Lamont Sups With Israel's Peres

[bigtree]

Lamont dines with deputy Israeli prime minister

Associated Press
August 19 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont attended a dinner in New York with Israel Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres on Friday night, Lamont's campaign said.

Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan said Lamont was invited to a small, private dinner hosted by a mutual friend in New York City.

"They talked about the current situation in the Middle East and options for moving forward," Swan said Saturday.

Lamont "is clearly committed to trying to figure out how as a senator he can be supportive of Israel and help to bring about a lasting peace in the region," Swan said. "I know that Ned was trying to get Peres' perception on the current state of affairs in the Middle East and the appropriate role for a senator to play."

http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-19154747.apds.m0333.bc-ct--connaug19,0,3162930.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

[CollegeDUer]

1. Again we see the bipartisan Israeli consensus

sigh..

[eccles12]

32. It's a winning strategy for them (Israel)

From communism to capitalism, liberal to conservative, pro-affirmative action to anti-affirmative action, pro-war to anti-war, infiltrate both sides most social, political, and religious issues and systems and you can't be on the losing side, ever.

[bigtree]

33. now that's just silly

you've just described a balance of constituencies.

Certainly you wouldn't have them isolate themselves behind a narrow representation of US interests. It's up to each individual concern to weigh their appeals and consider them as they would any other important ally of our country. And I sure they do weigh these Israeli issues according to their own interests.

Nothing sinister about that in our democracy. All sides should be heard, and represented if they have merit.

[movonne]

2. Well in this era, that's the way it is...if you want to win...

[CollegeDUer]

3. Yes the first page from the Diebold playbook

Winning by any means necessary.

[bigtree]

6. It's a move to counter Lieberman's lock on the Israel lobby's support

from the article:

"Lieberman is one of Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress. Pro-Israel political action committees donated to his primary campaign and urged their national membership to give generously if Lieberman was forced to run as an unaffiliated candidate."

[Emit]

4. That's an odd statement by Swan

"I know that Ned was trying to get Peres' perception on the current state of affairs in the Middle East and the appropriate role for a senator to play."

Am I reading this correctly? Is Lamont 'trying to get Peres' perception' on 'the appropriate role for a senator to play' ... 'on the current state of affairs in the ME'? Does Shimon Peres define the appropriate roles of our US Senators?

[bigtree]

7. I wouldn't read too much in that. It was a fumbling repy

I'm sure it doesn't meanLamont will use parrot Peres' perception, just getting a read on it.

[jsamuel]

8. "Peres' perception"

perception does not equal truth

the more you understand both sides of an argument and how they will react to different ideas, the more likely you will be able to find a solution that satisfies both sides

[Tom Joad]

11. No Emit, Peres does not define that by himself. Peres and Olmert

together will define appropriate US policy.
Not relieved? Neither am i.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Well, I see a lot of grumbling here, but I don't see what the problem is.

Lasting peace- isn't that what we all want?

Should he NOT have had dinner with the guy?

[Tom Joad]

10. Will he ever go to the West Bank, and listen to their concerns?

And i don't mean on a guided tour by AIPAC. I mean independently listen and learn from the Palestinian people about their concerns, about what is needed for their "security".

Why do i not think so.

[bigtree]

12. why don't you think so?

What kind of attack is this Tom Joad? Innuendo, mischaracterization, strawmen?

Not very . . . Democratic.

[bigtree]

13. Lamont Policy: Change Priorities and Pursue a Peace Settlement

....Unlike previous administrations - Republican and Democratic - President Bush has embraced the wrong priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ...Let's be clear that Bush emphasized Iraq at the expense of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, and we are reaping the consequences. Just think what the situation could have been if the United States had invested its power, prestige, and resources in a peace settlement. Instead we chose a failed war and stand virtually alone, paying a heavy price for a profoundly failed set of decisions.

After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere. We should not seek to impose a resolution on Israel. But peace between Israel and its neighbors must be a priority.

Without negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, President Bush and the Secretary of State ought to be working on a peace settlement with Israel, the Palestinians and others who might help. The outlines of a peace agreement are there; both sides agree: land for recognition, peace and security

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015391.html

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Why do you not think so? I have no idea.

But it sounds to me like you're going to be sitting this Senatorial election out.

[leesa]

17. I doubt that is Peres' goal somehow...could be wrong.

Lamont does need to do it though even if he needs to hold his nose. Joe is AIPACs #1 boy with something like a $285,000 investment from that one group alone.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AX10]

14. I see no problem with this meeting.

I expect that those who are elected and want to be elected to public office on the federal level will meet with world leaders to discuss the important matters. If I were Lamont's place, I would have taken this meeting.

[Selatius]

15. Some of you people always take the opportunity to attack Israel

Regardless, if I had my way, Israel would never have built a single colony in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, period, and if they did, I would've told Israel to look elsewhere for three billion a year in foreign military aid. That money would've been better spent fighting famine and AIDs in Africa than in supporting the illegal military occupation/colonization programs of Israel. Israel does have a right to exist, but it does not have a right to occupy and humiliate a neighbor.

And just because Lamont met with Peres does not necessarily mean he is an Israeli warhawk.

[Karenina]

16. Rule #1 of Diplomacy:

TALK to EVERYONE. Again and again and again.

