I don't see any substantive difference in their stated positions. The only way to really accept that is to accept that Obama does not really mean what he says on the Israel issue. Otherwise, they're all the same. IMO.

On the other hand, there is Ron Paul, but he was not taken seriously as a candidate.

None to my satisfaction. Why should any presidential candidate embrace an Anti-Israel personal policy when it would conflict with current and historical U.S. foreign policy?

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

Oh, then link to that page of that government site, please, then I will be able to see it.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'm not sure about that. I've never heard McCain or Hillary say anything like this:

Obama: Palestinians Matter, Too
Perhaps Hillary can take credit for her husband's attempt at ISR/PAL peace... that seems to be her M.O. Ron Paul and Kucinich would possibly have been decent peace brokers, but they're no longer part of the conversation.

I would rank the probability for ISR/PAL peace under the hypothetical respective administrations as follows:

1) Obama - Does not have much real history but has been even handed with comments.
2) Clinton - Every mention of the Palestinians has come with unrealistic pre-conditions and seems to mirror the same way the Isralies deal with them.
3) McCain - It's clear that he has many Israeli ties. He says he wants to make peace like Bush has said he wants to make peace. The problem is that he's essentially a Bush surrogate in much of his foreign policy ideals.



I'd like to see Moon's ranking.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

1) It would illustrate that Obama is truly a force for change by doing the right thing and changing America's foreign policy. Maintaining the status quo on the Israel/Palestine issue to get votes illustrates that he is a conformist not a force for change.

2) Obama claims to oppose racism, bigoty, intolerance and all of that; supporting a Jewish Supremacist state that practices Apartheid in territory it occupies hardly reflects his stated positions on the issues of tolerance.

3) America's foreign policy in Palestine has created a lot of hatred and resentment in the Arab world; promising to arm Israel or at least saying that he believes the U.S. government should continue to arm Israel is not going to win your nation any friends in ME.

4) Israel is a war criminal state operating in violation of international treaty and customary law pertaining to the rules of war not to mention violating UN Security Council Resolutions; supporting this state will not improve America's image to the world and stinks of hypocrisy.

How are these for four reasons?

I'm unimpressed. He recognized that they've got it bad. Who wouldn't? Has he ever taken a public stance against Israel? What has he done for the Palestinians? Nothing, to my knowledge.

Meanwhile, he co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 with Hillary Clinton and John McCain and has called upon Palestinians to recognize Israel and isolate Hamas. He's said that, if elected, he would continue to provide military assistance to Israel. He's tried very hard to appeal to pro-Israel voters, just like the other two.

His actual positions on the issue are indistinguishable from McCain and Clinton. See also The Candidates on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Council on Foreign Relations

Yeah ... They were actually different.

I don't think you've looked very closely at the comments. Making a remark that the Palestinians have it bad does not compare in any way to his expressions of support for Israel, promises to fund the Israeli military and his endorsement of sanctions on the Palestinian governing body. He's asked the Palestinians to recognize Israel and renounce violence; has he asked Israel to do the same vis-a-vis the Palestinians?

Obama has suggested the same pre-conditions: recognize Israel and renounce violence.

They're all on the same page. I refer you again to the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, sponsored by the three senators and signed by Bush. (Read more here: ei: U.S. Backing for Fatah Stirs New Conflict)

With apologies to moon, his understanding of American politics is pretty limited. Wouldn't it be more informative to know what AIPAC thinks? Or Haaretz?

So the force for change and justice actually supported a bill that essentially SANCTIONED the VICTIMS of a belligerent military occupation for their continued resistance to Israeli aggression and colonialism?

Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 - Bill passed by US House of Representatives and Senate/Non-UN document (21 December 2006)

Hmmmm...apparently so!

Given that Hillary Clinton and John McCain have the same position as Obama, why have you singled him out for criticism when there is no more pro-Palestinian candidate (still running) on the issue? Ordinarily, such a thread might be useful if a reasonable alternative could be proposed, but there does not appear to be one in this case given that we're down to these three folks.

I agree that all the (remaining) candidates have a pro-Israel slant. I'm saying that as a potential diplomat in guiding the peace process that Obama ranks above the other two IMO.

I think Obama has demonstrated an evenhandedness and bipartisan disposition in dealing with issues in general. His resume is short, but his style (which does matter) seems to make him ideal for a diplomatic role.

We don't need a Palestinian cheerleader as our POTUS in order to broker an ISR/PAL peace settlement. All we need is a diplomat that will approach the situation with balance, candor, and respect for all parties.







That's exacly why I would like to see Moon's viewpoint. His viewpoint reflects, to some degree, the sentiments of the future Palestinian peace negotiators (whoever they will be). Likewise, I would be interested in seeing how AIPAC would rank the candidates because they would likely represent the viewpoints of potential Israeli peace negotiators.

Both entities are on the partisan extreme. Both would like to see a candidate that would suit their partisan agenda best. Who they would like to see and how they would rank them would be very telling I think.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

OK. That's an intangible, and who knows? You may be right. I have trouble with the concept that an American President will ever be regarded as an even-handed, neutral negotiator by Palestinians when the American position is clearly pro-Israeli, and that will not change under President Obama.

Hmmm ... There is a ranking maintained by a Haaretz blogger (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml) in which Obama comes in third in support for Israel. Potential reasons explained here: What's wrong with Obama? - Haaretz - Israel News

Frankly, I see no substantive change regardless of the next President, and their differences so trivial that it will be little different than the shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic.

It would, however, be a nice change of pace to see moon bashing "Democratism" instead of "Republicanism." The coming shock to the system almost brings a smile to my face.

For the simple reason McCain and Clinton are known supporters of Israel while with Obama there are quarters who believe that he is relatively even-handed on the issue. See this thread for an example...

Ralph Nader strikes me as the most even-handed:

Q: Briefly describe Nader's position on Middle East Policy, including Israel.

A: Ralph Nader spoke out vigorously against Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon and US support for it. Nader said, "The greatest move toward national security in our country and in the so-called effort against terrorism would be to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The majority of both people would like a two-state solution. This is an eminently resolvable conflict. But as long as the US basically says to whoever is in charge, 'You can do whatever you want over there, and we'll still pump $3 - $4 billion and cluster bomb weapons, etc.,' there's not going to be a resolution. As long as there's no resolution, there's going to be an inflammation increasing all over the Islamic world, and our national security will be compromised."

Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire

OK. I mean, David Duke probably has as good a chance at winning, but lobbying for a protest vote is fine.

I think the bottom line is that, for educated voters, this issue is a wash between the Democrat and Republican nominees.

Post script: It is interesting that we have not seen Sheriff in this thread.