Israel and the Middle East peace process

The American overseas obsession!

What is each candidates position on Israel and the Middle East Peace process?

(I am aware that this subject can get quite heated, and quite involved, so please, lets try and keep it civil!)

My stance on this is quite blunt.

I think that the US spends far too much of its time immersed in the Israeli question, and is not helping in the Middle Eastern Peace process at all by favouring Israel above all nations in the area.

I think that Israel is a modern, capable, nuclear armed state and is more than capable of standing on its own two feet in the face of potential agression. As such it does not need the full protective arm of the United States around it any more than countries with comparable weapons systems, such as the UK, France and China do. (I base that statment on a recent assesment of the number of active warheads each country is believed to posess.)

I believe in a fair deal for the Palestinians, and the inception of their own state in the region. I think the Israels should remove their settlements in Palestinian territory.

My government would NOT veto every single UN mandated sanction against Israel, because I want to lead by example, and not set a false precedent favouring a single nation.

I think that only by treating all parties equally, that peace can be bought to the middle east. Anything less is a compromise that will lead to future cycles of violence.

Hello nerformore. It appears that I still have some catching up to do with my campaign, but I would be glad to answer your question as thoroughly as possible.

There will only be a matter of time before terrorists get really advanced and they infiltrate positions of the United States government. They also will be capable of detonating off explosives on our home soil and they will also be able to tell the voters of the United States what party to vote for because they want them to vote for only one way in particular and they want to do this to sway the general conscience of Americans.

These terrorists are very adept at using the net. Should we shut down the net-- should we get rid of google, no of course we should not. I mean we should not let them gain ground on us but the Islamic radicals and extremists that try to force their beliefs on us are taking advantage of how Bush is mismanaging his situation.

We should try not to encourage violence but we should promote psi-ops tactics that try to intermingle between the terrorists and our sides so that they can coexist peacefully with us and other people because we did that with the cold war when we faced a valiant ally like we have now like Russia. However Al-queda doesn't have super power allies like Russia did and although they are a highly adaptive terrorist organization we can still find ways to stop them or slow down their movement, and the next move we take should be important and critical to how we deal with them.

All we should be focusing on is Al-queda and or any and all groups but not limited to the groups supporting Al-queda. We can handle covert wars, that is not the issue, but we should be upfront about al-queda and we should take away their potential allies and propaganda to sway other people from liking the United States.

There is little to no doubt that this organization has only strengthened the terrorists resolve of the Middle East. But you have to realize that these terrorists do not reflect the views of the entire country but they merely force their own upon them. That being said, the moderate Muslims and the moderate people in the Middle East need to take back their region from the people that have hijacked their region and made it an anti-superpower.

Six arab countries are going nuclear... some of them our allies... others we aren't so sure about.

With the nuclear age coming we have to be very worried of the possibility of nuclear terrorism. We cannot let one single nuke hit Israel or its or our allies.

I recommend that we do not pull out of Middle Eastern countries. The Middle Eastern Countries need our protection. They also need stability, and while Bush cannot supply the stability for that, the next person in charge presumably will be able to.

So that being said, I am not in support for a draft, but we should get out of the wars we are in now, and focus on stabilizing those regions and leaving with honors so we won't have to fight a long weak one sided war with all of the odds against us in the future.

We have depleted all of our resources, so we should get out of Iraq, then go to Afghanistan, then finish what we are doing with Iraq. We cannot meddle between two countries at the same time.

My position on Israel, is that it should not have been created in the
first place, but that is in the past, and of no relevance anymore.

I do not support funding Israel, especially the near billion we give them
every year for there military, they are a modern country that does not
need help from other countries, especially considering they are the
world's 15th largest economy.


As for the Middle-East in general, I have stated my thoughts/plans on Iraq,
a gradual pull-out over 5-7 years, while training the Iraqis to be able to
defend themselves.

I believe we should keep a permanent military presence in Afghanistan,
like how we do in S. Korea, though it should only be 10-15 thousand
troops. And once Afghanistan is up and running, and there is no more
threat of a Taliban resurgence the number should be brought down to
5,000.

In general the Middle-East is a very volatile part of the world, and one
that we need to watch, at least until they become free and Democratic,
and Islam (especially conservative/extreme) ceases to run the govern-
ments in the area.

Israel is no different than any other country sucking up foreign aide from the US at the expense of the American taxpayers. As I state in my platform statement, "I will immediately suspend all foreign aide, begin the withdrawal of American troops from all foreign nations, terminate all mutual defense treaties and resign from the United Nations.". Countries of the Mideast will be no exception.

