by the Christian, righteous, southern ministers who could quote chapter and verse, to prove it was something that Jesus approved of.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Fundies, and Defense contractors

.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. September 11 may be a factor

Voters are more likely to be sympathetic to a country which is fighting terrorists.

[SOS]

9. Kerry knows not to use words like "fair"

or "even-handed". Howard Dean learned that recently.
So did William Scranton 30 years ago.

From today's NYT by Serge Schmemann:

"To suggest that the other side also has just grievances and just demands becomes a denial of one's own suffering and claims.

Those with longer memories will recall the furious attacks on William Scranton when, as President Richard Nixon's envoy to the Middle East, he called for a more "evenhanded" American approach. It was as if Mr. Scranton had proposed that the United States abandon Israel. Henry Kissinger has described how Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister, told him she expected the United States to be evenhanded, as long as that meant total agreement with Israel. "

[jmcgowanjm]

10. Everyday kerry refuses to pledge end to poison in the ME

aka al-Ibrahimi and bring the USforces home, is a day he loses support to Nader.

To: President George W. Bush

Please decline the nomination of your party as a candidate for
President of the United States.
I pledge, in good faith, that I will give serious consideration to
voting for the candidate the Republican National Convention chooses
to nominate in your place.
Sincerely,

The Undersigned
<http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Declinom>

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg16758.html

[rman]

13. would you push Palestinians into peace agreements against their interests?

-

[jmcgowanjm]

14. Do you think Palestinians haven't been pushed?

Can anyone here believe that a people would
have swallowed Oslo if they had RPG's and IED's
to fight with?

Israel is very afraid right now of what is happening
in Iraq. They should be.

And anyone here heard of Kerry denouncing the
upcoming draft?

[Classical_Liberal]

17. It isn't against there interest.

. The only people hurt will be the settlers who want to ethnically cleans palestinians.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Just about any peace agreement would be in their interests

They will never rise out of poverty while they are still involved in this conflict.

[jmcgowanjm]

20. Yes, Israel would benefit from any peace agreement

[leesa]

21. Disgusting!