Israeli's: Bush or Kerry?

[SeanAshi]

President Bush and his unprecedented support of Israel has caused great resentment towards the United States, John Kerry said that Israel would be safer under himself..what do you guys think?

[achilles]

President Bush and his unprecedented support of Israel has caused great resentment towards the United States, John Kerry said that Israel would be safer under himself..what do you guys think?

I d say that US is bound to fully support Isreal no matter who is in charge. Its a basic element of the US foreign policy so i dont think Kerry will be willing or even able to change much

[aartamen]

He can make sure Arafat gets another Nobel Peace Prize.

[IDFM203]

President Bush and his unprecedented support of Israel has caused great resentment towards the United States, John Kerry said that Israel would be safer under himself..what do you guys think?Well I believe the rule of thumb is that if you are a right wing Israeli then you are more with Bush then you are with Kerry and well if you are a left wing Israeli then you are more with Kerry then you are with Bush.

That’s how I see things.


Now me personally, yes Bush is better then Kerry (and better then Clinton) but I don’t like him that much as well and besides many reasons for that that has nothing to do with Israel, on Israel I don’t frankly see how he has given us full support and frankly till just recently I thought he was very hypocritical on how he condemned us for just some of the very same things he was doing and I might add doing with much less of a national threat to what Israel faces on a daily basis.


Now with that said, I also understand how the U.S. must have its own interests first and in principle I agree with that, however as the “arabist” state department has shown us clearly how a lot of times those forces or interests our from our clear enemies and all the worlds Arab and oil and economic politics does at times force even supposedly sympathetic presidents to at times IMO make the wrong moral (well morally on how it itself would act if faced such situations and yet come out against Israel when it does the same or even less) decisions simply to appease the other more numerous forces (and a lot of times usually clear enemies of Israel) that contrary to how some like you to believe, are indeed very prevalent in U.S. politics.


Shalom :D

[achilles]

"Now me personally, yes Bush is better then Kerry (and better then Clinton) but I don’t like him that much as well and besides many reasons for that that has nothing to do with Israel, on Israel I don’t frankly see how he has given us full support and frankly till just recently I thought he was very hypocritical on how he condemned us for just some of the very same things he was doing and I might add doing with much less of a national threat to what Israel faces on a daily basis."

ACHILLES: you dont see how Bush has given you full support? First of all, dont forget the immense military support provided to Israel, ever since 1948 and Bush definitely didnt break this line of support. Isreal is probably the only US ally using cutting edge US weapons.
Now about having 'condemend' you...are we here to talk about whats really going on or about what bush claims in his briefings...if you ask me those 'condemnations' are just for public consumption...image building if you like...
One final point...Isreal is facing the same threat from Palestine exactly as Palestine is facing a threat from Isreal. Its a reciprocal situation...simply put...takes two to tango

[IDFM203]

ACHILLES: you dont see how Bush has given you full support?no I don’t, I see how he at times has been hypocritical.

Now has bush been better then Clinton and would he better then Kerry, yes.....but no it has not been FULL support.



First of all, dont forget the immense military support provided to Israel, ever since 1948 :cantbeli: you mean since 1967!!!

Please do some research on where Israel got must of its arms support from before 1967, for it wasn’t at all from the U.S.


and Bush definitely didnt break this line of support. Isreal is probably the only US ally using cutting edge US weapons.hey I didn’t say we get no support and indeed the U.S. has done a lot for us (as I believe we have reciprocated a lot as well) but again its not full support.


Now about having 'condemend' you...are we here to talk about whats really going on or about what bush claims in his briefings...if you ask me those 'condemnations' are just for public consumption...image building if you like...well that “image building” does hurt us and and a lot of us find it insulting and again not to mention hypocritical.

secondly I don’t want to get into it but there are some things that aren’t just comments.


Again lets not forget that I am NOT discounting the great support that the U.S. has given to us, just I don’t accept this notion of full support and frankly I have seen lots of hypocrisy not to mention some acts that have harmed us in your efforts to appease forces that are very hostile towards us.




One final point...Isreal is facing the same threat from Palestine exactly as Palestine is facing a threat from Isreal. Its a reciprocal situation...simply put...takes two to tango oh boy not this again :roll: No, I could write a whole paragraph clearly showing you how this is wrong but then that would re start the whole pali/Israel debate, something which I hope we can avoid, so as such I will merely say your wrong and say that if Israel didn’t fire a single shot in its defense, they would still be shooting at us, sending in homicide bombers and firing rockets at us, so no IMO its not a "reciprocal situation" as you implied it.

But then I guess in your logic you also think that your fight war on terror is also a “reciprocal situation”?

Shalom :D

[achilles]

ACHILLES: you dont see how Bush has given you full support?no I don’t, I see how he at times has been hypocritical.

Now has bush been better then Clinton and would he better then Kerry, yes.....but no it has not been FULL support.



First of all, dont forget the immense military support provided to Israel, ever since 1948 :cantbeli: you mean since 1967!!!

Please do some research on where Israel got must of its arms support from before 1967, for it wasn’t at all from the U.S.


and Bush definitely didnt break this line of support. Isreal is probably the only US ally using cutting edge US weapons.hey I didn’t say we get no support and indeed the U.S. has done a lot for us (as I believe we have reciprocated a lot as well) but again its not full support.


Now about having 'condemend' you...are we here to talk about whats really going on or about what bush claims in his briefings...if you ask me those 'condemnations' are just for public consumption...image building if you like...well that “image building” does hurt us and and a lot of us find it insulting and again not to mention hypocritical.

secondly I don’t want to get into it but there are some things that aren’t just comments.


Again lets not forget that I am NOT discounting the great support that the U.S. has given to us, just I don’t accept this notion of full support and frankly I have seen lots of hypocrisy not to mention some acts that have harmed us in your efforts to appease forces that are very hostile towards us.




One final point...Isreal is facing the same threat from Palestine exactly as Palestine is facing a threat from Isreal. Its a reciprocal situation...simply put...takes two to tango oh boy not this again :roll: No, I could write a whole paragraph clearly showing you how this is wrong but then that would re start the whole pali/Israel debate, something which I hope we can avoid, so as such I will merely say your wrong and say that if Israel didn’t fire a single shot in its defense, they would still be shooting at us, sending in homicide bombers and firing rockets at us, so no IMO its not a "reciprocal situation" as you implied it.

But then I guess in your logic you also think that your fight war on terror is also a “reciprocal situation”?

Shalom :D

We are not going to argue about how many weapons actually Israel bought before 1967...the thing is that it indeed bought some and this still makes it a support. If its not enough for you, add in the diplomatic support you have been receiving ever since independence. So before slapping you own forehead, shocked by what i am saying, chill out and think a bit more.

Now i dont know if Palestinians would still be shooting at you...this is just a hypothetical fallacy that cannot be either supported or refuted so i will not get into it...

