I normally avoid rehashing topics from earlier in the day, this will be my first exception.
I want to summarize what we know about Dean and Israel one more time, because this is a critical issue for a core Dem constituency. Progressive Dean fans are going to be put off by this note unless or until they realize that Dean's position on Israel is the ONLY position that can yield a lasting peace. No US President can deliver that peace without being firmly committed to Israel's security and sense of autonomy (from US heavyhanding). This is true not only from an Israeli point of view, but also from a US political point of view. And this (US commitment to the security and autonomy of Israel as a close ally) are the central tenents of what I'd call the rational conservative view of US-Israeli relations (not to be confused with the fundamentalist conservative view, which is far more extreme).
Anyway, back to where Dean stands on Israel:
please continue below...
Here's what we know about Dean's position on Israel:
- Dean's campaign chairman is Steve Grossman, former Chair of AIPAC, the large conservative lobbying group that supports Israel. This is the person he's placed to CHAIR HIS CAMPAIGN. Grossman joined his campaign over a year ago. Which other campaign in history even comes close to this?
- CommonDreams, back in March, claimed that Dean's least progressive issue was Israel, where he had said he doesn't support the progressive view but rather his view is "more in line with AIPAC's."
- Dean DID use the word soldiers to describe Hamas members. I think the context in which he used it clarifies, rather than confuses, his position. That position is basically that Israel has the right to react forcefully (and autonomously) to terrorism just like the US does. The question was whether it's OK for Israel to partake in targeted assassinations of Hamas members. His answer was basically: yes. If members of Hamas want to behave like soldiers, they have to face the consequenses. (How this was misinterpreted as being anti-Israel is beyond me).
- Dean did use the word "evenhanded" in an attempt to describe not the US relationship with Israel, but the perceived role the US must play if it wants to carry out successful peace negotiations. He correctly said that Israeli families are tired of the constant suicide attacks and express a preference towards peace, so long as Israel is secure. Recently, he admitted that he was not aware of the significance of that particular word, and that it was a particularly unfortunate choice of words. Maybe he should have known, but frankly I follow this stuff and somehow I missed the fact that the word has been used by Arafat. Maybe Dean, like me, doesn't pay much attention to Arafat.
- Yes, this is a strange context in which to bring this up, but it's true that Dean's wife is Jewish and his children were raised Jewish. This would make him the president with the closest relations to Judaism in history. The significance here? For people who are interested in ending the glass ceiling Jews have had in this country, I believe the first step is Dean not Lieberman. I fear that Lieberman runs the significant risk of having to "prove" his objectivity in the middle east, and of being accused of protecting Israel "because he's Jewish" whatever he does.
- Dean has done most of his traveling in the US in the past 18 months. But which country did he see fit to visit personally? Israel. Trip coordinated by... AIPAC. To meet with... Ariel Sharon. Many on the left in this country might be horrified to know this. But they fail to realize that Dean knows you can't make progress in the Middle East without the full trust of Israel, but once you have that trust, Israelis want to make progress much more than we do: they live with their amputee sons and murdered daughters and friends who were on the wrong bus at the wrong time, and yes, businesses that can't make money because the tourists keep canceling their trips.
I believe Dean would be an extremely reliable ally to Israel. At the same time, I think he's in the best position to achieve the ultimate goal of both progressives and the great majority of conservatives: a truly secure peace for Israel, and sustainable autonomy for the Palestinians. I frankly do not believe a pure progressive on this issue can achieve that. I think Dean's commitment to Israel will be to leave it a better and safer place.
Feel free to forward this, or parts of it, along to folks who have heard the false accusations about Dean and Israel.