(Days Hr:Min:Sec)
|
|
(Days Hr:Min:Sec) |
|
Obviously I can't prove what anyone is likely to do.
However, the last two presidents were Governors with no proven track record on Israel so we only had their word to take on Israel policy issues. (Prior Presidents are not really relevant since at that point Israel itself was not in favor of moving the Embassy, and Congress only passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995.)
On the other hand, Kerry has a proven track record in congress, with a 100% AIPAC rating, and public condemnations of both Presidents Clinton and Bush for defying the Jerusalem Embassy Act. For more details on Kerry's record, see for example "John Kerry and Israel - The Record" by the NJDC (http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=333&subcat=3)
It sounds like you agree with Kerry on the non-Israel issues. That being the case, given Kerry's strong record on Israel I hope you will be convinced by the October 10 debate, and vote for Kerry on November 3.
-----Original Message-----
To: "Dr. Daniel E. Loeb"
Subject: RE: Kerry on Israel
Your certainty on Kerry's willingness to act is encouraging. I cannot dispute your position with facts any more than you can prove them with facts. Every Presidential candidate has said that they will move the embassy and none have followed through. The reaction to Americans being killed in Israel comes from more than just the President. The State Dept. has long been lagging in acting on Israel.
if you want to make a case against Bush on the basis on non-Israel points, then you might more closely match my interests. I am sure that I am closer to Kerry on so many issues. For me though the situation in Israel is so important that it outweighs them all.
Daniel E. LOEB, eMail: daniel.loeb at verizon.net