Finally, in my logic of course the US war on terror is a reciprocal situation...why? Do you think the 9/11 attack was a unilateral decision that came out of nowhere? Not at all.

[fred_engles]

:cantbeli: you mean since 1967!!!

Please do some research on where Israel got must of its arms support from before 1967, for it wasn’t at all from the U.S.
I thought large-scale US aid began in '73.

[IDFM203]

We are not going to argue about how many weapons actually Israel bought before 1967...the thing is that it indeed bought some and this still makes it a support. and did I ever discount any support? Remember what this argument is all about.


And before 1967, Israel indeed did buy a few weapons from the U.S. as is a normal business transaction, but again most of our weapons were bought from France and Britain and not at all from the U.S.

So before 1967, Israel hardly got any support from the U.S. I mean buying a few weapons does not constitute full support or frankly that much support at all!!



If its not enough for you, add in the diplomatic support you have been receiving ever since independence. So before slapping you own forehead, shocked by what i am saying, chill out and think a bit more. yes follow your own advice please before you turn this into a flame war :roll: ….again remember that I never discounted support from the U.S. just I reject this notion of full unbridled support and in fact we have not gotten that and certainly didn’t get much support before 1967.

As for diplomatic support, actually also before 1967, we didn’t get much and in fact the U.S. at times voted very angrily against us like in 1956 when it was against us and France and Britain etc…


Now i dont know if Palestinians would still be shooting at you...this is just a hypothetical fallacy that cannot be either supported or refuted so i will not get into it... Its not a hypothetical fallacy at all and for one to believe that it is, obviously has no real understanding of what this conflict is all about or have no real understanding on why they shoot at us and why they send in homicide bombers, for it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the firing that we have done and yes indeed if we didn’t fire a single shot (as was PROVEN during the Oslo years where we didn’t fire but still we still faced tons of homicide bombings and also shootings etc..) yes they would still be fighting and shooting and sending in homicide bombers at us.


Finally, in my logic of course the US war on terror is a reciprocal situation...ok fair enough that you believe that, I wont get into it more, I simply wanted to know where you stand on it and that was it, on that I wasn’t looking for a debate here even though I disagree with some aspects of what you said here in regards to the U.S. war on terror.








:cantbeli: you mean since 1967!!!

Please do some research on where Israel got must of its arms support from before 1967, for it wasn’t at all from the U.S.
I thought large-scale US aid began in '73.true, thanks for your correction ;) …….and that further shows how it wasn’t from 1948 as achilles at first wrongly mentioned.


Anyways military support started after 1967 but indeed it become even more so at the end of the Yom Kippur war.

Shalom :D

[achilles]

I dont doubt all the historical details you provided...its just a bit paradoxical because on one hand you aknowledge the vast US support on Isreal but on the other hand you base your arguments on past events that they are actually the exception and not the rule, and you make it sound like...ok US has not been supporting us that much...not after 1973 or 74 or 75 or whatever it doesnt really matter in the context of our discussion. The bottom line is....if one country has supported Isreal, historically, this is the United States and i am sure we agree on this because it is just recorded history.

My other objection is that you present Isreal as the good guy and Palestine as the bad guy. I realize that you are ****e to be biased as an Isreali and support your country but i believe that things could have been different had Isreal taken a different approach on the conflict. Perhaps it could have tried to appease Palestine right from the start and aim at a peaceful coexistence of two self-determined countries, instead of building walls, launching chopper attacks etc etc. And i cannot neglect in all this that Palestine is the weak one and suicide bombings and guerilla war is their only weapon...just my thoughts...

[Sayeret]

Now me personally, yes Bush is better then Kerry (and better then Clinton) but I don’t like him that much as well and besides many reasons for that that has nothing to do with Israel, on Israel I don’t frankly see how he has given us full support and frankly till just recently I thought he was very hypocritical on how he condemned us for just some of the very same things he was doing and I might add doing with much less of a national threat to what Israel faces on a daily basis.


Now with that said, I also understand how the U.S. must have its own interests first and in principle I agree with that, however as the “arabist” state department has shown us clearly how a lot of times those forces or interests our from our clear enemies and all the worlds Arab and oil and economic politics does at times force even supposedly sympathetic presidents to at times IMO make the wrong moral (well morally on how it itself would act if faced such situations and yet come out against Israel when it does the same or even less) decisions simply to appease the other more numerous forces (and a lot of times usually clear enemies of Israel) that contrary to how some like you to believe, are indeed very prevalent in U.S. politics.

I pretty much agree with IDFM203 on this issue.

[IDFM203]

I dont doubt all the historical details you provided...its just a bit paradoxical because on one hand you aknowledge the vast US support on Isreal but on the other hand you base your arguments on past events that they are actually the exception and not the rule, and you make it sound like...ok US has not been supporting us that much.. No I believe I am saying clearly what I am saying based on fact’s and I don’t see how any of my statements are in any ways paradoxical.


Before 1967, we didn’t get much support….FACT.

After 1967, we got a lot and I never discounted that……FACT.

After 1967 we have also at times seen a lot of hypocrisy and in fact at times we have also seen things done by the U.S. that were not in support of Israel and rather it was done to appease Israelis enemies as the Arab oil and other world economic and political interests are a very powerful interests to appease at times.

But again I never discounted the great support, just I don’t see it as full unbridled support and certainly not much before 1967!!


if one country has supported Isreal, historically, this is the United States and i am sure we agree on this because it is just recorded history. yes since 1967, more then any other country, the U.S. has shown the most support, more so then any other nation…..I never disagreed with that


My other objection is that you present Isreal as the good guy and Palestine as the bad guy. well that’s too simple and indeed I know we have made mistakes and yes we aren’t perfect (as no one is), but I simply reject your attempt at a lazy argument of “both sides” or as is commonly and wrongly known as a “cycle of violence, a concept that I believe is totally and factually wrong in terms of the facts and realties on the ground and how Israel has acted and what it really faces.


I realize that you are ****e to be biased as an Isreali and support your countryof course I am biased, I mean I did serve in the IDF, so yes I cant discount it, now I see you are new to this forum and as such I implore you to understand that I usually don’t say something simply because I am biased….no I say something and then I make a case, now if you disagree with it then make a case of your own to show how I am wrong but merely saying I am biased as a only counter is a non counter argument at all to the arguments that I put forth.

Secondly it’s my opinion that everyone has a bias, even if one is not directly involved though for me dont confuse my bias for a “blind bias” for I am not “blind”!!


but i believe that things could have been different had Isreal taken a different approach on the conflict. Perhaps it could have tried to appease Palestine right from the start and aim at a peaceful coexistence of two self-determined countries, instead of building walls, launching chopper attacks etc etc. I see as a new poster like all new posters you just cant stop getting into this whole debate :roll:

Well I am still going to answer very simply in an attempt to not get dragged into this whole long debate, again :roll: I will simply say that the building of our anti terror security fence and the launching of helicopter attacks targeting terrorists was done and built (remember we only started building this only last year) only in response and only after it was clear that we needed to do something differently to try to stop the constant ream of homicide bobbers that were before coming in almost unfettered, and well we see it has worked in limiting them big time!!

