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.

[Direckshun]

http://www.attackerman.com/deserving-freedom/

Deserving Freedom
Spencer Ackerman
September 18, 2012



By now you’ve probably read a lot of people expressing shock at Mitt Romney’s comments on walking away from an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. (If not, start with Dan Drezner.) Let’s zero in on something Romney doesn’t say, but which he’ll have to address if he becomes president now that these comments are out there. That’s the idea that Palestinian freedom is a reward for good behavior.

Romney questions whether the Palestinians — all of ‘em, from Ismail Haniyeh to Salam Fayyad to the dude on the street in Ramallah — want peace with Israel. Then he runs through a series Israeli security concerns about the West Bank under Palestinian sovereignty, which he considers an inevitable Iranian proxy. These concerns have salience as modalities for independence. They do not have salience as grounds to oppose independence, unless you conceive of Palestinian independence as justly conditional on Israel’s comfort with granting it. Then they’re the whole ballgame.

There is an alternative available. That alternative says that Palestinians deserve independence by virtue of their humanity and their nationhood. The modalities of their independence ought to be worked out with Israel as part of a process moving toward that goal, since the security of both states on the day after independence is a legitimate concern. I believe Zionism, which advanced precisely this argument to establish the first principle that there ought to be a Jewish state in a Jewish homeland, compels accepting this alternative.

My understanding from Romney’s public remarks is that he cheers the Arab Spring, because of its promise to advance human freedom in a region lacking it. Maybe I’m misunderstanding. But if he accepts that proposition, there are no grounds to deny it to Palestinians. Should Romney become president, his Arab interlocutors will justifiably wonder what his position is on any of these foundational questions — a bitter irony for someone attacking President Obama for inviting Mideast embassy attacks through policy vagueness. Even if he walks the Palestinian comments back, he’ll probably have to deal with questions about his sincerity on the Freedom Question through his presidency.

U.S. policy in the Mideast does not reduce to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I’ve tended to find that people in the region, Arab and Israeli, consider an American president’s perspective on the conflict to be a threshold issue, a prism through which they can understand what sort of relationship to expect from the U.S., and whether that presidency ought to be embraced or endured. Romney may not be interested in the peace process, but the Mideast is very interested in Mitt Romney, and turning away from the peace process — either explicitly or through neglect — will have a cascading effect on anything else he wants to accomplish in the region.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

I believe you are on record as agreeing that Hamas is a terrorist organization, no? If so, do you think that a Netanyahu-PMed Israel is a similar terrorist state/organization?

From the perspective of an American, if you can still separate that from your support for Palestine.

I take the United Kingtom's designation that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist. And nobody but pro-Palestine fanatics believe that the Likud is a terrorist organization, though there has been occasional Zionist terrorism enabled by its policies. But that's a big difference.

The Likud/GOP is no more interested in a two-state solution than Hamas is.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I take the United Kingtom's designation that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist. And nobody but pro-Palestine fanatics believe that the Likud is a terrorist organization, though there has been occasional Zionist terrorism enabled by its policies. But that's a big difference.

The Likud/GOP is no more interested in a two-state solution than Hamas is.

So Hamas, which endorses the bombing of innocent women and children (civilian targets), is not a terrorist organization. Got it.

If the "non-militant" majority of Hamas is unwilling to part with its militant wing, then the whole organization must be considered terrorist.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I take the United Kingtom's designation that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist. And nobody but pro-Palestine fanatics believe that the Likud is a terrorist organization, though there has been occasional Zionist terrorism enabled by its policies. But that's a big difference.

I don't believe that the UK makes any distinction between Hamas' wings, but I could be wrong, because I don't really care what they think.

I'm glad to see that you don't think that Israel is a terrorist organization.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The Likud/GOP is no more interested in a two-state solution than Hamas is.

I disagree with this, however. Both groups apparently share the same requirement for such talks to even begin, though.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So Hamas, which endorses the bombing of innocent women and children (civilian targets), is not a terrorist organization. Got it.

If the "non-militant" majority of Hamas is unwilling to part with its militant wing, then the whole organization must be considered terrorist.

You paint with too broad a brush, and you don't understand the dynamic in which Hamas exists.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Heh.

It certainly says something that the idea that anybody who dares criticize the Likud/GOP alliance is automatically a racist hatemonger.

And it doesn't say anything good.

There literally is no place in the Likud/GOP for criticizing the actions of Israel, lest one be branded an anti-semite.

You've been criticizing Israel for a long time, but it didn't ever appear that you were playing to anti-semites until you started on this ridiculous Romney is the puppet of Netanyahoo, the GOP is run by Likud thing. When you go over the top to make associations like this, I have to believe that you have more in mind than honest dialogue.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by go bowe

criticizing israel's government makes you an anti-semite?

that's an interesting take...

That has nothing to do with my take.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You paint with too broad a brush, and you don't understand the dynamic in which Hamas exists.

Swing and a Miss. Israel as a country is held accountable for what they do. We do not break down Israel into a "military wing" and a "civilian wing"....the nation as a whole is judged on what they do. As Hamas should be, since they are the elected leaders of the Palestinians. The reality is, the "militant wing" of Hamas has support, or they would not be doing what they are doing. If the Palestinians wanted peace, then why did they vote for terrorists to lead them?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You've been criticizing Israel for a long time, but it didn't ever appear that you were playing to anti-semites until you started on this ridiculous Romney is the puppet of Netanyahoo, the GOP is run by Likud thing.

Get the sand out of your vagina.

The GOP and the Likud are just as subject to criticism for their actions as any other organization on earth.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Get the sand out of your vagina.

The GOP and the Likud are just as subject to criticism for their actions as any other organization on earth.

Except for Hamas, of course. They are just a bunch of peace loving folk trying to get along with their neighbors.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

The reality is, the "militant wing" of Hamas has support, or they would not be doing what they are doing. If the Palestinians wanted peace, then why did they vote for terrorists to lead them?

From earlier in the thread:

Palestinians are freaked the **** out. Most of them have absolutely no idea who or what they support. They believe they are being pushed off their land, which isn't exactly an inaccurate way of describing things.

You radicalize when you are desperate. And when things are desperate, you look to the people bellowing the biggest words and more aggressive ideas, as well as the people providing the most domestic aid.

Right now, regrettably, that's Hamas.

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Except for Hamas, of course. They are just a bunch of peace loving folk trying to get along with their neighbors.

From earlier in the thread:

You miss the fact that Hamas is the most cynical organization on earth, exercising their support from Palestinian hardship into extreme pronouncements that drive Israel further into their right wing, which in turn continues to entrench Hamas.

You're boring the shit out of me, man.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

From earlier in the thread:





From earlier in the thread:



You're boring the shit out of me, man.

Hamas being cynical is not excuse for their actions. You seem to think it is okay for them to bomb women, children, and civilians because they are "cynical." Israel does not.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're boring the shit out of me, man.

Your support of terrorists is disgusting to me, so I guess we are even.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Hamas being cynical is not excuse for their actions.

I was responding to your suggestion that I believe Hamas is above reproach.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Your support of terrorists is disgusting to me, so I guess we are even.

I support an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state based on the '67 borders with agreed upon land swaps.

If that is the same thing as supporting terrorists in your eyes, then you can join patteeu in the shower because you two have got a lot of sand to clean out.