NationStates Jolt Archive

If Kerry becomes the next US President, do you think that he will be more or less biased in favour of Israel on this issue?

I don't think he offers any more hope for balance than Bush does. From his campaign statements he seems to be even more pro-Israel than Bush - e.g. "Israel has every right in the world to defend herself [to extra-judicially kill its internal enemies]".

Bullshit. American should help Israel more, not less.

I am unsure - IMO I think all sides are to blame (and equally) in the conflict, and I'm not sure that any presidents are able to see that.


"Israel has every right in the world to defend herself"
-I think that Israel does have some right to defend itself, but Kerry overstates it.

I mean, look at the US; we maintain that we have the right to defend ourselves (even if Bush is doing it badly), so why force the exception on Israel, no matter how much somebody doesn't like their politics?

I just think everybody is sick of all the collateral damage in the conflict: innocent Israeli citizens, Palestinians, etc

none of you know what youre talking about. I dont either, so im not going to post an "opinion." All your ideas about what's going on are from the media so how can you judge anything on the international scene?

ZAIDAR supports Israel and hopes America will do more in the future...
:sniper:

none of you know what youre talking about. I dont either, so im not going to post an "opinion." All your ideas about what's going on are from the media so how can you judge anything on the international scene?
I honestly think the media is biased against Israel, and I for one am not

I think Kerry will be more even-handed in the conflict than Bush has been, but honestly, that's not saying much. Bush has been Sharon's (to use a Tucker Carlson phrase) butt-boy ever since he got into office. It's the whole evangelical thing. So all Kerry has to do to be better than Bush is just not fellate Sharon openly.

That said, I think Kerry will be better simply because he's generally pragmatic. If we want anything resembling stability in the region, there's got to be a two state solution that keeps Israel secure and provides the Palestinians with self-governance, and Israel under Sharon isn't going to come along quietly. Neither will Hamas, but that's another problem entirely. But Bush's plan right now seems to be to let Israel do whatever they want while we pretend we're not looking. Kerry will do better than that.

It's hard to get a good clear opinion on this because the media is so pervasively skewed. However, I would err on the side of caution and not be too blindly in support of one or the other. The press says what they need to say to sell the story... and if you want to get highly involved and form an opinion, please make it an intellegent, well informed one. Do the research and study the history of the thing so you can better understand it.

I say, if they both can't decide, that the UN go in and take the land for the world. As an area of religious significance to more than simply those two nations, if they can't decide where the boundaries are, or who governs what, I say that the whole area in dispute should be put under direct UN control, with neither group having any control, and that it be backed up by troops from every other UN nation. But then again, that's just my opinion.

I think most of you aren't looking at the question. This isn't a "who's right, the Israelis or the Palestinians" question. This is a question of which Presidential candidate will be more even-handed in the conflict.

I think the only solution is to help both sides more and with greater transparency. Take pro-active steps to create the two-state solution (instead of just mouthing it like Bush has.)

If Kerry becomes the next US President, do you think that he will be more or less biased in favour of Israel on this issue?

I don't think he offers any more hope for balance than Bush does. From his campaign statements he seems to be even more pro-Israel than Bush - e.g. "Israel has every right in the world to defend herself [to extra-judicially kill its internal enemies]".

The big problem with your question is you haven't established any qualifications or boundaries with which to make a measurement. What does "pro-Israel" mean? What constitutes being "more or less biased"? How do you define "balance"?

Does that mean simply being more active in criticizing Israeli policies the US feels are "over the line"? Does it mean actively trying to return to peace negotiations? Does it mean being involved in trying to reform the Palestinian leadership, isolating it from Arafat? Or is it rather to attempt to court Arafat's favor? What about terror groups? Is advocating or demanding a crack-down on Hamas by definition "pro-Israel" and "anti-Palestinian"?

Without giving us any clue what actions would count as "balanced", it's fairly impossible for us to answer either way. What is pro-Israel, what is pro-Palestinian, what is balanced?

Incidentally, I don't consider Bush to be pro-Israel, because I believe that a negotiated peace settlement is in Israel's best interest. THAT, to me, is pro-Israel.

Bush is pro-status-quo. That status-quo might be more beneficial to Israel than the Palestinians in the short term, but it's hardly in its best interests. America is supposed to be "a friend" to Israel. A real friend will tell you when you need to do something, even if it's hard or you don't want to hear it. Bush is not a real friend, he's merely a yes-man, a suck-up. That's not good for anyone.

Bullshit. American should help Israel more, not less.
Maybe you misunderstand. I'm not saying that America shouldn't help Israel. I am saying that if the US wants to help end the conflict there, they must be willing to hear and negotiate neutrally with both sides. At present the US just acts like Israel's Big Brother, "screw the Palestinians".

Specifically, the US is permissive of all Israeli atrocities, no matter how criminal. When Palestinian extremists hit back, the US acts like Palestinians are the only ones being terrorists.

"Israel has every right in the world to defend herself"
-I think that Israel does have some right to defend itself, but Kerry overstates it.

I mean, look at the US; we maintain that we have the right to defend ourselves (even if Bush is doing it badly), so why force the exception on Israel, no matter how much somebody doesn't like their politics?
I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself; there is no country that doesn't have that right. What Israel doesn't have the right to do is shoot missiles at people in carrying out extra-juducial "assassinations". Killing (martyring?) the Hamas leaders (and any innocent bystanders that happened to be around) has only made Hamas and other Palestinians angrier and more likely to kill Israelis.