I personally believe we have attempted to appease and make all sorts of peaceful solutions (like during the Oslo years of pulling out of every Plai city and town to where they had almost 97 percept full autonomy over their own lives and yet still we faced homicide bombings and shooting attacks :roll: ) but it has not worked simply because I don’t believe they are fighting for just the west bank and gaza………….anything more then this will lead to a whole rendition of this whole long debate and well I implore you to first research my previous posts on this for I can guarantee you that I must probably already addressed each and every point you might and want to bring up.



And i cannot neglect in all this that Palestine is the weak one and suicide bombings and guerilla war is their only weapon...just my thoughts... again if we didn’t fire a single shot, they would still be sending in homicide bombers and shooting at us.

As for them being weaker, well yes thank God that’s the case………and for what I mean, well I refer you to a line that I had in my sig that I used to have here before the sigs in general were removed from everyone here on this forum.

"If the Palestinians/Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"!! (Or to put it more bluntly..” if the military capabilities of Israel and the palestinians/Arabs were reversed, all Israelis would be killed in a matter of 24 hours or less”)


Shalom :D

[Fox2]

again if we didn’t fire a single shot, they would still be sending in homicide bombers and shooting at us.

As for them being weaker, well yes thank God that’s the case………and for what I mean, well I refer you to a line that I had in my sig that I used to have here before the sigs in general were removed from everyone here on this forum.

"If the Palestinians/Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"!! (Or to put it more bluntly..” if the military capabilities of Israel and the palestinians/Arabs were reversed, all Israelis would be killed in a matter of 24 hours or less”)

Rock on, IDFM203. :P ;)

[StarvingStudent47]

President Bush and his unprecedented support of Israel has caused great resentment towards the United States, John Kerry said that Israel would be safer under himself..what do you guys think?

I d say that US is bound to fully support Isreal no matter who is in charge. Its a basic element of the US foreign policy so i dont think Kerry will be willing or even able to change much

Kerry doesn't WANT to change anything. During the Democratic Primaries, Kerry had a more in-depth description of his foreign policy stances on his web page than he does now. His stance was the most pro-Israel of any candidate, including Joe Lieberman. He stated that he believed firmly in continuing our historic relationship with Israel and helping defend the sole democracy in the Middle East, while continuing negotiations.

Remember, it's not as simple as "Democrats oppose Israel and Republicans support it." John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, created US's ties with Israel, and the most anti-Israel president since him was Bush Sr.

[StarvingStudent47]

:cantbeli: you mean since 1967!!!

Please do some research on where Israel got must of its arms support from before 1967, for it wasn’t at all from the U.S.
I thought large-scale US aid began in '73.

Nope, JFK started it, on the eve of the 1967 War. Nixon did send some major arms shipments during the Yom Kippur War, but it was Kennedy who created the relationship.

[achilles]

I dont doubt all the historical details you provided...its just a bit paradoxical because on one hand you aknowledge the vast US support on Isreal but on the other hand you base your arguments on past events that they are actually the exception and not the rule, and you make it sound like...ok US has not been supporting us that much.. No I believe I am saying clearly what I am saying based on fact’s and I don’t see how any of my statements are in any ways paradoxical.


Before 1967, we didn’t get much support….FACT.

After 1967, we got a lot and I never discounted that……FACT.

After 1967 we have also at times seen a lot of hypocrisy and in fact at times we have also seen things done by the U.S. that were not in support of Israel and rather it was done to appease Israelis enemies as the Arab oil and other world economic and political interests are a very powerful interests to appease at times.

But again I never discounted the great support, just I don’t see it as full unbridled support and certainly not much before 1967!!


if one country has supported Isreal, historically, this is the United States and i am sure we agree on this because it is just recorded history. yes since 1967, more then any other country, the U.S. has shown the most support, more so then any other nation…..I never disagreed with that


My other objection is that you present Isreal as the good guy and Palestine as the bad guy. well that’s too simple and indeed I know we have made mistakes and yes we aren’t perfect (as no one is), but I simply reject your attempt at a lazy argument of “both sides” or as is commonly and wrongly known as a “cycle of violence, a concept that I believe is totally and factually wrong in terms of the facts and realties on the ground and how Israel has acted and what it really faces.


I realize that you are ****e to be biased as an Isreali and support your countryof course I am biased, I mean I did serve in the IDF, so yes I cant discount it, now I see you are new to this forum and as such I implore you to understand that I usually don’t say something simply because I am biased….no I say something and then I make a case, now if you disagree with it then make a case of your own to show how I am wrong but merely saying I am biased as a only counter is a non counter argument at all to the arguments that I put forth.

Secondly it’s my opinion that everyone has a bias, even if one is not directly involved though for me dont confuse my bias for a “blind bias” for I am not “blind”!!


but i believe that things could have been different had Isreal taken a different approach on the conflict. Perhaps it could have tried to appease Palestine right from the start and aim at a peaceful coexistence of two self-determined countries, instead of building walls, launching chopper attacks etc etc. I see as a new poster like all new posters you just cant stop getting into this whole debate :roll:

Well I am still going to answer very simply in an attempt to not get dragged into this whole long debate, again :roll: I will simply say that the building of our anti terror security fence and the launching of helicopter attacks targeting terrorists was done and built (remember we only started building this only last year) only in response and only after it was clear that we needed to do something differently to try to stop the constant ream of homicide bobbers that were before coming in almost unfettered, and well we see it has worked in limiting them big time!!

I personally believe we have attempted to appease and make all sorts of peaceful solutions (like during the Oslo years of pulling out of every Plai city and town to where they had almost 97 percept full autonomy over their own lives and yet still we faced homicide bombings and shooting attacks :roll: ) but it has not worked simply because I don’t believe they are fighting for just the west bank and gaza………….anything more then this will lead to a whole rendition of this whole long debate and well I implore you to first research my previous posts on this for I can guarantee you that I must probably already addressed each and every point you might and want to bring up.



And i cannot neglect in all this that Palestine is the weak one and suicide bombings and guerilla war is their only weapon...just my thoughts... again if we didn’t fire a single shot, they would still be sending in homicide bombers and shooting at us.

As for them being weaker, well yes thank God that’s the case………and for what I mean, well I refer you to a line that I had in my sig that I used to have here before the sigs in general were removed from everyone here on this forum.

"If the Palestinians/Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"!! (Or to put it more bluntly..” if the military capabilities of Israel and the palestinians/Arabs were reversed, all Israelis would be killed in a matter of 24 hours or less”)


Shalom :D

I was thinking of dragging us out of this game of dates but anyway i will conclude it like this...after the declaration of the Israeli state, ON AVERAGE and i mean before and after 1967 (or choose whichever date you like)...USA has vastly supported Israel militarily, politicaly and financialy, more than any other country. Perhaps i gave you the wrong impression that i stick to the dates more than i should but i am trying to look at the big picture.

