So. Much was made of the religious background of Senator Lieberman during the Presidential election. So Here's my question...
If they had become President and Vice President, do you think the Gore / Lieberman presidency would have reacted towards Israel in a more or less favorable light?
I think, as a Jew, Lieberman would have to be very wary of percieved bias, so he might have actually tried to be more pro-palestinian. Since I tend to be more on the side of the Israelis, I find it sort of amusing that in my opinion at least - the state of Israel is being better served by having the Jewish veep not in power.
I don't think that's necessairly so. Lieberman is usually known for speaking his mind and doing what he feels is right no matter what other people, even those in his party, think, so if he really is against homicide bombing then he would take a rather pro-Israel stance. Then again, I don't know if he would have the same pull over Gore that Cheney does over Bush, so his opinion many not matter in the end. Gore (Clinton: Episode II) would most assuredly be more pro-Palestinian than Bush is. I bet you my left testicle that Gore would be saying something like "We need to be mindful of the bombers' views, we need to help them end their brutal occupation, etc."
(edited by DMC on 17.5.02 1456)
"Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality...BUT...there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit...A darkside!" -Tales from the Darkside TV show
Foreign policy is generally pretty much the same regardless of which Party or who is in power. Significant foreign policy shifts generally happen as a result of outside factors, not as the result of internal (new President) or whatever factors. Now, some presidents are better diplomats, or are more skilled and knowledgable about foreign policy than others, but in terms of what the actual policy is, the bureaucrats at the State Department and the Pentagon pretty much determine most of it.
Our policy vis-a-vis Israel hasn't really changed since the early 70s. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton pretty much followed the path the Nixon and Kissinger set out. In fact, foreign policy in general has pretty much followed the path that Nixon and Kissinger set out (Nixon was really the last president to make major foreign-policy changes without outside circumstances dictating them). Different circumstances and philosophies have led to different tactics, but the fundamental policies have remained pretty much unchanged.
Essentially, I think Leiberman and Gore's position vis-a-vis Israel would be pretty much the damn same as Bush and Cheney's.
What I don't understand is why ask about Israel? Why not ask about our policy vis-a-vis Venezaula (sp?), or Argentina, or Sri Lanka, or India, or the Phillippins (sp?)? All of these countries have had major instability and conflicts lately, where US policy has the potential to play a crucial role. Why is it just Israel that gets pointed out as a possible place where a change in administrations might mean a change in policy? (This isn't just aimed at Guru, it's aimed at American society in general). Because Lieberman's Jewish?
I only asked because the I thought that the microscope would really be tuned in on Lieberman on this issue. I suppose I would think the same thing if a Buddhist was in power and we were looking at Sri Lanka...
I guess it is sort of a statement on me that I would wonder if they would act differently due to their own convictions.
Still, people are looking at Ashcroft and focusing in on his bible readings and spiritual meetings that are "optional" for his staff.
I like what you're saying about foreign policy being more or less the same, regardless of who's in power.
As for your other points, we have paid a little attention to the Phillippines. We do, I believe, have American soldiers there right now, as there have been since WWII (they have been there since WWII, right?)
We've also paid a little bit of attention to India/Pakistan.
I think the reason for these policies is that we have a vested interest in them. We've been embroiled in Fillipino politics for years, and no one wants India and Pakistan to come to nuclear blows. We're all potentially screwed if that happens. And, of course, we have a vested interest in the Middle East. Israel is our biggest ally.
I guess the point is that we're not helping out of some dedication to solving the world's problems; we're helping out because it's in our best interests.
The man's talking about logic. We're talking about universal Armageddon! --Bones
I think Gore would have followed what Clinton was doing in the Middle East and that is acting as a buffer. Bush came in as president and ignored much of what was happening between the two and without that buffer, or Earl Hebner, in there things are getting a little out of hand.
Bush stepped in reluctantly, only after things started getting very violent and very bloody. It's such a fragile piece of the world, the blind eye approach that Bush was using just won't work. Especially since *we* side with Israel and most of the Mid East seems to side with Arafat. Then you put oil into the equation and our unwillingness to move away from oil and things get even messier.
I think that Clinton played a bigger role in keeping the peace than most people give him credit for. I think that Gore more or less would have followed his lead. Now whether his people skills were enough to match Clinton's is a whole nother story.
Sounds more like she opposes the war. You can oppose the war and not oppose the serviceman (and woman). So no, you shouldn't be angry. She's gonna drive around in a vegetable oil-fueled bus because she believes people are unnecessarily dying.