Now is the time to Lobby Potential Republican Candidates for Transfer

[edu]

Given the shallow support for all the Republican candidates running for President, now is the time to lobby on behalf of Transfer of the so-called Palestinians (including those within the "1948" borders) to a distant country.
What we can offer the candidate is media attention and strong activists for the person willing to adopt our positions.
Of course, even if we have the right USA candidate, an evil leader in Israel, can unfortunately undo the good ideas of a good president. But at least its worth a try to do something to advance one of the true solutions to the  problems of Israel.

[Yaakov Mendel]

I don't think any US President will ever officially endorse a truly Kahanist position. Jews have to solve the problem on their own without looking for foreign support because it is very likely that they will never receive any on that matter. World opinion is too blind and world leaders are too hypocritical.
What Israel might try to secure, at least, are "assurances" that America, while protesting with the rest of the world, will not intervene against Israel. 
But, as long as the Israeli government is not ready to embark on a Kahanist platform and to encourage mass immigration of Arabs out of Israel, such an initiative seems pointless to me anyway. Not to mention that I'm afraid that "we" (Kahanists) don't have much to offer to US conservative candidates. How could we provide them with media attention when we desperately lack it to disseminate our message ?? Why would they take the political risk to tell the truth and nothing but the truth about "Palestine" and the "Palestinians" ? Who is courageous and righteous enough to do that among them ? In my opinion, the most righteous of the current contenders is probably Michelle Bachmann - she is the one whose moral judgment and integrity I would trust the most. But I don't know if she is ready to support Kahanist views yet. Even if she is, she won't as long as the pathetic Israeli leaders don't.

[edu]

Since Israel is always a hot issue, if some candidate came out with a novel approach, he would get attention, but he needs us for moral backing of his idea.
On your other point, I believe the majority of zionists do think transfer is the ideal solution, but many have just given up hope that we could get the international support to make it work. A good president could revive such a hope.
Or at the very least some type of voluntary transfer plan, where Arabs and other enemies would be paid to voluntarily resettle, I think is definitely a position that a politician could work with and win with.

[Yaakov Mendel]

Since Israel is always a hot issue, if some candidate came out with a novel approach, he would get attention, but he needs us for moral backing of his idea.

A candidate needs the people's votes. I am not sure that the majority of the American public would support the transfer of Arabs out of Israel. A relatively substantial proportion of Americans would probably support a plan of voluntary resettlement with compensation if properly explained. But the media, the Democrats and the phoney Conservatives would likely present this sane solution as some form of "ethnic cleansing" and engage in a predictable campaign to demonize it.

On your other point, I believe the majority of zionists do think transfer is the ideal solution, but many have just given up hope that we could get the international support to make it work. A good president could revive such a hope.

I believe Israel should not expect and should not rely on international support to do what needs be done. That is what the Torah basically teaches.

[edu]

Quote by Yaakov Mendel

I believe Israel should not expect and should not rely on international support to do what needs be done. That is what the Torah basically teaches.

On an ideal level you are correct. However, just as recognition of the State of Israel by Harry Truman and also the United Nations moved the redemption process forward and gave the people of Israel the courage to struggle and to fight, so too, in our days a good political plan and a good president could help the redemption process forward.
You might have a better political plan or tactics than the "transfer" plan. If so I am open for suggestions.
Maybe for example, you hold that a pro-Temple Mount President could acheive the same results as the transfer plan, without the same costs or accusations of racism??

[jbeige]

The biggest problem is that the republican candidates know that no matter what they say in supporting Israel the Jewish people of this country especially the big city ones will always support the democrats.
If you can guarantee the republican candidates that they will get at least 50% or 60% of the Jewish vote they would gladly do what Israel needs and wants.
No matter what a republican in the white house is better for Israel, at least most republicans just talk a little about issues dealing with Israel and do nothing, it's better that they do nothing than do the wrong thing like obama and the other democrats.

[cjd]

The biggest problem is that the republican candidates know that no matter what they say in supporting Israel the Jewish people of this country especially the big city ones will always support the democrats.
If you can guarantee the republican candidates that they will get at least 50% or 60% of the Jewish vote they would gladly do what Israel needs and wants.
No matter what a republican in the white house is better for Israel, at least most republicans just talk a little about issues dealing with Israel and do nothing, it's better that they do nothing than do the wrong thing like obama and the other democrats.

No matter how the issue is sliced and diced Republicans as a rule have been far better on issues concerning the well being of Israel then their democrap counterparts... It's almost pointless to say Republicans would do what the Jewish voting block would want if they only voted Republican  because many liberal Jews could not care less what happens over in Israel and give the issue little more than lip service.... To put icing on the cake the government of Israel is almost as bad as the liberal Jewish voting block here in America... At times looking at the situation it seems almost hopeless.