I never meant to consider you biased in any sense of 'blindness', and by no means i think that you say whatever you say being biased. That was not the basis of anhy of my arguments. My point with 'biasedness' is that as an Isreali you have, at least, a slight inclination to support the decisions and choices of your country, something which makes perfect sense to me. All i am saying is that you can be no less biased than any external non-Israeli, non-Palestinian observer. In any case, argumentation is what counts and this is what i am focusing on.

Now, being new or a veteran to this forum is irrelevant. And believe me i would be glad to check you previous posts if i only had the time.

Let me get to the point. I will focus on your main arguments.
You claim that Palestine is not aiming at only the West bank and Gaza. Well, proove it. This can be well considered your impression which can be far from truth. The way i see thing is that Palestine wants to be left alone, even with less turf than they ask for. They are asking for some sort of peace and the ability to rule themselves and certainly Isreal is not pushing things towards that direction.

You claim appeasement and pacifying attempts from Isreal during the past. Again, you are bringing up facts that are the exception rather than the rule. The Isreali approach is strictly based on offensive war. If you want to name 'offense' your means of 'self-defense' then we should accept Bush's notion of 'self-defense' i.e. war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I dont buy that. Self-defense, when speaking about states, is(or should be) exhausting every possible diplomatic route towards the resolution of a conflict. Has Isreal done that? You know better than me that the answer is no.

As for your signature...its just a sequence of 'ifs'. Well...if Hitler's mother was not in the mood that night...we wouldnt have WWII. We cannot know. Instead of hypothesizing based on emotional statements like yours, we could be discussing about alternative approaches that Isreal could take. Yes...appeasement why not? Or any other pacifist approach, which should be adopted as a fully-fledged dogma by your foreign policy-makers.

Isreal and the rest of the world has seen the outcomes of your approach so far. You dont want to call it a vicious cycle? I am fine with that. But it doesnt seem to be working and please forgive me for not being able to put the blame ONLY on those terrorist Palestinians who want to vaporize every single Israeli standing next to them

[SeanAshi]

and the most anti-Israel president since him was Bush Sr.I wouldn't say he was anti-Israel, maybe Harry Truman was anti-Israel?
I d say that US is bound to fully support Isreal no matter who is in charge. Its a basic element of the US foreign policy so i dont think Kerry will be willing or even able to change muchI don't believe Israel would be any safer under Kerry but President Bush's lack of criticism at times towards PM Sharon the way he would respond to Palestinian terrorism other then showing restraint has raised eyebrows from the Arab world. Of course there were times like in Operation Defensive Shield when he demanded Sharon hault operations and pull out bcause of international pressure, he was silent when Israel struck back at Syria for a suicide bombing in Haifa.

[SeanAshi]

The way i see thing is that Palestine wants to be left alone, even with less turf than they ask for. They are asking for some sort of peace and the ability to rule themselves and certainly Isreal is not pushing things towards that direction.
Palestinian militant groups are not asking for peace they are advocating the killing of Jews, and Arafat and his PA do nothing to prevent that from happening.

[achilles]

and the most anti-Israel president since him was Bush Sr.I wouldn't say he was anti-Israel, maybe Harry Truman was anti-Israel?
I d say that US is bound to fully support Isreal no matter who is in charge. Its a basic element of the US foreign policy so i dont think Kerry will be willing or even able to change muchI don't believe Israel would be any safer under Kerry but President Bush's lack of criticism at times towards PM Sharon the way he would respond to Palestinian terrorism other then showing restraint has raised eyebrows from the Arab world. Of course there were times like in Operation Defensive Shield when he demanded Sharon hault operations and pull out bcause of international pressure, he was silent when Israel struck back at Syria for a suicide bombing in Haifa.

I wouldnt say either that Bush Sr. was anti-Israel. Regarding Isreal's safety, i d say that this depends more on how Isreal deals with its neighbors rather than who is the next American president. US support can be taken as given based on what you say and on what we have seen so far

[achilles]

The way i see thing is that Palestine wants to be left alone, even with less turf than they ask for. They are asking for some sort of peace and the ability to rule themselves and certainly Isreal is not pushing things towards that direction.
Palestinian militant groups are not asking for peace they are advocating the killing of Jews, and Arafat and his PA do nothing to prevent that from happening.

They are asking for peace as much as Israeli troops and politicians do. When i say Palestine i mean common every day people who like peace as much as the majority of common every day Israelis do.

About Arafat...i think its time for him to get out of the picture.

[IDFM203]

I was thinking of dragging us out of this game of dates but anyway i will conclude it like this...after the declaration of the Israeli state, ON AVERAGE and i mean before and after 1967 (or choose whichever date you like)...USA has vastly supported Israel militarily, politicaly and financialy, more than any other country. On average in terms of however you like to look at it is not true before 1967 for we almost got no support from them!!!

After 1967 we did get support and I never disagreed with that, though it hasn’t been full unbridled support, but yes it has been more then other nations.


Perhaps i gave you the wrong impression that i stick to the dates more than i should but i am trying to look at the big picture. Yes and the BIG picture, dates are important as well for it hasn’t been since our independence for before 1967 in fact we got very little and in fact at times the U.S. was very against us like how it acted in 1956.


I never meant to consider you biased in any sense of 'blindness', and by no means i think that you say whatever you say being biased. That was not the basis of anhy of my arguments. My point with 'biasedness' is that as an Isreali you have, at least, a slight inclination to support the decisions and choices of your country, something which makes perfect sense to me. No I support things that are right or wrong and not simply on things and choices of my country.


Believe me if you get to know me better you will see that I find plenty of wrong choices that have been made by my country, though somehow I don think you will exactly be too happy with the things that I strongly disagree with that "we" have done ;) , but thats still doesn’t take away from the fact that indeed I strongly disagree with many things my nation has done in the past!!



. In any case, argumentation is what counts and this is what i am focusing on. Good to hear for frankly your use of the words biased before was a old and lame tactic that I have heard many times before when people argue with me and have no case to make…………….good to see that at least your attempting to make a counter case and not just rely on that lame tactic.



Now, being new or a veteran to this forum is irrelevant. I only brought it to show how funny it is that out of all the topics in this world that goes on, usually newcomers from a certain view point love to first go at it in details with this particular issue and debate (the Israel/Pali one) and well I was hoping to not see a repeat of this debate for what is now approaching the “millionth” time :roll: ………….and well irrelevant or not, here it goes again……. :roll:

And well my fault is that I cant help but oblige your persistent urgings with myself answering your posts………….oh well, I am addicted :| :oops:



Let me get to the point. I will focus on your main arguments.
You claim that Palestine is not aiming at only the West bank and Gaza. Well, proove it. Well frankly I can write reams of info on here on this but I will prove it just from recent events where in the Oslo years where even after we pulled out of every Pali city and town to where they had almost full control over their own lives, still homicide bombings occurred and still the destruction of Israel was taught in their schools and still the very prevalent incitement for the destruction of Israel was very prevalent in Pali society and then when Barak offered to give them almost everything, well they rejected it with a war.

