John Kerry and Israel?

Discussion in 'Elections' started by DynamoKiev_USA, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. DynamoKiev_USA

    DynamoKiev_USA New Member

    Jul 6, 2003
    Silver Spring, MD
    Do you think there will be a modification of American course with regards to Israel if Kerry is elected? I could not fish out much information on this politically sensitive issue, except for Kerry's consistent pro-Israel voting record in Congress.

    Thanks for any info.
     
  2. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    Unlikely. Both parties are pro-Israel. Kerry might criticize Israel more, as Clinton did, but fundamentally, Israel will remain a close ally of the U.S.
     
  3. DynamoKiev_USA

    DynamoKiev_USA New Member

    Jul 6, 2003
    Silver Spring, MD
    That much is obvious. However, I wonder if Kerry agrees with the basic premise of the Bush policy today, or if he would, like Clinton, push parties toward a negotiating table?
     
  4. JPhurst

    JPhurst New Member

    Jul 30, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    There will likely be no change in policy. It's conceivable that Kerry may be a bit more proactive in encouraging negotiations. At the same time, it's conceivable that Bush, freed of re-election constraints, may do the same thing.
     
  5. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    These things are difficult to predict. Arab Americans voted heavily for Bush partly because they thought he would be a lot less pro-Israel than Gore (it doesn't get any funnier than that). I suspect Kerry will place greater emphasis on trying to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
     
  6. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    Manhattan Beach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It'd be hard to do less.
     
  7. DynamoKiev_USA

    DynamoKiev_USA New Member

    Jul 6, 2003
    Silver Spring, MD
    Doing more doesn't translate into being any closer to conflict resolution. Doing less might.
     
  8. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Because Bush needs to appear anti-peace while under re-election constraints?

    The United States must play a significant role as a mediator to get results here. Bush first stepped completely away from the process, then created his "road map for peace" which I have had trouble pulling up on Mapquest.

    For all the people who think that Bush will become more moderate on some issues after the election, or play a more statesman-like role, forget it. He is turning hard to the right at the first opportunity.
     
  9. DynamoKiev_USA

    DynamoKiev_USA New Member

    Jul 6, 2003
    Silver Spring, MD
    How would the US go about mediating? Should it continue to prop up the lying and corrupt Arafat after all that happened at Camp David and afterward? (See the book by Dennis Ross, for example). Negotiate with Hamas is the only other, no less crazy, alternative.

    Unilateral disengagement is the only way to go at the moment, so well done to Bush. To my knowledge, Kerry supports the policy, but I'm not certain of it.
     
  10. JPhurst

    JPhurst New Member

    Jul 30, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    No, because he may feel that he can't alienate certain Jewish voters. He may have decided to buck the advice of Jim Baker to his father, which was "********** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" (literally). Personally, I think Kerry will still win a large majority of the Jewish vote, but Bush may want to try and capture more than the pathetic 19% he did last time.

    Or because he may feel that he can't alienate all voters, Jewish or not, by opening himself to critcism of "You are forcing Israel to negotiate with terrorists while you wage war against them?"

    He may very well stay the course. As I said, it can go either way.
     
  11. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    Manhattan Beach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The question was whether he would do more to try to solve the problem. Figuring out to stay out of it, and coming to this conclusion through deliberation, is doing more than he is doing now. Now he is not doing anything because he is ignoring it, not because he thinks it is the way to go. See what I mean? So you might be right that the best US policy is not to get too involved, but that is at least thoughtful. I don't think the current admin has any such policy.
     
  12. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    Manhattan Beach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's what he does best!
     
  13. DynamoKiev_USA

    DynamoKiev_USA New Member

    Jul 6, 2003
    Silver Spring, MD

    What makes you come to this conclusion?
     
  14. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    Manhattan Beach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What makes me think that Bush has no policy, is that what you're asking?
     
  15. DynamoKiev_USA

    DynamoKiev_USA New Member

    Jul 6, 2003
    Silver Spring, MD

    Aha. Sorry wasn't clear :)
     
  16. NER_MCFC

    NER_MCFC Member

    May 23, 2001
    Cambridge, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sure they do, they pat Ariel Sharon on the back and let him do whatever he wants. At least that's all I've seen in the last four years.
     

Share This Page