Burning Issues: Israel-US ties

I left the Democratic party because I non-longer trust it. They have said too many times "Both side" ignoring that one side wants to destroy the other while the other just defend itself from being destroyed. Pelosi visit to Syria is their first shot. Israel should be independent of the USA wishes to survive. Israel and the USA have different priorities to survive.

Any Jew that reads McCain's reply and Clinton's reply and then does not recognize that Hillary is totally unwilling to be specific whereas McCain is clearly supporting Israel is a Jew that does not really care too much about Israel.

Anyone that decides to read these responses from American Presidential Candidates and willingly chooses to force his view onto others about which candidate is right or wrong for the Jews of Israel and the United States just so he can flaunt his prefered political party is not someone worthy of being called an American or deserving of respect. Since that person is an authoritarian who wishes to restrict freedom, not endorse it. And is exactly the view that is harming the U.S. in the world.

Republicans always have the arrogance to believe you are always right and all that is right.

Bill Richardson is the only candidate who gave specifics, Hillary's positions are more in line with mainstream Israel than McCain or Brownbacks.

Ariel Sharon realized that there will be two states and working toward that goal will ensuure Israel's safety and prosperity. Just saying we will continue our military relationship without using our abilities to create peace will only kick the can down the road a few more years.

Interesting that Jpost did not include Ron Paul.

The Democratic Candidates as usual have revealed their true colors about Israel. Richardson talks about strengthening "Palestinian Moderates and promoting a two-state solution". Obama resorts to time-worn cliches which doesn't prove anything. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a Bible-loving, Pro-Israel candidate in 1976, but once he became President showed his true, pro-PLO colors almost immediately...and speaking of which Hillary as usual is totally evasive.

By contrast, John McCain, whom I really don't have much regard for, comes out forceful and honest. So does Sam Brownback, who despite his initial endorsement of the Dem's favorite Republican Jim "F the Jews" Baker's Iraq Surrender Group findings has consistently been pro-Israel and anti-Terror.

The Carter-Clinton-Pelosi-Reid Democrats are NOT the Scoop Jackson-Hubert Humphrey ones who advocated a strong America and strong ties with Israel. By contrast every single one of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul deserves our interest and our support.

While the world doesn't , or doesn't care to know, Israel and the United States are brothers. The United states stems from the Tribe of Manasseh and Israel stems from the Tribe of Judah, making us brothers with Israel. We can never not protect Israel.

Let's see what they say to the Arab-American ADC when asked the same (or similar) question. Some and possibly all of these candidates will fail to remain consistent in their answer.

It is pretty clear that the Republican Candidates support Israel because it is the right thing to do. The Democrats are all about politics and their responses show this. Any American Jew who thinks otherwise is morally bankrupt. As Golda Mier said, " they (The Muslims) will stop hating us when they love their children more". This is a lesson that the Democrat candidates have not yet learned. There is no negotiating with the Pelistinians. The left is becoming increasingly anti Semitic and this is shown in their candidates responses. It is a shame most mainstream American Jews are Stuck On Stupid and support Democrats no matter what. I guess you can not argue with Stupid.

I think it's hard to argue that US Israel relations is an issue that differentiates these candidates. I think all of the candidates express a prespective that appreciates the solid bond and shared struggle these two countries share.

My suggestion to everyone, including the people of Israel, is to look at what politicians do and say when not responding to a survey from an Israeli newspaper. America and Israel suffer from a similar problem...some people who believe, or at least say they believe, that words will make tyrants and terrorists change their ways. History, including Biblical history, proves them wrong. There are many in America and Israel who would trade your land for a promise of peace, when in reality they are bargaining with your security for their political gain. If America is to survive, and if Israel is to survive, we will need to continue to fight and die for our freedom. Those who would have you believe otherwise, some Repubicans and most Democrats, may be fooling themselves, but please don't let them fool you.

Some months ago, I have asked Hillary the following question: What would you do as US President to protect Israel from Iran's nuclear threats? I received no answer to my question.

Her answer to JPost question is diplomatic and diffuse. Such position may be helpful to her and bring her more electorate voices.