IMO if they really wanted just the west bank and gaza they could have had it already and in fact Barak and most Israelis were willing to give it to them, but they rejected it!!! And did so with a war.


Also Hamas and others have their stated goals of the destruction of the whole Israel and well they have large support amongst the Palestinians and well that too shows me how they support the complete destruction of all of Israel.



The way i see thing is that Palestine wants to be left alone, even with less turf than they ask for. They are asking for some sort of peace and the ability to rule themselves and certainly Isreal is not pushing things towards that direction. well you don’t see realties then for again we already gave them self rule, I mean you obviously conveniently forget how in the 90’s they had all that and were going to get a lot more, but they never stopped the violence and incitement and in fact they rejected it all with a war.


No to me its clear that they fight for all of Israel, heck don’t believe me? just go read some of the literature that is being taught in Pai schools, or just go listen to any Pali mosque etc…. they say it as well!!


You claim appeasement and pacifying attempts from Isreal during the past. Again, you are bringing up facts that are the exception rather than the rule. I believe you got it the opposite where pacifying attempts were the norm and offensive ones were the exception.


The Isreali approach is strictly based on offensive war. As a soldier that has served in the IDF and experienced first hand the feeling of us in 2000 and 2001 feeling like sitting ducks only responding and only doing so from defensive outside positions (never entering Pali cities) and also a well researched individual on most aspects of this conflict, I find your definitive quote here insulting and frankly absurd when doing a real examination of the real realities on the ground.

No most of it has been defensive and only reactionary and not offensive at all.

Exceptions are 1967 (and that was defensive in nature) and only after 2002 (more on 2002 later on)


war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes here its like 1967…….(pre-emption is a self defense measure), but that is not what I am only referring to when I say our self defense for frankly I see how we usually only act in response and that is not offensive but rather that is plain and simple defensive!!

Now after 2002, well yes I will say its offense and well that was only AFTER two years of mostly and to our huge detriment, acting only in reactionary defensive actions.


I don’t buy that. Self-defense, when speaking about states, is(or should be) exhausting every possible diplomatic route towards the resolution of a conflict. Has Israel done that? You know better than me that the answer is no. No I don’t agree with you for indeed I saw how we tried everything, I mean you name something we didn’t try diplomatically….come on.

I mean I can show you how in the Oslo years, we pulled out of every city and still had on going negations even still when we had homicide bombers blowing up our civilians and yet we still tried diplomatic solutions.

Or about the past four years, were we didn’t go on the offensive only till 2002, and that was after taking two years of non stop homicide bombings and non stop shooting attacks against our civilians........etc ....etc....




As for your signature...its just a sequence of 'ifs'. :roll: hmm you can scoff at it all you want, frankly my statement is based on over fifty years of dealing with those same people that you defend and well their track record in attempts IMO PROVE my statement.

I am just curious to see how you view things, if Hamas for example had the IDF strength, do you not think they would use it all and offensively against all our civilians in all of Israel?


we could be discussing about alternative approaches that Isreal could take. Yes...appeasement why not? Or any other pacifist approach, which should be adopted as a fully-fledged dogma by your foreign policy-makers. Yes I have a suggestion for you, how about you tell me a diplomatic attempt that Israel hasn’t yet tried


. You dont want to call it a vicious cycle? I am fine with that. I don’t call it that for its not….I mean I take your non counter argument on that that even you finally see the logic in my response on your first attempt at making that wrong “cycle of violence” argument.

Good we have progress... ;)




But it doesnt seem to be workingwhat doesn’t seem to be working? I mean diplomatically there is nothing there to be done that Israel hasn’t yet tried…..I mean I personally don’t see anything that Israel can do diplomatically that will bring peace and as such I feel that security speaking what we have finely been doing, or rather forced to do in the absence of no TRUE peace partner on the other side, has been working for indeed we have forced violence against us to drop by over 70 percent.




and please forgive me for not being able to put the blame ONLY those terrorist Palestinians who want to vaporize every single Israeli standing next to them we aren’t perfect and we make mistakes, but yes overall the blame is on them…………I mean those terrorists want to see us all destroyed so yes it is on them simply because like I said, even if we didn’t fire a single shot they still would, well as such the blame is on them!!




Nope, JFK started it, Well perhaps simply because of a few arms SALES, however it was also JFK, that despite the fact that the U.S. had tons of nuclear arms, it went out of its way to try to stop tiny Israel, a nation that at the time was not a Military regional power, and facing numerous Arab nations with large Soviet supplied weapons and all vowing for the complete destruction os Israel, from acquiring defensive nukes in its attempts to ensure NEVER AGAIN really means NEVER AGAIN!!

As for John Kerry, well IMO in the election season he is saying the right things for an American candidate to say, though based on his wanting to appoint Jimmy Carter to be a Mid East envoy, who has become a rabid left winger and well that has now become synonymous with the “ISM” or “ANSWER” crowd and well we all know what they really hold :roll: , well after the election I can see him leaning to what I refer to as the extremist or lunatic left wing of his party.

Shalom :D

[StarvingStudent47]

Hey IDFm203, I'm not your enemy. Breathe easy there ;)

Comparing John Kerry or even Jimmy Carter to left-wing anarchists who refer to Haifa and Tel Aviv as "occupied Palestine" is ****ing absurd. ISM and ANSWER people aren't involved with the Democratic Party at all; they tend to go for third-party candidates. There are probably more KKK members in the Republican Party then there are ISM members in the Democratic Party...and yet you don't judge the Republicans by that, do you?

[BlackRain]

Kerry criticizes UN's anti-fence decision

US Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, criticized the UN General Assembly's resolution passed last week urging Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice's ruling that it should dismantle the security fence.

He said as president he would "stand up for Israel's security in the UN or any international organization."

"I want to express my deep disappointment at the resolution passed Tuesday by the UN General Assembly. Let us remember: Israel's fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence has proven to be an important tool in Israel's fight against terrorism," Kerry said in a statement.

Kerry, like the Bush administration, said he did not believe the ICJ had the jurisdiction to consider the issue of the fence's legality.

Kerry's statement came days before the start of the Democratic Convention, which opens Monday in Boston. There, Kerry will secure the Democratic presidential nomination and the convention will approve the Democratic National Platform, which outlines general principles for a future Kerry presidency.

The platform pledges, "Under a Democratic Administration, the United States will demonstrate the kind of resolve to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that President Clinton showed. We will work to transform the Palestinian Authority by promoting new and responsible leadership, committed to fighting terror and promoting democracy." Echoing President George W. Bush's pledges to Prime Minister Sharon in April, it says "the creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel."

It also says "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city."

[StarvingStudent47]

Achilles--no, the USA did NOT support Israel before 1967. Seriously. We didn't. Do the research.