[edu]

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/10/ultimate-swing-state.html
is the source of the following quotation

Thursday, October 23, 2008
The ultimate swing state?

The JPost reports that Israel may be the 'ultimate swing state' in November's US election.
Approximately half of some 42,000 registered US voters living in Israel are voting in swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and could have an effect on the turnouts of those elections, according to Shimon Greenspan, director of the nonpartisan Vote From Israel organization, which helps Americans living in Israel to register and cast their absentee ballots.

"If the election is close, as it was in the past two [presidential] elections, then the deciding votes could be coming from Israel," he said.

According to the organization, Israel has the third-largest group of American voters abroad, behind Canada and Britain.

While the largest number of registered US voters in Israel come from New York or New Jersey, two states heavily in the Democratic camp according to polls, the next two states are the key battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida. Several thousand votes will likely be going to those swing states from Israel.

Furthermore, the significance of the votes from Israel could be magnified because they will come well before the November 4 election. Their choices, to be reported next week in an Israel-based exit poll commissioned by Vote From Israel, could influence American Jews in the United States, believes Greenspan.

This could slightly help Republican hopeful John McCain if an August poll by KEEVOON Research, Strategy and Communications remains accurate. That poll, which surveyed Israelis generally and not American voters in the country, gave the Arizona senator some 38 percent support, compared to 31% for Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
Actually, there was a poll in July in which 46% of Israelis said McCain would be better for Israel and only 20% said Obama would be better. And if anything, American Israelis - a majority of whom are religious - tend to be more in the McCain camp than Israelis generally.

I brought seven ballots to the US with me to mail. Four from New Jersey, one from New York and two from Illinois. All for McCain. Hmmm.

Just remember the 1980 election was decided by less than 2000 voters in Florida. Perhaps the more pro-israel position of Bush in comparison to Gore, is what influenced enough Zionist voters to swing the election in favor of Bush.

[muman613]

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/10/ultimate-swing-state.html
is the source of the following quotationJust remember the 1980 election was decided by less than 2000 voters in Florida. Perhaps the more pro-israel position of Bush in comparison to Gore, is what influenced enough Zionist voters to swing the election in favor of Bush.

Don't you mean the 2000 Bush/Gore election was decided by 2000 votes in Florida? In 1980 it was Reagan and he beat Carter hands down....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_presidential_election

The United States presidential election of 1980 featured a contest between incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter and his Republican opponent, Ronald Reagan, as well as Republican Congressman John B. Anderson, who ran as an independent. Reagan, aided by the Iran hostage crisis and a worsening economy at home, won the election in a landslide, receiving the highest number of electoral votes ever won by a nonincumbent presidential candidate, and became the 40th President of the United States.

Bush/Gore was in 2000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

The election was noteworthy for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, the subsequent recount process in that state, and the unusual event of the winning candidate having received fewer popular votes than the runner-up.[1] It was the closest election since 1876 and only the fourth election in which the electoral vote did not reflect the popular vote.

The margin was smaller than 2000 votes:

At approximately 7:50 p.m. EST on election day, 10 minutes before the polls closed in the largely Republican Florida panhandle, which is in the Central time zone, some television news networks declared that Gore had carried Florida's 25 electoral votes. They based this prediction substantially on exit polls. However, in the actual vote tally Bush began to take a wide lead early in Florida, and by 10 p.m. EST those networks had retracted that prediction and placed Florida back into the "undecided" column. At approximately 2:30 a.m., with some 85% of the votes counted in Florida and Bush leading Gore by more than 100,000 votes, the networks declared that Bush had carried Florida and therefore had been elected President. However, most of the remaining votes to be counted in Florida were located in three heavily Democratic counties - Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach - and as their votes were reported Gore began to gain on Bush. By 4:30 a.m., after all votes were counted, Gore had narrowed Bush's margin to just over 2,000 votes, and the networks retracted their predictions that Bush had won Florida and the presidency. Gore, who had privately conceded the election to Bush, withdrew his concession. The final result in Florida was slim enough to require a mandatory recount (by machine) under state law; Bush's lead had dwindled to about 300 votes by the time it was completed later that week. A count of overseas military ballots later boosted his margin to about 900 votes.

[edu]

Quote from Muman613

Don't you mean the 2000 Bush/Gore election was decided by 2000 votes in Florida? In 1980 it was Reagan and he beat Carter hands down

Yes that's what I meant.

I would like to add that Reagan was much better than George W. Bush for Israel.