ISRAEL-PALESTINE ISSUE ABSENT FROM DEBATE

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

MUZZLE WATCH - Remember back when Howard Dean, running for president
with a former president of AIPAC, no less, as his campaign co-chair, had
the audacity to suggest a more "evenhanded" policy regarding Israel and
Palestine. Within seconds, 34 Democratic members of Congress (and Abe
Foxman) rushed to admonish him a warning letter affirming our unique,
and anything but even-handed friendship with Israel. How dare you
suggest, well, balance?

Now we've got a parade of debates between presidential hopefuls, the
perfect opportunity to once and for all get some clarity on candidates'
positions on the occupation, on Gaza, on Sderot, on peace negotiations.
Right?

Wrong.

Justin Elliott at Mother Jones reports on 11 Democratic debates:

"In nine of the 11 debates, the terms Israel, Palestinians, and Gaza
were either never uttered or were mentioned once or twice peripherally.
For instance, Joe Biden said at the October 30 NBC debate that Pakistan
has missiles that can reach Israel. The two exceptions were the November
15 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, where Bill Richardson, unprompted,
briefly outlined his ideas for a two-state solution, and the December 4
Democratic radio debate on NPR, in which moderator Robert Siegel posed
the single question about Israel of the past 11 debates. Unfortunately,
the query was effectively avoided.". . .

Even then, NPR's Robert Siegal hedged his bets, affirming the
"rationality" of supporting illegal settlement growth and land grabs in
a question presented first to John Edwards:

"When we do things that policymakers in Washington may think are
rational, like very strong support of Israel, that also upsets a lot of
those 1 billion Muslims you've described. . . how would you, Senator
Edwards . . .  answer the complaint that the U.S., in its support of
Israel, is so pro-Israeli, it can't be an evenhanded, honest broker of
matters and is anti-Muslim?"

And still, Justin Elliott at Mother Jones writes:

"Edwards proceeds to ignore the question, makes a point about
Ahmadinejad and says to improve relations with Muslims we must "help
make education available to fight global poverty." He makes no mention
of Israel/Palestine. Siegel then turns to Obama. The senator says we
need to close Guantanamo and talk not just to our friends but to our
enemies. He, like Edwards, doesn't touch the Israel issue. To their
credit, Dodd and Kucinich do a much better job at engaging."

So in the past 11 debates the grand total of references to the Gaza
Strip is zero. Considering that Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle
East and the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in the world, isn't it about
time the candidates were asked what they think of our ally's destructive
policies in Gaza? Will any moderator have the courage to pose the
question?

http://www.muzzlewatch.org/

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6761_in_the_debates.html


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||