home

Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:48:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ned Lamont has issued a statement on the Israel-Lebanon conflict. He affirms his support for Israel and criticizes the Bush Administration for its ineffectiveness which he in large part ties to the war in Iraq.

At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel's security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united.

....Unlike previous administrations - Republican and Democratic - President Bush has embraced the wrong priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ...Let's be clear that Bush emphasized Iraq at the expense of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, and we are reaping the consequences. Just think what the situation could have been if the United States had invested its power, prestige, and resources in a peace settlement. Instead we chose a failed war and stand virtually alone, paying a heavy price for a profoundly failed set of decisions.

His proposal:

Lamont Policy: Change Priorities and Pursue a Peace Settlement

All Americans want the kidnapped soldiers to be returned and this cycle of violence to end, based on the principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which calls for Hezbollah militias to be disbanded and disarmed, with the government of Lebanon taking full control of all of its territory. It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself. Nor is it my place to make tactical recommendations to the president. But I do have some strategic suggestions about what our country should do moving forward.

After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere. We should not seek to impose a resolution on Israel. But peace between Israel and its neighbors must be a priority.

Without negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, President Bush and the Secretary of State ought to be working on a peace settlement with Israel, the Palestinians and others who might help. The outlines of a peace agreement are there; both sides agree: land for recognition, peace and security.

Other Presidents have made progress in this difficult region. There's no reason why this President should not reverse course and become engaged for peace.

< Condi Rice Visits Beirut | Media Matters Launches Colorado Site >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel | 27 comments (27 topical)
    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    Uh ...some should tell Ned that proclamations are for Kings, or mayors. Most folks running for office issue statements... Oh well, at least we know he as an ego.... AAA size.. I mean he writes:
    Nor is it my place to make tactical recommendations to the president
    Really? Why not? Of course tactical things are things that are real, should be done now.... but Ned doesn't want to actually say that. What he wants is to...
    But I do have some strategic suggestions
    And what are these visionary suggestions?
    After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement
    Wow. What vision.
    Without negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah,
    Earth to Ned! Earth to Ned! Ned! These two groups are the ones causing the problem!!! Wait! I understand. You want to yipe'em out! No? Well, I didn't actually think so.
    Other Presidents have made progress in this difficult region
    Really? I hate to be a spoil sport, but didn't 1559, the UN resolution that allowed Hezbollah to rearm and essentially take over southern Lebanon happen in 2000? Do you consider that progress? Sadly, I think Ned does.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:39:07 AM EST
    PPJ..if Ned hugged GWB, would all be forgiven?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:45:02 AM EST
    Hmm...or maybe a kiss?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    This is misleading:
    both sides agree: land for recognition, peace and security.
    1. Both sides haven't agreed. Hamas says all the land is theirs. Israel is determined to keep what was given them by the UN plus the buffer zones to defend themselves from terror attacks. So, no, the Israelis and Palestinians have not agreed. Nor, for that matter, have the Israelis and the Lebanese agreed on any land arrangements. After all, Israel already withdrew from Lebanon once. All that happened was that Hizbollah took over that portion of the country and used it as a base to continue attacking Israel. (And will probably cause Israel to re-occupy and thus re-justifying Hizzy's very existance.) 2. How many sides are there here? More than two. In the present fighting there are at least Israel, the Palestinians, Hizbollah (though, Lamont says we cannot negotiated with this one), and Lebanon. Also, possibly Syria and Iran, y'know? 3. Doesn't he make it sound so easy. I mean, what's the big f'n deal? Everybody agrees already, right? Hello Oslo, hello Camp David, how've you two been doing recently?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    Ah, yes, Lamont thinks he's a king -- as evidenced by his using his mental powers to get TalkLeft to use the word "proclamation".