Senator McCain and all other candidates sound very decisive.

Their good intentions and potential deeds toward Israel's safety will be more useful when Israel's defence will be in the hands of more decisive leaders, not such as captain Peretz.

Best wishes,

Moshe Iofis, Holocaust survivor,

WWII veteran

USA,CA, May 24,07

Great hyperbole. Now what about relocating the US Embassy?

I'm afraid the much bigger and more existential question for Israeli's is NOT who wins in America, but finding our own leader worthy of leading us. The question is, who will lead Israel, not who leads America

Watch what they do or have done, not what they say to a Jewish audience. All candidates have promised to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital but non have ever done so. All have managed to stop Israel from winning any peace after any war. All allow oil to override Israel's security. None have insisted that all members of the UN recogize all member states or walk out whhen the Rejectionists speak. Check the voting records against the US in the UN and ask why we support them.

They will all say nice things but watch what is done,always, to judge them. What do they say to their Arab audiences in the US?

What Israel needs most from its ally, the U.S. is:

1) A neutral partner to work closely with the Arab states in an effort to moderate their extreme views.

2)An ally to encourage Israel to do what sometimes is domestically unpopular.

What the people of Israel do not need is a yes man, but instead someone trying to achieve peace, which in the end of the day is what Israel needs most of all.

To the Editor:

This is a great series. Thank you for putting this together. The one question that I would like to see asked of these candidates is "When will you move the US Embassy to Jerusalem?" If the answer is not January 20, 2009, then regardless of any other stated position, that candidate will lose my support.

Thank you,

Bennett Brooks

Americans while choosing our next president must vote for the person who,

1. Recognizes the struggle of the Jewish people to keep and retain their land. 2. The two state solution is the theory that has been the demize of President Bush, who I support but believe he has been given wrong council concerning biblical and historical rights to the Jewish homeland. There are not two states but one. If Hamas and teroist thugs are properly dealt with, Jews and Palistinians can co-exist in a prosperous land. 3.When Israel defends its borders the American president must offer support not restraint.

I liked most of the canidates response except Mrs. Clinton, which was pure soundbite retoric. America Loves Israel.

Bill Richardson is the real deal! While there is a lot of fluff from the others, his record and actionable talk speaks for itself. He would be the best for America, and what is best for America, with his approach, is definitely best for Israel.

I do not understand why Israel is so worried about what other nations will do to support them! God gave Israel almost all of the land in the Middle East. Is God not capable of following through with His promise? Yes, God did say that He would bless every nation that blessed Israel and curse every nation that curses Israel. It is not Israel that should be asking the question "What will you do to support us?" It is us who should be asking our next president "What will you do to support them?"

Did anyone else notice that the only one to talk about reforming the Arab education systems was Bill Richardson? While the others may talk fluff, Richardson put items on the table that we could hold him accountable for.

"It is unacceptable for any country to teach hatred of Israel."

Good at blackmail. I laugh at the americans when easily subdued. You have started quite early this time around.

Nice display of loyalty to Israel by all the candidates. Obviously they all want to win. I have a very basic question though: Can someone please explain to me in simple plain english why is Israel a U.S. ally to start with? War on terrorism is not a very good answer as the alliance existed long before 9/11

To sum it up:

McCAIN will isolate Israel's enemies and will not pressure Israel to make concessions. He will pursue options to neutralize Iran.

H.CLINTON will "think" about how US and Israeli values and beliefs can be translated into effective action.

OBAMA will "maintain regular communication with the Israeli Prime Minister" and will guarantee Israel's security through negotiations with its neighbors. He will not ignore the "Iranian president's genocidal threats".

ROMNEY will deal with Iran through economic sanctions, support for moderate Muslims and with military strength. He will stop money and weapons to Hamas and Hizbullah and will insist that Palestinians abandon terror and recognize Israel. He will work towards a two-state solution.

