Raise your hand if you're surprised: Romney trashes the two-state solution in Israel.

[Direckshun]

And the melding of the Likud and the GOP is now complete.

We have ourselves now a transnational political party. Any light that existed between these two organizations is now gone.

The GOP, at least its foreign policy wing, is officially led by Benjamin Netanyahu. If it hadn't been already for years, which I suspect it has.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...dle-east-peace

SECRET VIDEO: On Israel, Romney Trashes Two-State Solution
At a private fundraiser, the GOP candidate calls Middle East peace "almost unthinkable" and says he would "kick the ball down the field."
—By David Corn
Tue Sep. 18, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

At the private fundraiser held May 17 where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney candidly spoke about political strategy—noting that he saw half of the American electorate as freeloaders and "victims" who do not believe in personal responsibility—he discussed various foreign policy positions, sharing views that he does not express in public, including his belief that peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible.

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate dinner and has confirmed its authenticity. The event was held at the home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder in Boca Raton, Florida, with tickets costing $50,000 a plate. During the freewheeling conversation, a donor asked Romney how the "Palestinian problem" can be solved. Romney immediately launched into a detailed reply, asserting that the Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish."

Romney spoke of "the Palestinians" as a united bloc of one mindset, and he said: "I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way."

Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action: "[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

Romney did note there was another perspective on this knotty matter. He informed his donors that a former secretary of state—he would not say who—had told him there was "a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis." Romney recalled that he had replied, "Really?" Then he added that he had not asked this ex-secretary of state for further explanation.

Here's Romney's full response; he starts out saying he has "two perspectives," but as he answers the question, it turns out that's not really the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ukhFBJgrZxM

I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let's let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, "That can't happen. We've got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank." Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, "Uh, no way! We're an independent country. You can't, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations." And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who's going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport." These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it.

After saying all that, Romney emphasized that he was against applying any pressure on Israel: "The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world."

On his campaign website, Romney, whose foreign policy advisers include several neocons known for their hawkish support for Israel, does not explicitly endorse the peace process or a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Republican Party platform does state unequivocal backing for this outcome: "We envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security." The platform adds, "The US seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the US."

In public, Romney has not declared the peace process pointless or dismissed the two-state solution. In July, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz asked Romney if he supports a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, he replied, "I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state." Yet Romney’s remarks to these funders—this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser—suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades.

Throughout the hourlong fundraiser, Romney discussed other foreign policy matters with his patrons, especially Iran. He repeated the tough talk he has issued on the campaign trail, but he also provided an odd reason for drawing a red line with Tehran about its nuclear program:

If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb." I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Romney didn't appear to understand that a dirty bomb—an explosive device that spreads radioactive substances—does not require fissile material from a nuclear weapons program. Such a bomb can be produced with, say, radioactive medical waste. If Iran's nuclear program poses a threat, it is not because this project will yield a dirty bomb.

Talking to these funders, Romney also demonstrated that his campaign-long efforts to criticize Obama's handling of foreign policy in simplistic and exaggerated terms—he's an appeaser, he's an apologist—are not reserved for public consumption. Romney told these well-to-do backers that the president is a naïf with an oversized ego:

The president's foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things. And it's an extraordinarily naive perception.

Romney did share a disappointment with his patrons, noting it was "frustrating" to him that on a "typical day" when he does several fundraising events, "the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one." He complained that "the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq." But at this fundraiser, Romney received several queries related to national security—and was afforded the opportunity to tell his financial backers what he does not (and will not) tell the public.

[Lightrise]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

!!!

How long are we supposed to wait? It's been 65 years!?!

Israel's been attacked twice. They have crazed fanatics trying to get nukes for the expressed purpose (or so the Iranians say) of wiping Israel off the map. I'm all for diplomacy, but you have to have a willing partner for it to work and neither the Palestinians nor the Iranians can legitimately be counted on as willing partners.

I'm just as frustrated with the process as you are. Years of illegal settlements, Sharon's 18 years of occupation in Lebannon, the failure of Israel to abide by the Oslo Accords. The fact is that Begin, Mr. Settlements himself, was a terrorist too having been involved in bombings. Now I'm not going to defend Bush's support for Hamas participating in the democratic process, but Israel changes governments so often nothing can ever get done. Unfortunately lasting peace just isn't possible now. But bulldozers isn't the answer either.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

I'm just as frustrated with the process as you are. Years of illegal settlements, Sharon's 18 years of occupation in Lebannon, the failure of Israel to abide by the Oslo Accords. The fact is that Begin, Mr. Settlements himself, was a terrorist too having been involved in bombings. Now I'm not going to defend Bush's support for Hamas participating in the democratic process, but Israel changes governments so often nothing can ever get done. Unfortunately lasting peace just isn't possible now. But bulldozers isn't the answer either.

It's also slightly strange, though I think the Palestinians are mostly corrupt, that almost every Israeli leader - after leaving office - seems to be embroiled in some corruption scheme of their own.