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 11:50:11 AM EST
    Actually, I got the word proclamation from this conservative article, I'll change it. Ned did not refer to it as a proclamation.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:24:32 PM EST
    akaRush - did Lamont or his people ever actually use the term "proclamation"; or claim to have "visionary" (the non-parroting of talking points) abilities? Maybe you should go back to trying to smear Murtha and Reid; I think you may have actually gotten somebody's attention for a whole five minutes when you were doing that.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    Btw, why do you suddenly care about U.N resoloutions; the U.N is completely corrupt and useless. Remember?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    Sky-Ho - Uh, the level of Lamont's suggestions are at the "love good - hate bad" level. And no, he is not prevented from making tactical suggestions because of a lack of knowledge. That didn't stop him on "strategy" did it? As for Hezbollah being a "regular" army, well, I guess you know more than all the MSM, government officals, etc. But then you have, in the past, told us how you are in a position to know things that no one else does. Of course you never told us who, or how. Or are you just parsing? That would be par for the course. As for "regular beating..." I have tried and can't remember a war that Israel has lost. BTW - You write:
    The best commander does not tell his group _how_ to do it, they should limit themselves to commanding desired results and let the "doers" figure out the best way to do it. Again you demonstrate an astounding lack of knowledge. No leader "commands results" in todays world. That type of leadership fails at every level and in every organization. A leader defines the objectives, reviews/approves the resources required versus available, approves of the strategy and the tactics that the strategy will require. Jondee - Yes, the UN is totally corrupt and useless. And 1559 is just further proof. United Nations an Accomplice in Hezbollah Kidnapping:

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    Ned Lamont commenting on Israel is like me commenting on how TL should argue cases. If you want to listen to someone talk about something they know nothing about then by all means take my legal advice and by all means listen to Ted give advice on Israel. This is a perfect example of what the state of Conn. will lose if they elect this guy. Trading in a seasoned defender of Israel with legitimate experience for a no nothing rich guy. Isn't that the liberals biggest complaint about Bush. See to get any political points with the moonbats as long as you say pull-out and Iraq in the same sentence that's all they want to hear. The Israel conflict has baffled every US president since Truman and even Clinton who devoted 8 years to trying to be the savior couldn't figure it out and ultimately failed. Excuse me if I pay no attention to Ned Lamont. By the way TL didn't Lamont quit his elitist white counrty club recently and downgrade his millionaire wardrobe in order to appear like an everyman in this election. Doesn't sound like a honest man of the people. He's starting to act more like the "pencil-knecked geek" that Don Imus potrays him as.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    By the way TL didn't Lamont quit his elitist white counrty club
    No. And btw, do you think bush owned that ranch before he ran for president? That's wrong too, he bought it as a prop for his run. he "Doesn't sound like a honest man of the people. "

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 02:06:24 PM EST
    A white a elitist with a country club membership. In the words of the flamboyant: Oh. Please. That description only covers about 99.9% of our elected representatives. Aside from that salt'a the earth, snuff dippin', brush clearin', plain speakin', man 'a the people Ole Georgie Bush, that is.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 02:56:50 PM EST
    the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united.
    Not as much as you might think, Ned.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    This is a perfect example of what the state of Conn. will lose if they elect this guy.
    No, what we will lose is a Bush butt kisser who puts his support of Israel before the people of Connecticut. And good riddance, I say.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:31:13 PM EST
    characterizing Hezbollah as a regular army insults the death of every Lebanese citizen in this war. Unless you count it as a proxy army of Syria and Iran.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:23:58 PM EST
    After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere.
    What kind of message does sending humanitarian aide to Lebanon which are the equivalent of band-aids and to the other side Israel 5 ton cutter bombs. Are Band-Aids a good defense against 5 ton cutter bombs.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimcee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    Is Mr Lamont running for senior class president? It sure sounds like it. I think his supporters are going to be in a very sad condition when this bit of in-fighting ends and Lieberman is snugly back in his Senator's chair possibly as an independent. Why would the KOSsaks attack thier own party when they should be going after the Republicans? The really ironic thing is that they are after Lieberman because he supports the Iraq war and so they support Ned Lamont. At the same time... In NY Hillary Clinton also supports the war and has a primary opponent who is anti-Iraq war just like Lamont so why isn't there a similar movement from the netroots for Mr Tasini? What makes New York any different than Conn? Nothing, except of course, rank, desperate hypocracy and a childish petulance being exhibited by certain folks on the Left.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:55:50 PM EST
    PPJ, Ned is not privy to details, therefore strategic suggestions are all he can credibly offer. Nitty-gritty "tactical" suggestions would be inappropriate. The best commander does not tell his group _how_ to do it, they should limit themselves to commanding desired results and let the "doers" figure out the best way to do it. UN resolution 1559 required Hizbollah to disband their militias. They did. This is actually a regular army that currently engages Isreal, one that regularly beats hell out of the Isreali forces. I know you neo-con and neo supporters want to think otherwise. I suggest you go entertain yourselves with video games and quit getting real people killed.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    Bravo Jimcee. Well said. Hillary is allowed to say whatever she wants and the left is afraid to call her on it because they know she's their only shot at the White House. Truth be known she is 95% the kind of democrat that Liberman is and they want Libermans head on a stake. Hey why should I care. If Liberman wins as an independet thats a pick up for Republicans and less chance that democrats will control any part of government. I am looking forward to November when the left is faced with the reality of what showing their true colors gets them. If they can't win over part of congress this year then it may be decades before they control any part of government again. Go Ned!