[patricia92243]

18. Absolutely. If he is going to be a Senator and represent the US, he needs

to meet other leaders. The more the better.

[Karenina]

31. Those who consider themselves

first in line have now been accommodated. NEXT! ;-)

[Tom Joad]

21. So this means talking to Peres and maybe Olmert. Why do i see

something missing?
I am not opposed to him meeting Peres, but he certainly is not talking to everyone. I would be surprised if he would even meet with Jewish Americans who oppose US support for Israeli actions. Would be really, really surprised if he met with Palestinian Americans who oppose Israeli policy. Not to mention Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

So is he talking to everyone? Please, I would be happy to be shown to be wrong about Lamont. Please share what info you have.

[bigtree]

23. Peres is in town. Will you provide the funds for Lamont to travel

to the Mideast?

Egypt's Mubarek is in town next week. If your concerned that he meet with all sides, then why don't you make the suggestion to his campaign that he try to visit with him? I wouldn't be surprised to find them already contemplating it.

This is a new campaign, just off of an amazing upset of an entrenched incumbent who derives a good deal of his support from the Israel lobby, money and get out the vote efforts. Nothing will be served by attacking him over an issue that his rivals are arguably more complicit in.

[Tom Joad]

27. I do appreciate that Lamont spoke out loudly against the Iraq war, and

defeated someone who was so extremist. Lamont does not need funds to go to the West Bank, he can use his own (I could afford that, I think Lamont can afford it.) I do understand, right now, he may not have time to go to the Middle East, he has a very demanding campaign schedule, no doubt. I just hope he listens to the people who are victims of US/Israeli policy (Mubarak is fine, but he is not suffering under occupation, and stays in US good graces by not really challenging Israeli policies). It would not hurt Lamont to listen to some who question US/Israeli policy, there are plenty of people in Conn. who would be willing to share with him.

I do expect he would be better than Lieberman. Anybody would be better than Lieberman/Bush.

However, i have reason for cynicism. Based on experience.

[bigtree]

29. He has a balanced view, which favors our ally, but reaches out to others

from his site:

Situation in the Middle East: http://nedlamont.com/issues/627/situation-in-the-middle-east

The Bush administration strategy has failed in the Middle East.

Unlike previous administrations – Republican and Democratic – President Bush has embraced the wrong priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He missed a great opportunity to exercise constructive leadership at the time when Mahmoud Abbas became president of the Palestinian Authority. And he broke with decades of bipartisan understanding that it was the American responsibility to hold down active hostilities in the Middle East so that talking and diplomacy would be possible.

Senator Ribicoff often made the point that it was in Israel’s interest to have as its ally a powerful United States, able to deal with all the nations of the Middle East and respected by them all. When the Bush administration broke precedent with American foreign policy, and invaded Iraq without our allies, without U.N. support, without understanding the unintended consequences, and without an exit strategy, it left us bogged down in Iraq, with little respect and no credibility. We lost focus on a far more important matter: achieving a peaceful settlement of disputes between Israel and its neighbors. That break with traditional American foreign policy is at the center of our problems in the region today.

The Middle East is far less secure because of our war in Iraq. Lebanon is again part of the battlefield. Syria and Iran are in position to broaden the conflict. The situation is becoming more unraveled. Ours is a failed foreign policy that is producing disastrous results.

The Iraq War Has Far-Reaching Consequences

In making its case to invade Iraq, the Bush administration made exaggerated claims about the effect of the war on the politics of the region.

The administration said that one consequence of the Iraq war would be to create a cascade of democracies in the region that would promote peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. That tragically naïve view has contributed to the open conflict going on right now, and the diminution of our influence in the region.

Let’s be clear that Bush emphasized Iraq at the expense of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, and we are reaping the consequences. Just think what the situation could have been if the United States had invested its power, prestige, and resources in a peace settlement. Instead we chose a failed war and stand virtually alone, paying a heavy price for a profoundly failed set of decisions.

[Karenina]

30. I have no info

other than the knowledge that if he did NOT take this opportunity to speak to Peres, the Mighty Wurlitzer would grind at top volume 24/7.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Probably a smart move

given the reality of American politics today, and especially with the charges of anti-semitism that have been emanating from the Lieberman camp.

I wish that kissing up to Israel was not necessary to getting elected in this country, but I accept that that's the reality of the situation.

I at least expect Ned will have a more nuanced and complex view of the region than Joe does.

[NoodleyAppendage]

20. Smart move. Trying to bite off some of Lieberman's CT Jewish voter base.

Very smart political move on Lamont's part.

J

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. Smart move

A lot of people in CT are Jewish. Lamont needs to address their issues head on. Perez is one of the more moderate people in the Israeli government. How else are we going to solve any problems if we don't work with other government leaders?

[stepnw1f]

25. Very True

Very smart move.

[Fountain79]

24. You're kidding...

Lamont should have been attending a Hezbollah dinner and discusses how evil Israel is and the need to wipe it off the map. :sarcasm:

[AntiFascist]

28. This could be a brilliant move....

the more exposure he has with Israelis, the less "anti-Semitic" the right can claim that he is. As solidly as Lieberman is allied with pro-war Israelis, Lamont should be equally allied with those who want lasting peace.