I do think that Israel is a more stable partner in the middle east, however. And I do think they're entitled to a slightly higher moral high ground -- but not much higher.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

A two-state solution will reduce violence.

Probably, but as Romney correctly points out the Palestinian people are supporting leaders who don't agree with your conclusion.

Again, Romney may not be talking the politics you want to hear, but he's correct.

[Donger]

So, have the Palestinians acknowledged Israel's right to exist yet? If not, I'd say Romney's correct.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

He doesn't even think Israel should compromise.

Would you care to explain why is Israel should compromise at all unless and until the "Palestinians" recognize Israel's right to exist?

[Donger]

No weepy "Black for Palestine" Direckshun thread would be complete without this:

[Lightrise]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

Does it seem to anyone else like the incidence of Internet liberals having at least a dull resentment toward Jews, if not an outright dislike for them, is quite high?

Naw, that's an absurd suggestion.

[Lightrise]

Originally Posted by Donger

Would you care to explain why is Israel should compromise at all unless and until the "Palestinians" recognize Israel's right to exist?

Uh, the Palestinians did this in the Oslo Accords, an agreement the Israelis signed and later disowned so they could continue to steal land and build illegal settlements.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

Uh, the Palestinians did this in the Oslo Accords, an agreement the Israelis signed and later disowned so they could continue to steal land and build illegal settlements.

If memory serves, right after the accord was signed, Hamas and others stepped up attacks on Israel while Israel actually began to withdraw forces from the "occupied territories." Sharon then became PM and it all basically fell apart.

Anyway, that's the past. Try dealing with the present, where the PA refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. You may note that Israel has shown willingness to compromise and negotiate in the past when that necessity has been agreed upon.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Donger

If memory serves, right after the accord was signed, Hamas and others stepped up attacks on Israel while Israel actually began to withdraw forces from the "occupied territories." Sharon then became PM and it all basically fell apart.

Anyway, that's the past. Try dealing with the present, where the PA refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. You may note that Israel has shown willingness to compromise and negotiate in the past when that necessity has been agreed upon.

Yeah, Lightrise seems to have learned his history at the University of Hamas. In pursuit of a final agreement following the Oslo Accords, Bill Clinton tried to broker a deal between Israel and Arafat in the late 90s. After Israel offered a sweeter deal than the palestinians should have ever dreamed of getting (and should probably never hope to get again), Arafat's response was Intifada 2. Sharon came to power after the 2nd Intifada was engaged, probably at least in part as a response to the palestinians' violence and bad faith in the peace talks.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yeah, Lightrise seems to have learned his history at the University of Hamas. In pursuit of a final agreement following the Oslo Accords, Bill Clinton tried to broker a deal between Israel and Arafat in the late 90s. After Israel offered a sweeter deal than the palestinians should have ever dreamed of getting (and should probably never hope to get again), Arafat's response was Intifada 2. Sharon came to power after the 2nd Intifada was engaged, probably at least in part as a response to the palestinians' violence and bad faith in the peace talks.

Pretty true -- but the Palestinian leadership isn't really interested in solving the issue absent the extinction of Israel. That's a big part of the problem.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

As long as the Palestinians fail to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, they don't want peace. Israel should not compromise anything as long as the primary goal of the Palestinians is to wipe them completely off of the planet.

The problem is that you are describing the Palestinians as a blanket statement, and as a population that isn't desperate and dynamic.

It's the same error Romney commits in the OP, and while it's clearly why you love whatever it is he had to say up there, it's why his statement (and yours) are drastically misguided.

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Israel has offered land for peace many, many times over its history. Remember Arafat rejecting the deal broker by Clinton at the end of his second term? Israel was giving the Palestinians virtually everything they were asking for....but Arafat rejected because he would have to acknowledge that Jews and Israel have a right to exist on this planet.

But Israel is the one that never compromises. When are the Palestinian supports going to acknowledge that their side has never offered a compromise on anything?

That is factually inaccurate. There's enough bullshit wafting around in this thread, try to steer clear of hyperbole.

You're dead right that too much of the Palestinian leadership over the years, from Arafat to Hamas, have cynically capitalized on fear among Palestinians in order to entrench their own power. But that does not mean the Palestinian population does not want a two-state solution.

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Name one compromise that the Palestinians have offered Direckshun.

One compromise? One?

How about the '67 borders. That's a pretty significant idea for compromise that Palestine has long endorsed but Israel is just now moving away from.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Pretty true -- but the Palestinian leadership isn't really interested in solving the issue absent the extinction of Israel. That's a big part of the problem.

You could say that is the problem, since no compromise can be made. The Palestinians want Israel extinct. Israel wishes to continue to thrive as a nation and a people. This positions are mutually exclusive, no middle ground or compromise can be reached. One side would have to concede the point to the other.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I read the article you posted without the "black for palestine" distortion filter in place.

Riiiiight. As if you are not deep in the tank for the Likud/GOP coalition.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by alpha_omega

It's the internet...how do you raise your hand?

I... didn't think of that.

THREAD OVAR