RICHARDSON will use a "Special Envoy" and the UN to protect Israel's national security. He will ensure Iran doesn't obtain nuclear weapons and will support Palestinian moderates and a two-state solution. He will "spearhead a multilateral Marshall Plan" and "coordinate a multinational effort to support and stabilize" the Middle East. He will "reduce anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments" by pressuring countries to "reform their education systems" and stop teaching "hatred of Israel."

BROWNBACK is committed "to a united Jerusalem."

Thank you JPost. This is very enlightening.

I want to know why Sen. Barack Obama receives spiritual guidance from a blatant anti-Semite and ally of Louis Farrakhan. The Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. has been spewing and dedfending anti-Semitism for decades. He went to Libya with Farrakhan in 1984 to show their support for Khaddafi. Obama lives by Rev. Wright's guidance, can he be trusted?

Great series. Will follow eagerly. Sadly, none of them may be able to do everything they want to, for Israel. The U.S./Israel bond is like none other. May we always be by her side looking for the return of our Messiah.

If John Edwards support of Israel is clear and unambiguous he has my vote.

What an excellent feature. This information is rarely distributed in my area, as the local media is avowedly anti-Israel.

I have to say that, despite having not picked a candidate to vote for this year, Bill Richardson's statement is by far the most comprehensive and well thought out, with specific information on what he plans to do, as opposed to generalities and platitudes.

McCain's answer, while vague, seems very honest. I have to agree with the majority of previous commenters that Clinton's is dissapointing lacking in content or commentment. Obama's, while not to my taste, was more balanced than I expected. Much is said by the omission of John Edwards and Guiliani here, too leading candidates with suspect Israel creditentials.

As a final note, I find the diatribes from Christian Right Wingers from the US insisting that they, and the Republican Party, are the true friends of Israel, and that the American Jews are somehow treacherous (due, apparently, to a prodiminantly Democratic registration) are just absurd. Trusting a single political party to defend Israeli/American interests is foolish. Judge each politian on his individual merit and actions, not on blind party loyalty.

As a Jew, I have a tradition of thousands years of devotion and love for both the dream and the reality of the State of Israel. My fate and the fate of the Jewish State are intrinsicly linked forever. The Christian allies of Israel are predominently fundamentalists whose motivations are based around hastening their apocalypse, not the eternal connection between Jews, whereever they are.

That said, the majority of Americans, Jew and Gentile alike, are true friends of Israel, our truest and best ally and friend.

President Reagan stood up to the Soviet Union and helped free millions from Communism.

I am looking for the candidate who has the moral courage to stand up to the Islamic Fascists and declare, I WILL MOVE THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM.

Can any of these candidates GAURANTEE that we will move our Embassy to Jerusalem IMMEDIATELY upon taking office? Every president to date has LIED about his/her intentions. And what about Pollard? And what about COMPLETELY revamping our anti-Israel State Department?

>>>>Interesting that Jpost did not include Ron Paul.

RON PAUL 2008

Change America's Foreign Policy Now!

I would like to know what the majority of Jews in the U.S. want in a president. They don't seem to be

enthused about Israel's security.

If I were an ungodly man, perhaps I would be delighted with these answers.

I know the hearts of these people and it makes me want to weep for Israel.

Everyone knows that they are trying to give answers that will improve their chances of getting votes in America but their words are empty reflections of what they think you want to hear.

Secular Jews will be fine with anyone of these people so I'll ask the Orthodox Jews to examine their hearts and with your wisdom of G-d, advise Israel. 35% of Americans are not happy with their choices for President and there is a good reason why.

They all talk like this in the campaign and then turn around and try and force unilateral concessions.

It was only after Israel provided proof of Arafat's terror funding did Bush stop trying to force Israel into concessions.

Don't trust them. They lie. How do you tell? Their mouths are moving.

Shmuel

Why didn't Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards deign to participate in this forum? Does the Editor of The Jerusalem Post know?

We should email them directly to enquire.

I love the Democratic responders here. All advocate the two-state solution and talk that usual diplomatic talk about appeasement - which is all the Democratic candidates stand for. Anyone who believes that a woman who couldn't control matters in her own household could stand up to Iran - well, I hope you're prepared to sell your Manhattan digs for $24 dollars.