Neither Israel in particular or the Mideast in general should be the recipient of aide or military support from the US. All of the people of this region need to figure out how to deal with each other in a peaceful manner without the involvement of external parties. The US has pursued this failed Mideast policy that does nothing but fuel violence since long before our current President was born. Continuing to repeat the same interventionist policies with the expectation of a different result is a fools bet which harms not only the US, it harms all of the peoples of the Mideast as well.

I share the other candidates ideas on this partially. I think that we should stop hugging Israel and let them handle their own battles. Why are we going to sit there and hand them technology when they use it and then give it to their buddies, the Chinese. I however don't think that we should pull all personel out of the foreign countries. We have to protect our assets. There's places that we have to protect. Do you think that if weren't protecting that China would be like, okay guys i guess we won't invade you? No, they're going to try to take it back. As a superpower we have a responsibility to defend our friends. However, that doesn't mean we should go bullying people to get what we want. "Pakistan you're going to help us or you should watch your back." What is that. Thats not what the country was founded on.

I believe we must lead by example.

How we can force peace somewhere else when we have no peace here at home?

We may not have war but we have a 'war' on drugs...a 'war' on terrorism...and we have bi-partisan everything...not just politics.

Once we put our own house in order the rest will follow. They will see how things are here and they will want to join us.

They cannot beat us. They will have to join us. Right now there is nothing better here than there...just different flavors.

We must rise above and overcome our domestic problems and the world will become a better place.

It is up to us to DO not TELL.

Do as i DO not as i SAY.

We are not here to dictate...we are here to lead.

I do not believe in the heavy handed support of Israel that has been the norm since its inception. My goal would be to force Israel to be its own country and Palestine its own. No longer will I allow a policy of favoritism for Israel, but rather a policy of fairness for both peoples. Also, financial support of the Israeli's would be cut completely, and only diplomatic and necessary military assistance will be deemed acceptable during my administration.

Originally posted by BennyHill
My goal would be to force Israel to be its own country and Palestine its own.

Isn't that what led us to this moment in time, right now?

Two populations ---> one land.

Easy. If they share. But they won't share.
My mom always made me share. If there was one piece of cake, cut it in half.

That's not going to work, either. When Israel came to take over Palestine, horrible things happened. Now, Palestine wants Israel to leave a little here and a little there. Everyone gets in on the argument.

MEANWHILE, families daily lose their loved ones to senseless violence over the issue.

WE can not FORCE peace. Especially by choosing up sides.

What is each candidates position on Israel and the Middle East Peace process?

Thank you for asking this question. I will break it down into two parts.

Firstly: Israel.
Secondly: The Middle East Peace Process.

Israel was created on land promised by the British to the Arabic people of the Area. It was created by terrorism from groups like Irgun, Levi and so on and so fourth. The people of the area that is now called “Palestine” remember this, they know this, they are not ill educated, illiterate idiots whose whole purpose is to destroy Israel, to kill the people (Jewish people) and any other idiotic statement the contemporary media has tried to call them. The people also know that there is nothing that they can legally do – the World Court, United Nations and so on and so fourth has failed them – primarily because of the U.S.A. and its high instances of using the veto to defend Israel and also because of a lack of legitimacy by these International Organizations.

My policy for Israel is simple:
Completely stop selling weapons to them.
Remove aid being sent to them, unless they completely stop their own terrorist attacks: These include targeted assassinations, use of hospital (Red Cross Symbol) on helicopters that transport troops to attack, etc.

Middle East Peace Process:

We as the U.S.A. should be used as a mediator between the all the groups involved. There should be a fundamental set of principles that the meeting is based around – these should include:
The recognition of Israel by Middle Eastern Nations.
The removal of support for terrorist organizations by Middle Eastern Nations if Israel will remove forces from said Nations and stop attacking them. (Israel to stop first.)
A meeting of each Nation with the leaders of each terrorist force to meet conditions for them to demilitarise themselves.
The acknowledgement by each group that it will be a long slow process.
Constant meetings (several times a year) by all groups, to address new and re-occurring problems.
Establishment of Palestine as an independent Nation not under Israel control. (U.N. troops at first from Middle Eastern Nations as Police, etc.)

A lot of the burden though is on Israel to some what grow up. The policy they are using does not work; the British in Ireland showed the world this as do the Russian Government in Chechnya. Furthermore there is not an argument that can convince me that attacking one person and killing 10 really helps remove and reduce terrorism.

Originally posted by neformore
What is each candidates position on Israel and the Middle East Peace process?

The roadmap to a unified israli state is a tough one for anyone to come up with a deffinite solution. I however think that deviding up the west bank and gaza strip is not the solution that is needed. I believe in the unification of the israli and palistinian people under one flag with a government that would be representitive of both interests involved.

The problem with the mid east peace process is a racial one it is also a religious one. This complecates matters so badly that true unification and peace would probably be unatainable. Unless both sides can come together in agreement that their culteral and spiritual differences are just getting in the way of progress and that to realy unify the country it is neccessary to put those differences asside for the sake of peace.