What is evidence that Palestinians want all of Israel as their own, not just the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
http://frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide1.html

[StarvingStudent47]

Kerry criticizes UN's anti-fence decision

US Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, criticized the UN General Assembly's resolution passed last week urging Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice's ruling that it should dismantle the security fence.

He said as president he would "stand up for Israel's security in the UN or any international organization."

"I want to express my deep disappointment at the resolution passed Tuesday by the UN General Assembly. Let us remember: Israel's fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence has proven to be an important tool in Israel's fight against terrorism," Kerry said in a statement.

Kerry, like the Bush administration, said he did not believe the ICJ had the jurisdiction to consider the issue of the fence's legality.

Kerry's statement came days before the start of the Democratic Convention, which opens Monday in Boston. There, Kerry will secure the Democratic presidential nomination and the convention will approve the Democratic National Platform, which outlines general principles for a future Kerry presidency.

The platform pledges, "Under a Democratic Administration, the United States will demonstrate the kind of resolve to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that President Clinton showed. We will work to transform the Palestinian Authority by promoting new and responsible leadership, committed to fighting terror and promoting democracy." Echoing President George W. Bush's pledges to Prime Minister Sharon in April, it says "the creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel."

It also says "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city."

Good article. So, IDFm203, does this sound like an ISM member to you? :roll:

[StarvingStudent47]

and the most anti-Israel president since him was Bush Sr.I wouldn't say he was anti-Israel, maybe Harry Truman was anti-Israel?
Key words: "since JFK." Truman came before JFK, and yes, Truman WAS anti-Israel. Bush Sr wasn't "anti-Israel," but he was "the most anti-Israel since JFK." The least supportive of Israel since JFK. Whatever wording you like the most. Fact is, Bush Sr's Middle East policy consisted of pandering to the Arab nations to keep our oil supply steady. They tell us to push Iraq out of Kuwait? We did so. They tell us to stop at the Iraqi border and leave Saddam in power? We did so.

When Clinton came to the Fares lecture series at Tufts University (dedicated to lectures on Middle East international relations), Fares introduced him with what turned into a 20-minute anti-Israel diatribe. Clinton spent the first 20 minutes of that diatribe refuting Fares point-by-point, supporting Israel.

When Bush Sr came to the Fares lecture series the very next year, Fares also introduced him with what turned into a 20-minute anti-Israel diatribe. Bush Sr agreed and said that he hoped (and I paraphrase here) "Lebanon would one day be free of such foreign interference." (This was after Israel had pulled out of Lebanon, so Bush Sr was either stating that the Sheeba Farms belonged to Lebanon--taking an even more pro-Arab stance than the United effing Nations--or he was unaware that Israel had left Lebanon two years before his speech).

[IDFM203]

Hey IDFm203, I'm not your enemy. Breathe easy there ;)
I am very calm my friend and always have been, I don’t know what I said to you to elicit this overreaction here, I merely stated my views on JFK and John Kerry that is all.

Sorry if my differing views then you on this upset you, but no need to respond with a juvenile comment directed at me personally as you just did :roll:



Comparing John Kerry or even Jimmy Carter to left-wing anarchists Well first of all I didn’t compare John Kerry to them, I merely stated that I believe he will lean towards them after elected.

Now sorry to dispel your hero worship on Jimmy Carter (well as a lot of card carrying democrats seem to do of one of the worst U.S. presidents of the past half century :roll: ), but have you been following his views on Israel lately, well if you haven’t I suggest you start, for I don’t think he is that removed from ISM and ANSWER.


There are probably more KKK members in the Republican Party then there are ISM members in the Democratic Party...and yet you don't judge the Republicans by that, do you? I see the ISM’s views or those very similar to them are much more prevalent amongst the left in the democratic party then the KKK”s views are prevalent amongst the right wing in the republican party.

BTW, I will personally take a conservative non-supporter of Israel or a pat Buchanan type right winger, who usually is very against Israel but advocates cutting the U.S. off from Israel, over a extreme left winger that wants to go further by putting sanctions on Israel or compares Israel to Hitler and yada yada……………id rather be left alone then be infringed on like how a lot of the left want to do.


Btw as for republicans, I hope you read my postings here, I mean I didn’t exactly give a resounding endorsement of president Bush either ;)



Good article. So, IDFm203, does this sound like an ISM member to you? :roll:hmm and you were telling me to calm down :roll: p-)


Anyways like I said he figured out how to say the right things in the election campaign……..and yes figured out for well before he got that nomination he said something quite differently (well you know he has flip flopped again :roll: ;) )……………

This is what he said to the Arab-American Institute in October 2003


"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.

Shalom :D

[Moledet]

Bush, definetly.

[Sayeret]

They are asking for peace as much as Israeli troops and politicians do. When i say Palestine i mean common every day people who like peace as much as the majority of common every day Israelis do

Some Palestinian civilians want peace but they don't decide things.

[achilles]

They are asking for peace as much as Israeli troops and politicians do. When i say Palestine i mean common every day people who like peace as much as the majority of common every day Israelis do

Some Palestinian civilians want peace but they don't decide things.

True. The same is true for Isreal. I wouldnt doubt that there are all sorts of people and opinions in both countries. I strongly believe that the majority of the people in both countries would prefer some kind of peaceful resolution. And i also believe that there is a chunk of Isrealis who would be glad to see the elimination of their Arab neighbours, as in Palestine.
Just one last comment:

The fact that Palestinians are more extreme and fanatic both in terms of mentality and practice can be explained by the following:
1) Suppression
2)Religion
3) Poverty and either lack of or misleading education
4)As i have already mentioned, Palestine is playing the game from the side of the weak....Just a few thoughts

[SeanAshi]

The fact that Palestinians are more extreme and fanatic both in terms of mentality and practice can be explained by the following:
1) Suppression
2)Religion
3) Poverty and either lack of or misleading education
4)As i have already mentioned, Palestine is playing the game from the side of the weak....Just a few thoughts
Arafat and his PLO/PA support suicide terrorism against Israeli civilians.

[Snake Eater Wannabe]

you know we need to focus on us first. i like israel but they need to help them selves. now bush is running the country as best he can. now i would hate to see clinton or kerry in his shoes. cliton didnt have to put up with 9/11 or hippie assholes like sean penn and the rest ove hollywood(excluding tom hanks)

[UoUo]

They are asking for peace as much as Israeli troops and politicians do. When i say Palestine i mean common every day people who like peace as much as the majority of common every day Israelis do

Some Palestinian civilians want peace but they don't decide things.

True. The same is true for Isreal. I wouldnt doubt that there are all sorts of people and opinions in both countries. I strongly believe that the majority of the people in both countries would prefer some kind of peaceful resolution. And i also believe that there is a chunk of Isrealis who would be glad to see the elimination of their Arab neighbours, as in Palestine.
Just one last comment:

The fact that Palestinians are more extreme and fanatic both in terms of mentality and practice can be explained by the following:
1) Suppression
2)Religion
3) Poverty and either lack of or misleading education
4)As i have already mentioned, Palestine is playing the game from the side of the weak....Just a few thoughts

1. most of the palstinian support the himcide bombing.