I honestly think the media is biased against Israel,

I'm not sure how this opinion is formed. A number of peoples have resisted the occupation of their land by foreign powers. Each resistance is as justified as any other in the eyes of the occupied.

The French in WWII were called the resistance, which is a fairly neutral term, defined as "a secret organisation resisting authority, esp. in an occupied country".

The Russians in WWII were "partisans", somewhat less neutral, defined as "a guerilla in wartime".

The Iraqis are currently described as "insurgents" defined as "a rebel, a revolutionary". Which pre-supposes that the force being rebelled against is legitimate.

The Palestinians are described as terrorists. Defined as "a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community". Which is quite a difference from the resistors of France, and again pre-supposes that the government is legitimate.

How, given this description, the media is biased against Israel, I fail to see.


As an aside, given the definition of terrorist, when George Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to leave the country or face war, which is clearly an intimidating method of coercing a government, does this make GWB a terrorist?

What about when he threatened and exacted war on the Taliban if it did not hand over OBL?

What about Ariel Sharon exacting illegal collective punishment on the refugee camp communities?

Terrorist is one hell of a label to be throwing around.


(All definitions from the Oxford Dictionary)

How do you define "balance"?

Does that mean simply being more active in criticizing Israeli policies the US feels are "over the line"? Does it mean actively trying to return to peace negotiations? Does it mean being involved in trying to reform the Palestinian leadership, isolating it from Arafat? Or is it rather to attempt to court Arafat's favor? What about terror groups? Is advocating or demanding a crack-down on Hamas by definition "pro-Israel" and "anti-Palestinian"?
Yes, it means those things. I don't accept the US just letting Israel do whatever the hell its pseudo-fascist government wants. Palestinian terrorism must be stopped, but Israeli state terrorism must also end.

I say, if they both can't decide, that the UN go in and take the land for the world. As an area of religious significance to more than simply those two nations, if they can't decide where the boundaries are, or who governs what, I say that the whole area in dispute should be put under direct UN control, with neither group having any control, and that it be backed up by troops from every other UN nation. But then again, that's just my opinion.

Man the UN doesn't do crap! It's just a corrupt group of polotions who will vote for what gives them the most power. Screw polotics! :headbang:

Man the UN doesn't do crap! It's just a corrupt group of polotions who will vote for what gives them the most power. Screw polotics! :headbang:

Strange... no matter how much was offered by the US and UK for the Security Council votes for the second resolution after 1441 in the run up to the Iraq war, no-one would join in...

Yes, it means those things. I don't accept the US just letting Israel do whatever the hell its pseudo-fascist government wants. Palestinian terrorism must be stopped, but Israeli state terrorism must also end.

So let's use a hypothetical example: big suicide bombing in Israel, and Israel wants to respond. What would a "balanced" President do, say, recommend, etc? What would be an appropriate response? What would they do if Israel stepped over the line?

Specifically, the US is permissive of all Israeli atrocities, no matter how criminal. When Palestinian extremists hit back, the US acts like Palestinians are the only ones being terrorists.

The problem with the term "hit back" is it implies that Palestinian violence is justified because of Israeli violence. You could make that argument if the Palestinians were limiting violence to, or mainly targetting, Israeli MILITARY targets, or radical settlers (who also regularly engage in violence against Palestinians). The fact that they do not seems to dramatically hurt the case that they are merely "hitting back". Blowing up a restaurant and killing 15 people in retaliation for an air strike on a car that kills a Hamas leader and several bystanders doesn't count as what I would consider "hitting back". Hitting back is when you attack the people who attacked you. It is obvious that Palestinian militants (and, to a large part, the IDF) are merely now engaging in collective punishment, seeing the entire populations as constituing "the enemy" and their attackers, consequently turning them into legitimate targets. I will say I think the IDF is slightly better in this regard, but not by much.

As much as Bush is pathetic and eventhough he lost the Mid-east peace process once before. He's probably the best hope for a resolution. It just wont be a very good one. But hey, thats probably better than this continuous intafada thats painful to watch.

As much as Bush is pathetic and eventhough he lost the Mid-east peace process once before. He's probably the best hope for a resolution. It just wont be a very good one. But hey, thats probably better than this continuous intafada thats painful to watch.

I disagree. Bush has shown almost no interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past 4 years. I hold him more responsible for the morass of death and wasted potential than either Sharon or Arafat. The US President is the one world leader who potentially has the power to get both sides to calm the fuck down. And Bush's attitude has more or less been "fuck it", and to let Sharon do as he likes- to the detriment of Palestinians AND Israelis.

It is obvious that Palestinian militants (and, to a large part, the IDF) are merely now engaging in collective punishment, seeing the entire populations as constituing "the enemy" and their attackers, consequently turning them into legitimate targets. I will say I think the IDF is slightly better in this regard, but not by much.
Youre entirely right. I suppose my language was biased in favour of Palestinians. I don't deny that Hamas and co are terrorists - obviously bombing a bus of children is not "getting revenge on those who attacked Palestinians", but collective punishment.

I dont think it matters who is elected on this issue because really Kerry is just a smart Bush.