The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« Nader's running mate? | Main | Nader Again Refuses Dems' Request He Quit »
June 22, 2004
Nader | Nader: US should disengage from Israel

JERUSALEM POST: Nader: US should disengage from Israel

No diplomatic plan can be acceptable unless it allows for the right of return for Palestinian refugees and a full Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders, a spokesman for US Presidential candidate Ralph Nader told the Jerusalem Post.

Nader, an independent presidential candidate, also disagrees with Israel’s construction of the security fence, its targeted killings of terrorist leaders, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan, his spokesman said.

“Too often the United States walks lockstep with the Israelis; it needs to think for itself,” Nader’s spokesman added.



Posted by Laurence Simon at June 22, 2004 12:06 PM | TrackBack
Comments

The last thing Pals want is for Israel to “think for itself.” I did not realize Nader was a militant…

Posted by: v at June 22, 2004 12:20 PM

Ralph Nader was born in 1934 in Winsted, CT to Lebanese immigrants Rose and Nathra Nader.

Posted by: guido at June 22, 2004 12:34 PM

Yeah. You’d think if Nader sympathized with the Palestinian cause he’d realize that they’re a whole lot better off while the US holds the Israeli leash. Of course, the Palestinians would be even better off if they tried to negotiate a legitimate peace with Israel. Or if they dumped Yasser “Dagon” Arafat.

Posted by: Heek-Er-Hoom! at June 22, 2004 01:34 PM

Nader wants to let loose the dogs of war? Brilliant.

Posted by: Alex Dale at June 22, 2004 02:21 PM

When Arafat dies, there will probably be peace.

Only because both sides are so tired, and it’d be a good excuse to stop, that would save face for both sides.

Posted by: eric at June 22, 2004 02:31 PM

When all else fails, appeal to anti-semitism. Way to go Nader. Will he next condem Africans?

Posted by: Brian at June 22, 2004 02:48 PM

What’s it going to take to get this moron to go back under his rock? If the problem is he can’t find his rock, I’ll send him one.

Posted by: Mona B. at June 22, 2004 03:10 PM

“Disengage”?!?

I look at it this way. Events are not going to let any of these guys play it both ways as usual. By summer’s end everyone’s true colors should be nailed to the mast for all to see.

Posted by: marymcl at June 22, 2004 04:31 PM

looney. tooney.

Posted by: cuban pete at June 22, 2004 05:00 PM

“Ralph Nader was born in 1934 in Winsted, CT to Lebanese immigrants Rose and Nathra Nader.”

I could swear there is a big giant brand new paragraph about how no racial this and that.

Posted by: Happeh at June 22, 2004 06:26 PM

Isreal will bring about the end of the world as we know it. Nader has a point. Save money. Cut them off.

Posted by: lou at June 22, 2004 09:58 PM

Isreal will bring about the end of the world as we know it. Nader has a point. Save money. Cut them off.

Posted by: lou at June 22, 2004 09:58 PM

Isreal will bring about the end of the world as we know it. Nader has a point. Save money. Cut them off.

Posted by: lou at June 22, 2004 09:59 PM

Is there any way the U.S. can disengage from Nader?

Chads

Posted by: chads at June 22, 2004 11:13 PM

“Israel will bring about the end of the world as we know it”

Maybe Lou means that Israel’s standing up to Islamofacism will be a role model for the wimps of Western Europe but somehow I doubt that was his point. (The “save money” was the give away).

I guess that Israel’s insistence on not allowing itself to be beheaded is somehow more dangerous to the world than:

A nuclear armed Iran
War between India and Pakistan
Saudi Arabias inevitable march toward an Islamic revolution
Africa’s suicide by AIDs
Islamofacism’s war against the West
etc

The reality is that singling out Israel for treatment that is out of proportion to the rest of the world betrays the bigot. Maybe Nader should start worrrying just a bit about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon or the lack of human rights in any of the 55 Muslim nations or……

I could go on and on because the examples are plenty but true anti-Semites will only focus on Israel, a country with 0.12% of the world’s population.

Posted by: keith at June 23, 2004 02:47 AM

Get out of the US for a whlie and you will see that one of the main sources of resentment toward the US around the world is America’s blind biased support for Israel.

Nader makes the point that there is a huge Peace Movement within Isreal itself. Nader is NOT anti-semitic. He supports those Jews who want Peace. He is only against those who turn a blind eye to injustice in the name of “security”. He also believes that all US foreign policy decisions should be made with US (not Israeli) interests in mind.

Is that anti-semitic? If you say so, that is like saying Eisenhower was racist against Germans because he fought against Hitler. Hitler was a bad German, saying so does not make one anti-German. Neither does saying that Sharron is a war criminal and that the US should prudently disengage from him say that one is anti-semitic.

Please, no “anti-semitic” witch hunts. Nader is just standing up for what he believes in. We don’t need a 21st century equivolent of Joseph McCarthy starting the House “un-Israeli affairs committee”.

Use your head and don’t think in terms of simplistic labels.

Posted by: Randy at June 30, 2004 06:52 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)