The United States should not support either side in this idiocy. We cannot support isriel without alienating the palistinians and vice versa. We cannot allow fundementalist religious lobbying to slant our view in the course to facilitate a true peace process in the middle east.

Originally posted by whatukno
I believe in the unification of the israli and palistinian people under one flag with a government that would be representitive of both interests involved.

How could this even cross your mind? We can't even get Muslim sects to peacefully coexist under one government in Iraq and you want to combine Jews & Muslims under a single Israeli/Palestinian state. We must give this a name, the "whatukno Palestine Doctrine" has a nice ring to it. I'm pretty sure the other candidates will have no problem with your name being exclusively attached to this idea.

The problem with the mid east peace process is a racial one it is also a religious one.

Jews and Palestinians are both a Semitic people. How is this a racial problem?

facilitate a true peace process in the middle east.

What do you see as a US role in this "true peace process"? And what is a "true peace process"? This sounds as murky & undefined as calling for "victory in Iraq".

Originally posted by df1
I'm pretty sure the other candidates will have no problem with your name being exclusively attached to this idea.

Certainly not. After all, it IS whatukno's idea. Give credit where credit is due.

Sounds like a great idea to me!!!

[edit on 3/11/2007 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by df1[

How could this even cross your mind?

Sometimes you have to think outside the box...

We can't even get Muslim sects to peacefully coexist under one government in Iraq and you want to combine Jews & Muslims under a single Israeli/Palestinian state. We must give this a name, the "whatukno Palestine Doctrine" has a nice ring to it. I'm pretty sure the other candidates will have no problem with your name being exclusively attached to this idea.

It boils down to this...

The palistinian people just want to live their lives in peace. They want to be able to go to work and be able to do everything that they would normaly be able to do but the problem is that the Isralies won't let them move about the country freely enough to do the things they need to. This ticks the palistinian people off so much that the desparate do desparate things to try and get their point across...

The jewish people just don't want suicide bombers blowing themselves up everywhere... They wouldnt mind co existing with the palistinians if there were some way to make sure that the palistinians wouldnt start blowing up themselves or start throwing rocks the second they lift the roadblocks... Hey wait thats all that it would take huh? if the palastinian people didnt feel so oppressed maybe they wouldnt want to blow themselves up.

most people don't want to fight they don't like war. War sucks to be in. It also realy sucks to watch your children starve in front of you because you can't go to work. Maybe if they all were fighting for the same thing the security of their own country they could look beyond what is their differences and focus on making their lives better.

Jews and Palestinians are both a Semitic people. How is this a racial problem?

Ask a Palistinian person if he is the same race as a Jewish person see what response you get.

What do you see as a US role in this "true peace process"? And what is a "true peace process"? This sounds as murky & undefined as calling for "victory in Iraq".

The US shouldnt be too envolved in the affairs of others overseas. I think we only need to be there to facilitate the talks as a neutral third party. We only should be there to make sure the process moves forward to a secure Isriel and a unified Isriel. I believe that if you stoped deviding up the region and unified the region then everyone would start working together to make sure their own state is secure and they would stop fighting each other.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by whatukno]

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by BennyHill
My goal would be to force Israel to be its own country and Palestine its own.

Isn't that what led us to this moment in time, right now?

Two populations ---> one land.

Easy. If they share. But they won't share.
My mom always made me share. If there was one piece of cake, cut it in half.

That's not going to work, either. When Israel came to take over Palestine, horrible things happened. Now, Palestine wants Israel to leave a little here and a little there. Everyone gets in on the argument.

MEANWHILE, families daily lose their loved ones to senseless violence over the issue.

WE can not FORCE peace. Especially by choosing up sides.

No one said or expects that it would be easy, but it is a far better option than forcing either party to leave which is the only other viable choice. Do that and you will most assuredly have WWIII. It seems to me that is your implication as the best course of action which completely and utterly careless and irresponsible.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by BennyHill]

Originally posted by BennyHill
No one said or expects that it would be easy, but it is a far better option than forcing either party to leave which is the only other viable choice. Do that and you will most assuredly have WWIII. It seems to me that is your implication as the best course of action which completely and utterly careless and irresponsible.

I did not imply that at all.

The Palestinians and the Jewish people neither one want to leave nor share - or so it seems. The situation was begun irresponsibly and has not improved over the last 60 years.

Obviously there is a solution but not anything that has been attempted already - not anything that satisfies both populations.

You will find my Middle East policy not including Iraq Here and Here

I have linked directly to the relevant posts if you want to follow the tread in its original format then follow this link .

Cheers xpert11.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 27-3-2007 by xpert11]