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    Hillary is allowed to say whatever she wants and the left is afraid to call her on it
    do you ever rely on facts for anything? A good portion of the left wants nothing to do w/ Hillary. And I just love it when rethugs give advice to dems, you just know they have our best interests at heart.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    Jimcee offered a contradiction and you neither denied it you simply ignored it. Then in typical fashion you called people names. If Liberman is enemy number one of the lefty blogoshpere how come Hilliary is getting a pass? comments? or just insults?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    Slado, your premise is kinda faulty. The real problem is that Hilary has little chance of being toppled by the anti-war vote in New York, thanks to the heavily pro-Israel flavor there. But you knew that, didn't you?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 05:03:12 PM EST
    Slado - "The Left is afraid to call her on it" A complete, utter crock. Go back over some of the threads from the last year in which Hillary was the topic of discussion and read the comments from the regulars here. Do you just automatically filter out info that dosnt conform to your pre-established map of reality?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimcee on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 06:45:18 PM EST
    Ernest, Perhaps if there was as much vituperation about Sen Clinton as there is funded and promoted by the 'netroots' folks about Lieberman there might be a chance that at least she might have a little bit of a challenge that would force her hand more to the Left. As far as a chance that Lieberman will be defeated by either Lamont or whomever the Republican candidate is are zero to none and therefore it is just as futile to invest too much in the Lamont challenge as it would be the Tasini challenge. Human nature and money figure heavily into the anti-Lieberman movement. The same thing applies to the Clinton hand's off crew: She has too much money/power that the anti war netroots community cowers at the mere mention of the Clinton's rath. Air kisses instead of opposition. Oddly Mr and Ms Clinton's move to the center, Dick Morris' triangulation method, is working just fine. Convincing those who hate the Iraq incursion that Lieberman is bad because one can actually tell what he means when he speaks while with the Clintons it is nearly impossible to tell what they actually mean. But again triangulation is meant to sucker a certain number of people who polls show will believe something that was said with 'plausible deniability'. As I have said over and over again. It is just plain hypocracy to say that there is any difference at all between Lieberman and Clinton.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:05:42 AM EST
    Jondee I have read the threads. And thats about all the opposition Mrs. Clinton receives. Can you compare a couple threads tot he all out campaign against Mr. Liberman? The blogosphere has made him enemny #1 and given mild criticism to Mrs. clinton who holds the same positions. I guess even if you support the policy but call Mr. Bush bad names that's enough for the left. Just hate the president with rhetoric and that's enough no matter what your voting record is. If you are blind to the hypocrasy then fine. But the left is only going after Liberman because he doesn't verbally attack Bush enough for them. If he did, ala Clinton, I suspect they'd be leaving him alone.

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    I'll agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to how Hilary and Joe are treated...but most of it comes from right wingers. Why do they still attack one and defend the other?

    Re: Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 03:32:45 PM EST
    Can you compare a couple threads tot he all out campaign against Mr. Liberman?
    Ms Clinton isn't threatening to leave the party. Ms Clinton isn't bush's favorite dem. Ms Clinton isn't saying things are going well in iraq. Ms Clinton reflects the views of her constituents, liberman doesn't. Besides, why do repubs care?

    Ned Lamont's Statement on Israel | 27 comments (27 topical)