You are puting the things like most of us want peace but we can't do nothing..we can chosse our leader and we choosed the only man that can make peace.

Any way...only the right wing in Israel can make peace with the arabs...

[achilles]

1. most of the palstinian support the himcide bombing.

You are puting the things like most of us want peace but we can't do nothing..we can chosse our leader and we choosed the only man that can make peace.

Any way...only the right wing in Israel can make peace with the arabs

ACHILLES: on your first point,again: most of them do since this is a war we are talking about and their only weapon against a high-tech effective Israeli force is to comit suicide bombings. No doubt, an attrocity, which can make sense if you think of it the way i mentioned.

I dont know about the right wing in Isreal, all i know is that Sharon seems unwilling to follow any moderate approaches. My estimation is that we will need a great deal of time to see any real progress in this ever-lasting conflict.

[oliv]

im not israelian, but i hope Bush will win

[Javehn]

They are asking for peace as much as Israeli troops and politicians do. When i say Palestine i mean common every day people who like peace as much as the majority of common every day Israelis do

Some Palestinian civilians want peace but they don't decide things.

True. The same is true for Isreal. I wouldnt doubt that there are all sorts of people and opinions in both countries. I strongly believe that the majority of the people in both countries would prefer some kind of peaceful resolution. And i also believe that there is a chunk of Isrealis who would be glad to see the elimination of their Arab neighbours, as in Palestine.
Just one last comment:

The fact that Palestinians are more extreme and fanatic both in terms of mentality and practice can be explained by the following:
1) Suppression
2)Religion
3) Poverty and either lack of or misleading education
4)As i have already mentioned, Palestine is playing the game from the side of the weak....Just a few thoughts


Infact , surprisingly this is pretty accurate state of situation described here .In religion I would also add culture , as it goes hand by hand .



I dont know about the right wing in Isreal, all i know is that Sharon seems unwilling to follow any moderate approaches. My estimation is that we will need a great deal of time to see any real progress in this ever-lasting conflict.

But this is not exactly correct . Sharon was kicked seriously after Lebaneze war after the commities and kickes in the ass , and kicking him from ministry of defence . He was labeled as Sabra and Shatila man, and sence then he tries to remove this mark from him .

Until now he severely dangered his political future . He kicked away from governement people who was simpathetic to him before as Liberman , he had his fights with Natanyahu inside his party , he started to change the political map of coalition . He is underestimated , and that's too bad. Until now he risked to much of his political life to ignore from it .

[gilgoul]

I know I`m not going to make any friends here, ;) , but I would tend to support more Kerry than Bush, since i`m one of those bleeding heart lefties :D .
Seriously, until 9/11, Bush has been everything but a supoporter, condemning us every now and then, putting a lot of pressure, and the stunts of Ronald Reagan in the area left a lot of people a bitter taste (remember how he withdrew from US garantee over Israel loan in 1985?)
BTW Achilles, US support came in two phases, I should say even three.
Up to 1967, a "rethoric" support, and some very appreciated and needed help from president Truman (FD Roosevelt wasn`t that "hot" for the very idea of a jewish state in the ME) that helped build the army and mainly the air force after 1949, but France was the main helper up to 1967, especially during the 4th republic, when the fraench cabinet was the only purveyor of valuable equipment to the state of Israel.
After the De Gaule betrayal, there`s no other word, the USA stepped in, mainly, and thats totaly honorable, because Israel was with turkey the sole elements resisting the rampant soviet influence and destabilisation of the region.
Israel being a client of USA in 1973, the USSR encouraging a belliquose attitude from it`s arab clients (Egypt, Yemen, Irak, Syria, Algeria and Lybia), the States came to help in order to counterbalance the massive support the arab states were receiving since the beginning of the war.
This US support, mainly in ammunition, ATGM`s and other equipement definitely saved the lives of many combattants by prompting a swift victory.
The camp David negociations (under jimmy Carter) between Egypt and Israel brought an American Guarantee between the now two clients of America in the ME, President Sadat was more than happy to escape soviet "help" to come back in the western/non alignated sphere, and don`t forget that if Israel receives a "coupon" of 2 billion $ a year, so does Egypt, that even has a ABRAMS M1A1 assembling factory next to Alexandria, and disposes of top notch air force capacities by now.
So if a country in the middle East is fully dependant on american help, for sure it is not Israel, you should rather look to Egypt or Saudi Arabia (on a technical plan, not financiary thought).
This doesn`t mean that the American support is not appreciated here, people feel a real bound with America that goes further than a thankfull feeling, we share the same values for the most part, and you should see the number of American flags flying on balconies and car windows ;) .

Maybe because I`m a conservative lefty (that kind of exist) I do not believe in Ultra capitalism, just like I despise the Ultra left, I tend to believe in just societies that don`t value a system where a third of the population is under the poverty line while less than a 1% holds more than 20% of the riches of one country. I tend to believe in some solidarity and care in one society, and I have to admit having been shoked when I visited LA two years ago, seeing downtown thousands of homeless people without any proper care, living in conditions that would make blush of shame even the poorest of gaza resident.
I believe in the right to be an entrepreneur, to the right to try to succeed, and in giving any possible incitement to dynamism instead od parasitism, but a decent society ought to take care of it`s weakest sectors, and I don`t think that tax breaks for the top "elite" is the right thing to do. Just like I don`t think that hiring the price of bread (to the benefit of a few share holder) while downing the price of dvd players is in the right direction to hold a society together, especially when education budgets are slashed, medical care is scarce and poverty rampant.That is exactly what did our current finance minister bejamin Netanyahu, and that is exactly what did your current president.
After that I have to admit that in time of war, only the right seems to have the "balls" to fight, but once again, even if I disagree with Kerry`s involvement in the anti war movement in the late sixties, at least did he see it form close, while Georges Bush Junior was drinking bourbon in his officer mess in Texas.
Kerry seems to be of this New England elit, snobish and SO WASP, while Bush seems to be from this oil buissness elite that made itself in a few generation, between those two people I would be quite confused as an American citizen :oops:

[Mark_Aspen]

I like where Gilgoul is coming from. Ze motzeh hen b'enai. You almost sound like a clasically educated Kibbutznik.

My question for the Americans is: do your two main parties represent the middle, or are they being hijacked by the left or right wings? My firsthand memory and knowledge of the US system ended somewhere around Pres. Carter, but I remember that I was taught the parties take the exreme views and filter them through compromise to reflect the middle that is the bulk of the population. I remember my American family commenting that Clinton was very conservative for a Democrat, though not for a Southerner. Comments?

[gilgoul]

I like where Gilgoul is coming from. Ze motzeh hen b'enai. You almost sound like a clasically educated Kibbutznik.