All of the Republicans, with the exception of the pathetic Ron Paul, sound like leaders America can depend on. Even John McCain, who is a waffler. That can't be said about a single one of the Democratic candidates. They would allow Israel to go down and see us endure another 9/11 before they'd do anything.

Don't believe me? - look at their last two Presidents.

Because I am a registered (conservative) Jewish Republican, I will concentrate on Republican candidate answers. Where was Guiliani?

Sam Brownback: "We learn when the people of Israel take great risks for peace ... My administration would continue to support a peace process...."

John McCain: "I would never pressure Israel to make concessions to states or movements committed to its destruction."

(Isn't the Palestinian Authority committed to Israel's destruction?)

Mitt Romney: My administration would ....actively work towards a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict where Israelis and Palestinians can each live in security and dignity."

So my Republican party candidates each support Bush administration policy of diplomatic warfare against the Jewish state; they support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Holy Land; they support Mr. Bush's (Saudi sponsored) vision of a Palestinian terrorist-killer state in the Holy Land. G-d help the GOP!

This is going to be the first election I'm voting in. What would be most important to me is that I find their records on religion and Israel issues and I plan to do this at a later date.

For now, these are my initial impressions:

1 = Very anti-Israel

2 = anti-Israel

3 = might compromise pro-Israel views for other concerns without thinking twice

4 = might compromise pro-Israel views for other concerns with thinking twice

5 = pro-Israel and has an OK plan which he might pull off if hell freezes over

6 = pro-Israel and has an OK plan. The idea of him pulling it off is so crazy, it just might work

7 = pro-Israel and has an OK plan which has a shot...in the dark

8 = pro-Israel and has a great plan which he has a real shot of pulling off

9 = pro-Israel and has a great plan he almost certainly will pull off

10 = pro-Israel to the point that he's willing to tell off the UN and the Senate over it.

*Giuliani, Biden, and Edwards not responding to a Jpost request to make their views on one of the important issues of the day clear is impolite at best and deplorable at worst. However, both Giuliani and Edwards at one point expressed support for Israel and therefore the possibility of voting for either shouldn't be ruled out. Voting for Biden would be a far-fetched move, considering his lack of name recognition (one of the most important factors in elections today).

*McCain sounds comparatively strong. He says he will "work to further isolate the enemies of Israel such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah" and "would never pressure Israel to make concessions to states or movements committed to its destruction." "Never" is not a term presidential candidates use much. It's decisive. I like the idea of "an organization of like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace" with Israel in a "leading role." In relation to Iran, he would "pursue every option...to neutralize that threat." McCain is demonstrating something rare in modern American politics: unwavering commitment. I like that. Unfortunately, he does not comment on moving the embassy and the isolation of our enemies might just mean that he wants to "strengthen the moderates," a ploy which has failed so often in the past. Rating: 7

*Clinton said that Israel and the US should have "mutual respect, appreciating our shared values and a shared commitment to national security policies that reduce the danger of terrorist attacks on free and democratic nations anywhere in the world." She also says that America has to be "tough enough to do the right things that will protect American and Israeli interests now and forever." Unfortunately, her statement of purpose -- the former quote mentioned in this letter -- wasn't tough enough for me. She makes it sound as though other concerns (perhaps Palestinian interests?) might override her interest in protecting Israel's security. She fails to refer to Hamas, Hizbullah, or Iran. Nor does she comment on the needed movement of the embassy to Jerusalem. Rating: 3

*Obama notes that Israel and the US "share adversaries - Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah." It is great that Obama realizes that Hamas is an adversary of the US. He also would like to "strengthen moderate Palestinians and others who can be such partners...while working to isolate and weaken those who seek Israel's destruction." This is much to the same effect as McCain, but the importance he places on strengthening moderates lacks the tone of unwavering certitude needed in the next four years. He also fails to mention the move of the embassy to Jerusalem (seems to be a common theme, doesn't it?). On the other hand, in relation to Iran, he is in favor of "keeping the military option on the table." Rating: 5.5