My question for the Americans is: do your two main parties represent the middle, or are they being hijacked by the left or right wings? My firsthand memory and knowledge of the US system ended somewhere around Pres. Carter, but I remember that I was taught the parties take the exreme views and filter them through compromise to reflect the middle that is the bulk of the population. I remember my American family commenting that Clinton was very conservative for a Democrat, though not for a Southerner. Comments?

OK, I have to admit I always been attracted by the kibbutz experience :D , but believe me, I come from the exact oposite, my parents are small entrepreneurs, and I understand the burden of heavy taxation they had to endure in one of the most heavily taxed population in the world (France).

[Siddar]

I think if Isreal is seen as not suporting Bush it will send a very clear message to both partys in US that Isreal is only out for its self. That is not a bad postion for a country to take but when you ask for billions in aid from a country the politicians in that country expect a little payback in return.

Many people have been talking stuff that happend way before Bush became president why is that relavent to question that was asked?

Bush is best president Isreal will ever see in white house. Dont screw your friends would be a good policy for any isreali to follow.

[Geezah]

President Bush and his unprecedented support of Israel has caused great resentment towards the United States, John Kerry said that Israel would be safer under himself..what do you guys think?

I d say that US is bound to fully support Isreal no matter who is in charge. Its a basic element of the US foreign policy so i dont think Kerry will be willing or even able to change much

Kerry doesn't WANT to change anything. During the Democratic Primaries, Kerry had a more in-depth description of his foreign policy stances on his web page than he does now. His stance was the most pro-Israel of any candidate, including Joe Lieberman. He stated that he believed firmly in continuing our historic relationship with Israel and helping defend the sole democracy in the Middle East, while continuing negotiations.

Remember, it's not as simple as "Democrats oppose Israel and Republicans support it." John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, created US's ties with Israel, and the most anti-Israel president since him was Bush Sr.

IMHO that's what he telling you now just wait till next week ;)

“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

If Kerry doesn't care about his own troops, you guys may as well start p!ssing in the wind if he gets into power! :(

[fred_engles]

I think if Isreal is seen as not suporting Bush it will send a very clear message to both partys in US that Isreal is only out for its self.
Bush is best president Isreal will ever see in white house. Dont screw your friends would be a good policy for any isreali to follow.
Seems like the opposite to me. As long as the democratic leadership is also supporting Israel (which it is - and indeed, Bush and Kerry have very few differences on the issue), it is in Israel's best interests to make it clear that neither party 'owns' the issue. Support for Israel is one of the few things that both parties are typically in strong agreement on, so it makes sense for the Israelis to avoid politicizing the issue.

[Geezah]

Kerry Wrong for Defense and Foreign Policy


Kerry Is Weak On National Security



In 1993, Kerry Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:



ü Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews

ü Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one

ü Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force

ü Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program

ü Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93)



In 1996, Kerry Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96)



In 1995, Kerry Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion From Defense. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)



Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Again Proposed Cuts As His “Overall Defense Strategy.” “Joining Kerry was Michael Nacht, chairman of Kerry’s foreign policy task force and an instructor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, who said Kerry’s proposal was ‘unique’ because it was an overall defense strategy, not just a pro or con statement about certain Reagan administration programs.” (“Kerry Asks $54 Billion Cut In Reagan Defense Budget,” Berkshire Eagle, 5/30/84)



“[T]he Congressional Record Shows That Kerry’s First Speech In The Senate, On March 19, 1985, Was Made In Opposition To President Reagan’s Push To Build 21 MX Missiles.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Admits To An Error In Boast About 1st Speech,” The Boston Globe, 5/1/03)



Kerry’s Shifting Stance On Iraq


In 1997, Kerry Warned Conflict Will Only Worsen If We Wait To Hold Saddam Accountable. “In a more practical vein, Mr. President, I submit that the old adage ‘pay now or pay later’ applies perfectly in this situation. If Saddam Hussein is permitted to go about his effort to build weapons of mass destruction and to avoid the accountability of the United Nations, we will surely reap a confrontation of greater consequence in the future. The Security Council and the United States obviously have to think seriously and soberly about the plausible scenarios that could play out if he were permitted to continue his weapons development work after shutting out U.N. inspectors.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12256)



In February 2002, Kerry Complained “Some In This Country” Not Willing “To Hold Saddam Accountable.” “Kerry noted that Saddam has failed to respond to past U.S. warnings about permitting United Nations arms inspectors to do their job in Iraq. ‘It’s clear that Saddam Hussein continues to be a major threat . . . in part because some in this country were slow-footed and didn’t have the stomach to hold Saddam accountable.’” (Andrew Miga, “Bush Sends Warning To Saddam Hussein,” The Boston Herald, 2/14/02)



In October 2002, Kerry Voted For Iraq War Resolution. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)



Then In January 2003, Kerry Decried “Rush To War.” “[W]hile American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution’s decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, 1/23/03)



As War Began In March 2003, Kerry Said Saddam Choose “To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism.” “Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said.” (Glen Johnson, “Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)



But In April 2003, Kerry Claimed His Vote Was To Threaten Force, Not Use It. “I voted to give the President to have a legitimate threat of force for the reasons he gave: to go to the United Nations and form a coalition. This President failed. It was a failure of diplomacy …” (Stephen Seitz, “Kerry: America Needs A ‘Regime Change’ Too,” The [Manchester] Union Leader, 4/3/03)



In October 2003, Kerry Voted Against Funding Our Troops In Iraq. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)



In January 2004, Kerry Says He Is An Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)



And Now Kerry Claims Iraqis Are “Lashing Out” At America. “Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition. We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility. And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn’t done.” (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, “A Strategy For Iraq,” The Washington Post, 4/13/04)



Kerry’s Weak Record On Intelligence


Not Long After First World Trade Center Bombing, Kerry Proposed $7.5 Billion In Across The Board Intelligence Cuts. In 1994, Kerry proposed rescinding $1 billion in FY1994 Intelligence budget and freezing the budget at that level through at least FY1998, which would cut $5 billion from Intelligence funding during that period. Kerry’s proposal was defeated by a vote of 20 to 75, with even Sen. Ted Kennedy voting against the measure. Then in 1995, Kerry proposed a bill to, “[r]educe the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.” This bill had no co-sponsors and never reached the Senate floor for a vote. (Amdt. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Kennedy Voted Nay; Sen. Dennis DeConcini [D-AZ], Congressional Record, 2/10/94, p. S1360; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)



In 1995, Kerry Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)



12 Days After September 11, Kerry Said Intelligence Is Most Important Weapon In War On Terror. “And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. It’s the single most important weapon in this particular war, unlike other wars where it was overwhelming force or Air Force or something.” (CBS’s “Face The Nation,” 9/23/01)



12 Days After September 11, Kerry Said U.S. Was Weakest In Intelligence And It Would Take Time To Build That Area Up. “And we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area [intelligence]. So it’s going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.” (CBS’s “Face The Nation,” 9/23/01)