*In relation to Iran, Romney has a "strategy consisting of economic sanctions, greater cooperation with modern Muslim states, a stronger military, and support for progressive Muslim communities and leaders." I don't know much about this plan but it sounds great. He also wants to be "focused on stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah, insist that the Palestinians abandon terror and recognize Israel's right to exist, and actively work towards a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict where Israelis and Palestinians can each live in security and dignity." This all sounds great. There's only one problem: he fails to address what happens if his plans fail. Let's face it, the Palestinians are not going to recognize Israel's right to exist and Iran will attempt to continue a nuclear buildup. Oh, and did I mention that he failed to mention moving the embassy? Rating: 3.5

*Richardson is too vague on every issue save one: "Strengthen Palestinian moderates and promote a two-state solution." Weak. Rating: 3

*Brownback didn't address a single issue, except his "commitment to a united Jerusalem that has always been, and should always remain, the capital of the Jewish people." Rating: 3.5

For me as a voter and Republican. No other question is more important to me than this one. Which ever party is elected the importance of our relationship with Israel is something that at the end of the day matters most to those of us who support the nation and its right to exist and defend itself by any means necessary. Most voters I feel are not educated on this particular subject. Our future in many ways are tied to Israel. It will be surprising I feel once Bush is no longer in office to see how the next President approaches this relationship. I have a feeling if the wrong person is elected the relationship will suffer, and what has been a great eight years in standing with Israel and the Jewish people, will come to an unfortunate end, with the US turning it's back.

If I were an ungodly man, perhaps I would be delighted with these answers.

I know the hearts of these people and it makes me want to weep for Israel.

Everyone knows that they are trying to give answers that will improve their chances of getting votes in America but their words are empty reflections of what they think you want to hear.

Secular Jews will be fine with anyone of these people so I'll ask the Orthodox Jews to examine their hearts and with your wisdom of G-d, advise Israel. 35% of Americans are not happy with their choices for President and there is a good reason why.

The last time I talked with Ron Paul, about 20 yrs. ago, he sounded as though he was against Israel's right to the land of Canaan.

The Democrat candidates need to rebuke Jimmy (the Liar) Carter very emphatically and over and over again. He is a disgrace to any party, but to the Democrat party in particular. As for Ron Paul being left out -- very good. Throw him out on his as-.

As regards Ron Paul. If you read his many articles you'll see a strict Constitutionalist. I love that almost completely ignored document. It does strongly limit federal power.Ron Paul does not believe in foreign aid and entanglements, only mutual trade relationships. I do not believe that he is against Israel. Dr. Paul is so true to the original design of our nation that he could never be elected. But he is quite right on most issues, and very courageous. I am a strong supporter of Israel. But we don't own her and should not be offering up her land for a false peace.

#43, I think you need a long talk with Ron Paul. When I talked to him briefly I said something like this: "Israel has a right to the land." and he said: "Yes, if they do have a right to the land." It sounded as though he questioned my conclusion. If we know which church he is associated with it may tell us a lot about him. The Church of Christ, so-called, is usually anti-Semitic. But I don't know what his faith is.

Just remember, chances are only Hillary Clinton's answer matters.

I would like Tancredo to be asked the questions and find out his responses as well. Thank you.

Just remember, chances are only Hillary Clinton's answer matters.

AS a US citizen living abroad, i would like to say that all this is bluff. Before you are elected into office, you say what the voters want to hear, but when finally elected, don't keep to the election promises. It is about time jews stopped supporting the Democrat party. What do they want, the speaker going to visit Syria.

Re: Jillian at 45...Let's hope not, for both America and Israel's sake. All that Hillary is interested in is power. She has been a waffler and opportunist all her life, and it is Hillary that counts, not the United States of America, Israel or anything else.

If she had character she would have walked out the door on Bill decades ago. She has rubber stamped everything he's done - just so she can get ahead.

Again, for America's survival and Israel's, vote for a candidate who has character and courage - Every Republican except Paul does; Every single Democrat doesn't.

Next question you should ask: Will you move the embassy to Jerusalem? btw, great feature!!!